The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20083464 North NoRnh125L EIS _ 2 h information , cooperation. transportation D raft [ 1111110 [1ffigiltd . • • • _ _ __ _ . �T L �' rs. . sueMilf1 T� __ _ . _ _ ✓ '--.r•_ ....in ?.••• '- 11", if tit Pei - _ e_ --can St. 8t0ffigHt _ - ‘. -...• p ill 1 ....... - -, - t- pct. f r '4.1,II a itt : ! rk/ti3i_. ' j`Cr I. - ° -TA I I4 .. . �. h, 33rr !tr r f1 ma .4. \ yy - '� J'� t ice. le 1 •Traf- ,, 1111! Ar / e + r 't Its... _ _ � : . —.:1 -C4,`- t±::14-'i• rs�vC 'T '�l:!rt} 'Jl-at `.'-, ,r li-"i;0-14;,..-4,� . .L'ii.i. ikbr• 0. 11F,' pr9i 11 1iY. . 4 - '�.• taVc(\' i .'T, �+*J!L' rJ _Yp[T*'yT�tle .""t �'.•' r(e�V�"+r �'+4jr 1' '-'rY.C /�' G et ♦{' I., 1\k, ni ,4,.;,..:,,,,-4-. 73 �`? , :_. - _ • ., ., . •:}:9th �.; t M V a low li M E 1 0 I 2 ...,........,..,,_. yip*** . An FTA 4. L)iv stns. Federal Transit Administration U 5 Deportment of Transportation iii Federal HighwayOctober 2Dag , 0,_,,,_ ,LA , q rep, Administration STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . Region Four • l 1420 2°d Street Greeley,CO 80631 g� (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION October 31, 2008 PUBLIC VIEWING LOCATION READERS RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Reader: Thanks for your interest in reviewing the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). The package of information provided at each public viewing location includes Volumes I and II of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as well as the Alternatives Development and Screening Report and the Concept Plans. Hard copies of the other technical reports supporting the DEIS are available at the address below. The public comment period for this project begins October 31, 2008 and ends December 30, 2008. Your input is valuable to us as we work to plan the future of transportation in Northern Colorado. We initially supplied each public viewing location with hard copies of the project comment form. If additional copies are necessary,please make a copy of the original on the back of this information sheet for your use and return the original for future readers. Also, an electronic version of the comment form is available for your use on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25cis/, and comments can be submitted online. Please complete this form with your comments and mail to: Carol Parr Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 Thanks again for your interest in this project. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr N I-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager "Taking Care To Get You There" CL a cn co } \ \ ) { ( < \ -o EE p—iW (o p=. $ _ L { R \ • ] q CO n — (% ( 'a ( \ \ : - o U 1- • m � y O 4--, co ] fP - \ 7 / \ \ r \ � � � II z \ ) C ± :- \ E .cu E1-1) \ \ H o Li. — C � � , . § 7 \ § U toiti o 4-1 Ul § § $ ■ _▪ k 8 t 2 \ \/ ea .■ J III fsl I C.. //{ § 2a; % •— F508 2k _I » 8m FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-D CDOT Project IM 0253-179 North 1-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332 (2)(c), 49 USC 303, & 16 USC 460 By the US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION and COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATING AGENCIES Federal Railroad Administration Regional Transportation District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .u. itte. . : ' obert J. Garcia, • E. Date • Region 4 Transporta ' ctor Colorado Department f Tra sportation Concurred by: gi4ALI0L-1-111tn--- /0 - /4- a 8 Pamela A. Hutton, P.E. Date Chief Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Approved by: anQe` � /0 - zz- og Karla etty, P.E. Date Division Administrator, Colorado Division Federal Highway Administration ---AA J pc /v7/.�1"AS Terry J. Ros Date Regional Administrator, Region 8 • Federal Transit Administration Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ABSTRACT • The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), in late 2003, initiated an Environmental Impact Statement to examine improvements to the 1-25 corridor from Denver to Wellington in northern Colorado. The improvements are needed to provide modal alternatives, correct geometric deficiencies, improve safety, mobility and accessibility, and replace aging and obsolete infrastructure. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes the two alternatives and a No-Action Alternative, which provides a baseline for comparison. The environmental consequences of the alternatives are described for a broad range of environmental categories including: socioeconomics and community, parks and recreation, right-of-way and displacements, aesthetics, air quality, noise and vibration, historic and archaeological preservation, paleontology, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation and wildlife, hazardous waste, soils and geology, energy, and construction impacts. This document will be available for public review and comment from October 31, 2008 to December 15, 2008. Written comments can be submitted through the website (www.cdot.info/northi25eis/), by e-mail (carol.parr(a�dot.state.co.us), by fax (970-669-0289), by mail, or in person at the following address. All mailed comments must be postmarked no later than December 15, 2008. Public comments on the EIS should be sent to: Carol Parr Project Manager Colorado Department of Transportation • 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80632 Following public comment on this Draft EIS, FHWA, FTA and CDOT plan to prepare a Final EIS to address public comments and identify a preferred alternative for these improvements. The preferred alternative may be one of the two package alternatives, or a combination of components of the two package alternatives analyzed. The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik Project Manager Senior Operations Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1420 2nd Street 12300 W. Dakota Avenue - Suite 180 Greeley, CO 80632 Lakewood, CO 80228 (970) 350-2170 (720) 963-3000 carol.parr(adot.state.co.us monica.pavlik(a�fhwa.dot.gov David Beckhouse Team Leader for Planning and Program Development Federal Transit Administration 12300 W. Dakota Avenue - Suite 310 Lakewood, CO 80228 (720) 963-3300 david.beckhouse(a)dot.gov • Abstract Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of What's In Executive Summary? Transportation (CDOT), have initiated this Draft Executive Summary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to ES.1 Summary of the Action identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation ES.2 Other Actions in the Regional Study improvements along the 61-mile Area 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the ES.3 Summary of Reasonable Alternatives Fort Collins/Wellin ton area to Denver. The Considered 9 ES.4 Summary of Major Environmental improvements being considered in this Draft and Other Impacts EIS would address regional and inter-regional ES.5 Other Federal Actions Required movement of people, goods, and services in the ES.6 Next Steps in the NEPA Process 1-25 corridor. The improvements are needed to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices. The regional study area (Figure ES-1) that encompasses these proposed improvements includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the regional study area • include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area (Denver Metro Area). Two multi-modal build packages (Packages A and B) are being evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments. ES.2 OTHER ACTIONS IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA Two other major actions are being proposed in the regional study area by other governmental agencies. These are: ► Glade Reservoir and the Relocation of US 287. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is proposing to build a new reservoir in the northwestern corner of the regional study area. This would require relocation of a segment of US 287 north of Fort Collins. ► FasTracks Corridors. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is the existing agency providing transit service in the Denver Metro Area. RTD will build commuter rail along two corridors that will provide service to communities in the regional study area. The FasTracks North Metro Corridor is located along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor just to the east of • 1-25, terminating in Thornton. The FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor is located along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) corridor, which is located adjacent to SH 119 between Boulder and Longmont, on the far western edge of the regional study area. Executive Summary ES-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure ES-1 North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area I ,. LEGEND Burlington Northern Santa Fe wellington - — — — -- — — Great Western Railway ` 4'. ' I , tip` - - — - — - •-- - — Union Pacific Railroad sz...h---4. ' �\ 4 Abandoned Railroad r,r ,,. N. � --� --S: , _ @)--, taint Right-of-Way � ." �� _ Fort Fain ± e US or Interstate Highway f ofb): - -t - I I — — 85 State Highway _ Ij 1 \wath s lP Eaten f257) r. 71 • -.- i Luoorn • 2 • 8T Mlnlser 2 --- 34 ; Lollel nd . ' l r Greele - '34 ' -, { ` 402 -` - • ° Garden City' r. -.N-` r 25T grans ICR5� LARIMER Ca. on awn ` 'f� �Lesa�t ��1 i_Teo . >4C \gr36 t 'a r" Moltk•n' � •41� .'. • - i{/00 I / .. O ere \y. r , a / e4111 ' • 0.i CR 34 W E D ` 4'- ! es Longest ; t X47 ill ) �r gr. l 7 / -1 I ! ,:._ 119 _' • Y 1 36 __ 85 BOULDER r- tone 1 • - tan Faded 1-1 ei ' ss • —' - 4. for, r . OA .J r' . -\ t .Cw•-• Boulder H Ed. ,-, 25 1 7; • L yetis 7 . 1 I 7 I93 ' 36 'LadsvWlo t ll , 1 ; ' t� Sups do tno.fldd /) " .,___,- \ Thornton -�- Co. co I n No glonn I. _ i •st rotor tE470i, oom•r Iatoraatloanl alrpon 2 ;;_i 49 I JEFFERSON - -- [7\1 /�\ I 7t nion Station V/ \V :40' t `� 6 %ans North 6 • , Denver 2111 Executive Summary ES-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ES.3 SUMMARY OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED An extensive process was undertaken to identify a range of alternatives that could be developed to meet the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives were then screened and combined to produce two build packages. These packages, together with the No-Action Alternative, are considered the reasonable alternatives for this proposed action and were fully evaluated in this Draft EIS. The No-Action Alternative (Figure ES-2) would include those transportation projects for which funding has been committed, including the two FasTracks corridors, widening of 1-25 from SH 52 to SH 66, replacement of the SH 66/1-25 interchange, modification of the US 34/1-25 interchange, and signalization of the SH 402 and the Prospect Road interchange ramp termini. The No-Action Alternative also would include rehabilitation of two structures on 1-25 at 84th Avenue and 104th Avenue, replacement of pavement on 1-25, installation of signals at five interchange ramp termini, and widening of 1-25 off-ramps at the Prospect/I-25 interchange. Package A (Figure ES-3)would include adding one additional general purpose lane on 1-25 in each direction, for a total of six lanes from SH 66 to SH 14 (plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60) and a total of eight lanes from E-470 to SH 52. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package A also includes a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown • Longmont. The new second track was eliminated for a 500-foot segment of the corridor in Loveland to avoid the historic Loveland Depot and in a second location — adjacent to a historic residential property at 122 8th Avenue in Longmont. This would result in bi-directional service along the existing single-track BNSF line near the proposed Loveland station and adjacent to the residential property in Longmont. Also included in Package A would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that would connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Package A also would include nine commuter rail stations and a commuter rail maintenance facility; a commuter bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west routes; and commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver and along E-470 from US 85 to Denver International Airport (DIA). Package B (Figure ES-4) would include adding one buffer-separated tolled express lane to 1-25 except for the section between SH 60 and Harmony Road, where two barrier-separated lanes would be added. Tolled express lanes (TEL) would extend from SH 14 to 84th Avenue in Thornton. Tolled express lanes would be used by high-occupancy vehicles for free, by single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a toll, and by buses. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package B would also include 12 bus stations providing service along 1-25, along US 34 into Greeley, and along Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Along US 34 and Harmony Road, the buses would travel in mixed traffic. Package B also would include a bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west streets. In addition, bus service would be provided along E-470 from 1-25 to DIA. • Executive Summary ES-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure ES-2 No-Action Alternative I LEGEND Major Structure Rehab by 2030 sH, ` SH1 if j O ox EYlei Creek O Minor Structure Rehab by 2030 r YYelllagtea Replace / Rehab Pavement by 2030 ® Minor Safety Modifications by 2030 to All. , -'5 w hbunfbn 1 .OR 50 FasTracks Rail Line -J P •`r Lake Canal.Uwe Oith,Boxes (r 14 Creek •4 I .1. Prospect Pd_ "Prospect Fort--C lin GSRR _ I �: ID es SH 1 to US 344 Hamron C40heid ��i ,n Nrs-i i lwaath 0 ie asee [ 1114 t " d I I H 342 i �� La Pal ' 3' 1 . ILr. 1• i'=vel • d-d 20E mil NI I k j 40 4 L i ' 1 r r~Qrre;h-Z;,t yew 1.5av saw 11 Comer �i'a NI OR C) CR�wM Las ., Al 4..A.RIMFR. - 1, SHet Lr '° r a � ( sH 56 ti,.....ti,...... SH 56 ILiv ! l CrN • US 34 toSH66 1 IIkaw ':r': ;= Irk Mead , CR 34 Cf134- PlettevlU i (66 -1. LongrpoM I Wring 119 r iCil ! es BOULDER / woe t—' f.� restos* --- 11 :t r- I - i — a _ ermoe Road)tt.; 341ir e e Li si ri IJ 25 ` Ara•shoe -d. L. Iiiir eseyne P&L _ 1 ! _ 76 v. 14481 tie. s' S sail. 136Q1ti . riv ti �\ ; ROOMai �: _ ,� . I� E470 arb11h11•Pen n ^ ores Northwest Ilk . i ,.. Ron Corridor i 0 ti 2 _ 11 North Wtro Jr CoMdor kW 7Nk ,a • 70 0 2 4 6 6 10 O �* Deny .r we: North Union I Station i i i. II DENVER Executive Summary ES-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. illi Figure ES-3 Package A ^5 LEGEND ( SH1 1 New General Purpose Lane _ w• on (GPL) in Each Direction Correct geometric Mounts'Vista deficiencies • • NI 1 New General Purpose Lane 4 and replace aging (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each 287 infrastructure Direction Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center - BNSF and Maple St ❑ Awn ,4 Commuter Rail (CR) ICSU - Mason St.between University Ave.and W. Pitkin St. Commuter Bus (CB) Service on I Fort C,_ IIinS."'"a" es4 US 85 South Fort Collins Transit Center - Harmony .e .. . . Eats. Mason St.and W. Fairway Lane 6 , sw•r..a• Feeder Bus Service I .y L,c,r„ • asz,r O Interchange Upgrades 87s Greeley - US85 :34 rocrroaar a and D St. O Number of Lanes t Love nd • North Loveland - BNSF and 29th St. r. , , South Greeley - �' Greele BthAve. and Commuter Bus Station / Stop Downtown Loveland - BNSF and 24th St approximately 6th St. 0 • 6 + Gordon city . O Commuter Rail Station E., Evans US 85 rif18 . CR 50 and 42nd St. __ 60 ..n `J J..•.t•ar. La 5.rt. FasTracks Rail Line "` so _ Berthoud - BNSF and SI-I 56 r8 Miss.. O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station J,tknd CAir• El Potential Commuter Rail ti;, 6 • Operational & Maintenance i ; Facility 136 CR 34 North Longmont - i M. Plotting!!Plotting!!$ O Potential Commuter Bus T eNSFandSH66 Pr. ,rr 66 Platteville - US 85 and Grand Ave. Operational & Maintenanc •e Facility Longmont Longmont at Sugar Mill - Norm of alignment,south of Rogers Rd. - „s E363 185 ' BOULDER • -' 1 Fir ast•n. 179 d.rick 5y` Fort Lupton - US 85 and CR 14.5 t • I-25 and WCR 8 - NW '--- Fort corner of 1-25 and CR 8 WCR It o.c.n• W •• Eris 19 oulder : ratio.. •� 83 36 rLNh Ild on Northwest 5 Right-of-Way Preservation Rail Corridor saved. • Bros aid titian \ ti-� /J_J - Coot C• • ■n / I m • I - ill - n t w' %t« North Metro toil, t.t.n.tlan. N • • l • - ' ct i • n O Corridor Airport r It - rn . tiv - 6'° " 2 ' • r. j - cts (;2;; ; JEFFER ' ON �r��►r ,� Al •* 7 t _, •"1,. _ 7i Denve Union Cation 40 t pQ .r vE den er J5 ti 7 4 0 H 10 -aI.hh. North 0 Executive Summary ES-5 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS a information. cooperation transportation. Figure ES-4 Package B I ..A., - $H , LEGEND '.85 S w.YM 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled rc1 0 Moutita, Vr,, C • rr - ct • - • m -tric • - - - Express Lane (TEL) in Each ficincis ' • . Direction ter' - n • r- • I . ce ain infr . structur - ■ M M 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled ANN 14 5 Express Lanes (TEL) in Each Harmony Rd. and Direction Timberline - Fodcdlinsq t , /2 1 South Fort Collins Transit Center - Callan 5‘Pec US 34 and SH 257 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route US 287 and Harmony Rd..Fort Collins ' X 4) (-- ) �, H.morry • Estrum V (Uses ) �TELsonl-25 f oath S.v.ranc• West Greeley -US 34 and [1-25 and Harmony Rd - Fort Collins I-- g / 83rd Ave., Greeley • LYC•rn• ' Windsor - 1-25 and SH 392 i92 Feeder Bus Service� - -/ Windsor' Greeley Downtown Transfer 287 Center - 8th Ave. and ® Interchange Upgrades Crossroads�� Al / , ethst.,Gredey e‘NLovel " nd34 _ O Number of Lanes: General = • - 34 Greeley ' Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes Crossroads Blvd. - Loveland between Gard.n Cky 02 i Crossroads Blvd. and US 34 5 Evans Bus Rapid Transit Station 80 •`c& so Corn ■ Johnstown,- L. Sidle 11 Berthoud - 1.25 and SH 561 . • E - FasTracks Rail Line I rse e1M1Yk.■ J Q FasTracks / RTD Transit Station .11«t hood Gist est LARIMEE I /2 El Potential Commuter Bus Operational & Maintenance r3 CR34 Facility Mee n■tt.stl 7 , Firestone - l-25 and SH 119 . . 411jLongmont r - • 119 tas1 85 M3OULDEF Firestone 119 I I k N.lI 52 , • • i 52J on Freda ridc/Dacono - 1-25 •n and SH 52 • Erie • /2 oulder y 1 B 1-25 and SH 7 Lot yetis- 7 •fir . 7' - 93 436 winklea4'a Right-of-Way Preservation f Sonde S,.onM.N �•iR•■ • I' •• Co C a• Northwest Rail Corridor rth ♦ North A 72‘ - n i Metro .E470 Donor Corridor7:t-d Airport 2 ,121 :• �8 J JErt ;`t ; � 1 Deny= t Union tartan 40 • ' 6 Den er 0 ) 4 6 8 10 \\ V V � —Irides� North I Executive Summary ES-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ES.4 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts of this Draft EIS include information describing environmental and other impacts to all resources in the affected area. Section 3.27 includes a summary of all impacts and Section 3.28 includes a summary of all mitigation. This section provides a summary of only the major impacts that would occur. Both build alternatives provide improvements in travel time compared to the No-Action Alternative. In the general purpose lanes, travel would be improved by 10 minutes with Package A and 15 minutes with Package B. Using the tolled express lanes, travel time would be 63 minutes faster than the No-Action Alternative. Commuter rail would be 37 minutes faster than driving in the No- Action Alternative and travel on bus rapid transit would be 58 minutes faster. Package A would result in a reduction in traffic on regional study area arterial streets of 4 to 12 percent while Package B would reduce volumes from 0 to 3 percent, compared to the No-Action Alternative.The No-Action Alternative would result in very little physical impact to social, economic, and environmental resources. Air pollution related to traffic congestion would continue to increase and noise impacts from increased traffic also would worsen. Over time, the No-Action Alternative could have a dampening effect on the local economy. Relocation impacts associated with Package A would include 59 residences and 33 businesses compared with 24 residences and 16 businesses associated with Package B. All acquisition or • relocation needed for this project would fully comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Air emissions associated with both build packages would be slightly greater than those anticipated under the No-Action Alternative because vehicle miles of travel would be expected to increase. These emissions in 2030 would however, be substantially lower than existing levels for all pollutants and in all alternatives. Traffic noise impacts would occur under both build packages as well as the No-Action Alternative. Package A would impact a few less sites (623 sites) than the No-Action Alternative (626 sites), while Package B would impact the most sites (756 sites). Mitigation of traffic noise is recommended for two areas under Package A and for seven areas under Package B. Noise impacts also would occur as a result of transit operations associated with Package A. Moderate noise impacts would be projected to occur at 167 residences along the commuter rail corridor. No severe impacts would be projected to occur. Mitigation is proposed for the majority of these locations. Vibration impacts, affecting 87 residences, would be expected as a result of commuter rail operations associated with Package A. Vibration mitigation would be installed. Wetlands and waters of the U.S. would be impacted along highway and transit corridors. Package A would impact approximately 19.34 acres of wetlands and waters of the U.S. Package B would impact just over 20.38 acres of wetlands and waters of the U.S. Mitigation would be provided for all wetland impacts in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act and • requirements of Executive Order 11990. Executive Summary ES-7 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Impacts would occur to 100-year floodplains situated along the corridors. Package A would impact • 16 floodplains (12.8 acres), while Package B would impact 12 floodplains (13.5 acres). All floodplain impacts would be mitigated in accordance with Executive Order 11988, 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650, and local regulations. Wildlife and aquatic species habitat would be negatively affected. Package A would impact 2.01 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 acres of aquatic habitat. Package B would impact 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. All impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible. There would be impacts to threatened, endangered, state sensitive and protected animal species. Package A would impact 283.35 acres and Package B would impact 358.98 acres. Most of these impacts would occur to bald eagle foraging habitat and black tailed prairie dog colonies. All impacts will be mitigated. There are many archaeological and historic properties along the transportation corridors. Ninety-one of these are either on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Package A would cause an adverse effect to five of these properties and Package B would result in an adverse effect to one of these properties. Mitigation for impacted properties would occur in compliance with (36 CFR 800) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the corridors. Package A would affect seven of these properties and Package B would affect eight of these properties. Mitigation for all impacts would be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(f) of • the Department of Transportation Act and 36 CFR 800. ES.5 OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS REQUIRED The following is a list of other federal actions required for either build package: ► Section 404 permit, required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for discharge of fill materials into wetlands or waters of the U.S. ► Section 106 agreements, required from the State Historic Preservation Officer, related to determinations of effects to historic properties and Memoranda of Agreement (as needed) for adverse effects ► Section 4(f) coordination with the National Park Service, for use of land associated with parks, wildlife refuges, or historic properties ► Section 6(f) concurrence, required from the National Park Service, for land required from one park (Grant Park) which was purchased using Land and Water Conservation funds • Executive Summary ES-8 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ES.6 NEXT STEPS IN THE NEPA PROCESS This Draft EIS has been prepared in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500), FHWA and FTA environmental impact and related procedures for implementing NEPA and CEQ regulations on highway transportation projects (23 CFR 771), FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, and other applicable laws. This Draft EIS is available to interested parties for review and comment for 45 days. During the review period, a public hearing will be held and all comments recorded. The next step in the NEPA process following the Draft EIS review period is preparation of a Final EIS. The Final EIS will consider the comments received on the Draft EIS and will identify the Preferred Alternative for the project, its impacts, and commitments for mitigation measures. The Final EIS also will be made available for public review and comment. The final step of the NEPA process is preparation of a Record of Decision (ROD), which will document the federal agency decision for the project. The ROD will identify funding for the approved action consistent with regional transportation plans included in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's planning documents. It is likely that improvements identified in this Draft EIS will be broken into phases for future analysis in the Final EIS and ROD, due to the length of the corridor and funding availability. Examples of improvements that might be phased include provision of feeder bus service, addition of new lanes for only a portion of the corridor, construction of commuter rail by an initial investment for a single tracked system with passing tracks, construction of only a few • transit stations or interchanges, phasing in BRT by providing commuter bus service initially, or replacing only a few bridges initially. • Executive Summary ES-9 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 2 Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 ES.1 Summary of the Action ES-1 ES.2 Other Actions in the Regional Study Area ES-1 ES.3 Summary of Reasonable Alternatives Considered ES-3 ES.4 Summary of Major Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ES-7 ES.5 Other Federal Actions Required ES-8 ES.6 Next Steps in the NEPA Process ES-9 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Project Location 1-1 1.3 Background and Project History 1-3 1.4 Project Purpose 1-4 1.5 Need for the Action 1-5 1.5.1 Highway Safety Concerns 1-5 1.5.2 Highway and Transit Mobility and Accessibility 1-8 1.5.3 Aging and Obsolete Highway Infrastructure 1-11 1.5.4 Highway and Transit Modal Alternatives and Interrelationships 1-12 • 1.6 Relationship to the Transportation Planning Process 1-14 1.6.1 North Front Range 1-14 1.6.2 Upper Front Range 1-14 1.6.3 Denver Area 1-16 1.6.4 Statewide Plan 1-16 1.7 Concurrent Corridor Studies 1-17 1.7.1 US 287 Environmental Assessment 1-17 1.7.2 US 287 Environmental Overview Study 1-17 1.7.3 SH 392 Environmental Overview Study 1-17 1.7.4 US 34 Environmental Assessment 1-19 1.7.5 US 34 Business Environmental Assessment 1-19 1.7.6 SH 60 Environmental Overview Study 1-19 1.7.7 SH 402 Environmental Assessment 1-19 1.7.8 SH 7 (Arapahoe Road) Environmental Assessment 1-19 1.7.9 US 36 Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 1.7.10 Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study1-20 1.7.11 1-70 East Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 1.7.12 FasTracks 1-20 1.7.13 Northwest Rail Environmental Assessment 1-21 1.7.14 North Metro Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 1.7.15 East Corridor Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 1.7.16 Denver Union Station Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 1.7.17 Colorado Rail Relocation Implementation Study 1-22 1.7.18 Colorado Tolling Enterprise 1-22 • 1.7.19 Front Range Commuter Rail Study 1-22 1.7.20 Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment 1-23 1.8 Relationship to NEPA 1-23 Table of Contents Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS . VOLUME 1 OF 2 (cont'd) Page CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES 2-1 2.1 Description of Process 2-2 2.1.1 State and Federal Requirements 2-2 2.1.2 Purpose and Need, Reasonableness, and Potential to Impact Environmental Resources 2-3 2.1.3 Regional Planning Context 2-3 2.1.4 Public Input 2-5 2.1.5 Alternatives Screening Process 2-6 2.2 Alternatives Advanced for Detailed Evaluation 2-7 2.2.1 No-Action Alternative 2-7 2.2.2 Package A 2-11 2.2.3 Package B 2-35 2.2.4 Preliminary Opinions of Probable Cost Comparison 2-51 2.2.5 Phasing 2.52 2.2.6 Package Components 2-56 2.3 Screening of Primary Elements 2-66 2.3.1 Question 1: Where should alternatives begin and end? 2-66 2.3.2 Question 2: What alignment(s) should be used? 2-69 2.3.3 Question 3: What facility type and transit mode should be evaluated?2-75 2.3.4 Question 4: How do the highway and transit alternatives fit together?.2-83 2.4 Screening of Secondary Elements 2-85 • 2.4.1 Interchange Configurations 2-85 2.4.2 Bus and Rail Transit Station Locations 2-93 2.4.3 Maintenance Facility Sites 2-108 2.5 Alternatives Screening Summary 2-110 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1 3.1 Land Use 3.1-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3.1-1 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3.1-12 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures 3.1-22 3.2 Social Conditions 3.2-1 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3.2-1 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.2-6 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 3.2-19 3.2.4 Environmental Justice 3.2-20 3.3 Economic Conditions 3.3-1 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3.3-1 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3.3-3 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures 3.3-10 3.4 Right-of-Way 3.4-1 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3.4-1 • 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4-3 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 3.4-11 Table of Contents Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 2 (cont'd) Page 3.5 Air Quality 3.5-1 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework 3.5-1 3.5.2 Affected Environment 3.5-5 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 3.5-17 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures 3.5-74 3.6 Noise and Vibration 3.6-1 3.6.1 Methodology 3.6-1 3.6.2 Affected Environment 3.6-4 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences 3.6-13 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures 3.6-25 3.6.5 Construction Noise 3.6-39 3.6.6 Summary 3.6-40 3.7 Water Resources 3.7-1 3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations 3.7-1 3.7.2 Affected Environment 3.7-3 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences 3.7-11 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures 3.7-22 3.8 Wetlands 3.8-1 3.8.1 Affected Environment 3.8-2 • 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 3.8-6 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures 3.8-12 3.9 Floodplains 3.9-1 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework 3.9-1 3.9.2 Affected Environment 3.9-2 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 3.9-5 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures 3.9-18 3.10 Vegetation 3.10-1 3.10.1 Affected Environment 3.10-1 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10-5 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures 3.10-9 3.11 Noxious Weeds 3.11-1 3.11.1 Affected Environment 3.11-1 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 3.11-2 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures 3.11-5 3.12 Wildlife 3.12-1 3.12.1 Regulatory Framework 3.12-1 3.12.2 Affected Environment 3.12-2 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences 3.12-10 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures 3.12-24 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species 3.13-1 3.13.1 Regulatory Framework 3.13-1 3.13.2 Affected Environment 3.13-2 • 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences 3.13-18 3.13.4 Indirect Impacts For All Build General Purpose Lanes, and Tolled Express Lanes 3.13-42 3.13.5 Mitigation Measures 3.13-43 Table of Contents iii Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS • VOLUME 1 OF 2 (cont'd) Page 3.14 Visual Quality 3.14-1 3.14.1 Introduction 3.14-1 3.14.2 Affected Environment 3.14-2 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 3.14-6 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures 3.14-28 3.15 Historic Preservation 3.15-1 3.15.1 Affected Environment 3.15-1 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 3.15-10 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures 3.15-175 3.15.4 Native American Consultation 3.15-177 3.16 Paleontological Resources 3.16-1 3.16.1 Affected Environment 3.16-1 3.16.2 Environmental Consequences 3.16-1 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures 3.16-2 3.17 Hazardous Materials 3.17-1 3.17.1 Affected Environment 3.17-1 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences 3.17-4 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures 3.17-25 3.18 Parks and Recreation 3.18-1 3.18.1 Affected Environment 3.18-1 • 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences 3.18-7 3.18.3 Summary of Impacts 3.18-14 3.18.4 Mitigation Measures 3.18-15 3.19 Section 6(f) 3.19-1 3.19.1 Existing Section 6(f) Resources 3.19-1 3.19.2 Environmental Consequences 3.19-2 3.19.3 Coordination 3.19-2 3.20 Farmlands 3.20-1 3.20.1 Affected Environment 3.20-1 3.20.2 Environmental Consequences 3.20-4 3.20.3 Mitigation Measures 3.20-6 3.21 Energy 3.21-1 3.21.1 Introduction 3.21-1 3.21.2 Environmental Consequences 3.21-1 3.21.3 Mitigation Measures 3.21-3 3.22 Public Safety and Security 3.22-1 3.22.1 Affected Environment 3.22-1 3.22.2 Environmental Consequences 3.22-5 3.22.3 Mitigation Measures 3.22-10 3.23 Construction 3.23-1 3.23.1 Construction Schedule 3.23-1 3.23.2 Environmental Consequences 3.23-2 • 3.23.3 Mitigation Measures 3.23-11 3.23.4 Summary 3.23-21 Table of Contents iv Draft EIS NORTH 1-23 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 2 (cont'd) Page 3.24 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 3.24-1 3.24.1 No-Action Alternative 3.24-1 3.24.2 Packages A and B 3.24-1 3.25 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3.25-1 3.26 Cumulative Impacts 3.26-1 3.26.1 Methodology 3.26-1 3.26.2 Affected Environment 3.26-38 3.26.3 Environmental Consequences 3.26-40 3.26.4 Conclusion 3.26-53 3.27 Permits Required 3.27-1 3.27.1 Water Quality/Water Resources 3.27-1 3.27.2 Air Quality 3.27-2 3.27.3 Biological Resources 3.27-3 3.27.4 Access3.27-3 3.27.5 Other Local Permits 3.27-3 3.28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-1 3.29 Mitigation Summary 3.29-1 • CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS 4-1 4.1 Compatibility with Transportation Plans and Policies 4-1 4.1.1 No-Action Alternative 4-1 4.1.2 Package Compatibility 4-1 4.2 Travel Demand 4-3 4.2.1 Overview of Travel Forecasting 4-3 4.2.2 Hours and Miles of Travel 4-4 4.2.3 Highway Volumes 4-5 4.2.4 Effects on Arterials 4-8 4.2.5 Highway Users 4-10 4.2.6 Transit Ridership 4-11 4.2.7 Transit Market Share 4-15 4.2.8 Transit Ridership for Special Events 4-15 4.2.9 Effect of Price of Fuel 4-17 4.3 Travel Time 4-17 4.3.1 Existing Travel Time 4-17 4.3.2 2030 Travel Time 4-18 4.3.3 Travel Time Reliability 4-23 4.3.4 Travel Rate Index 4-23 4.4 Level of Service 4-24 4.4.1 Existing 1-25 Mainline 4-24 4.4.2 2030 1-25 Mainline 4-28 4.4.3 US 85 Operation 4-35 • 4.4.4 US 34 Operation 4-35 4.4.5 Harmony Road Operation 4-35 4.4.6 Downtown Denver Operation 4-35 Table of Contents V Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 2 (cont'd) Page 4.4.7 Interchange Operation 4-35 4.4.8 Transit Stations and Car Pool Lots 4-39 4.4.9 Maintenance Facilities 4-43 4.5 Transit Operations 4-44 4.5.1 Existing Conditions 4-44 4.5.2 Package A 4-44 4.5.3 Package B 4-45 4.5.4 Transit User Experience 4-45 4.6 Safety 4-46 4.6.1 Functionally Obsolete 1-25 Infrastructure 4-46 4.6.2 Commuter Rail Grade Crossings 4-47 4.6.3 Safety Statistics for Rail versus Highway 4-47 4.6.4 Highway Crash Prediction 4-47 4.7 Freight Traffic 4-48 4.7.1 Truck Freight 4-48 4.7.2 Rail Freight 4-49 4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems 4-50 4.8.1 Existing Conditions 4-50 4.8.2 No-Action Alternative 4-52 • 4.8.3 Package A 4-52 4.8.4 Package B 4-52 4.9 Construction Impacts 4-52 4.9.1 No-Action Alternative 4-52 4.9.2 Packages A and B 4-53 4.9.3 Construction Mitigation Measures 4-55 4.10 Summary of Transportation Findings 4-57 CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 5-1 5.1 Application of Section 4(f) 5-1 5.1.1 Introduction 5-1 5.1.2 Section 4(f) "Use" 5-3 5.2 Section 4(f) Project Information 5-4 5.2.1 Purpose and Need 5-4 5.2.2 Corridor-Wide Avoidance Alternatives 5-5 5.3 Project Process and Identification of Section 4(f) Resources 5-14 5.3.1 Consultation and Coordination 5-14 5.3.2 Identification of Section 4(f) Resources 5-15 5.4 Use of Section 4(f) Resources 5-21 5.4.1 Introduction 5-21 5.4.2 Approach/Methodology 5-21 5.4.3 Use of Historic Properties 5-22 • 5.4.4 Use of Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Resources 5-48 Table of Contents vi Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 OF 2 (cont'd) Page 5.5 De minimis Impacts 5-54 5.5.1 De Minimis for Historic Resources 5-55 5.5.2 De minimis for Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge 5-177 5.6 Least Harm Analysis 5-204 5.6.1 Parks and Recreation Resources 5-216 5.6.2 Historic Resources 5-217 5.6.3 Summary 5-224 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 6-1 6.1 Capital Costs 6-1 6.1.1 Package A Costs 6-1 6.1.2 Package B Costs 6-2 6.1.3 Current Allocated Funding 6-3 6.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs 6-4 6.2.1 Transit O&M Costs 6-4 6.2.2 Highway O&M Costs 6-4 6.3 Revenue Projections 6-5 6.3.1 Transit Farebox Revenues 6-5 • 6.3.2 Tolled Express Lane Toll Revenues 6-6 6.4 Annual Cash Flow Assessment 6-7 6.4.1 Transit Cash Flow Assessment 6-7 6.4.2 Highway Cash Flow Assessment 6-7 6.5 Summary of Funding Shortfall 6-9 CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 7-1 7.1 Evaluation Framework 7-1 7.2 Trade-Offs 7-1 7.2.1 No-Action versus Build Packages 7-2 7.2.2 Package A versus Package B 7-2 7.2.3 Highway Components versus Transit Components 7-4 7.2.4 General Purpose Lane Components versus Tolled Express Lane Components 7-5 7.2.5 Rail Transit Components versus Bus Rapid Transit Components 7-5 7.2.6 Rail Transit Component from Fort Collins to Longmont versus from Fort Collins to Thornton 7-6 7.2.7 Evaluation of Commuter Rail Maintenance Facilities 7-6 7.2.8 Evaluation of Bus Maintenance Facilities 7-7 7.3 Summary of Evaluation 7-8 CHAPTER 8 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 8-1 8.1 Introduction 8-1 • 8.2 Coordination 8-1 8.2.1 Agency Coordination 8-1 8.2.2 Technical Coordination 8-3 8.2.3 Public Coordination 8-3 Table of Contents vii Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS • VOLUME 1 OF 2 (cont'd) Page 8.3 Comments and Responses 8-16 8.3.1 Transit 8-16 8.3.2 Highway 8-17 8.3.3 Environment 8-18 8.3.4 Other Comments 8-18 8.4 Future Public Involvement Activities 8-18 CHAPTER 9 LIST OF PREPARERS 9-1 CHAPTER 10 LIST OF REFERENCES 10-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2 OF 2 APPENDIX A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT APPENDIX B AGENCY COORDINATION APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCE INFORMATION ► Land Use ► Environmental Justice • ► Noise ► Wildlife ► Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities TECHNICAL REPORTS (BOUND SEPARATELY) INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: Alternatives Development and Screening Report OTHER TECHNICAL REPORTS: (Available for review at CDOT Region 4, Greeley) Transportation Analysis Technical Reports Traffic Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Rail Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Paleontological Resources Technical Report Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report Air Quality Technical Report Modified Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Wetlands Technical Report • Historic Resources Survey Report Package Concept Plan Table of Contents viii Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure ES-1 North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area ES-2 Figure ES-2 No-Action Alternative ES-4 Figure ES-3 Package A ES-5 Figure ES-4 Package B ES-6 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Figure 1-1 North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area 1-2 Figure 1-2 Year 2000 and 2030 Households and Employment in the Regional Study Area 1-4 Figure 1-3 Current and Future Daily Traffic Volumes and Capacities 1-10 Figure 1-4 Transportation Planning Region Boundaries 1-15 Figure 1-5 Concurrent Corridor Studies 1-18 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Figure 2-1 Regional Planning Context 2-4 Figure 2-2 No-Action Alternative 2-8 Figure 2-3 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 1 to SH 66 2-9 • Figure 2-4 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 66 to SH 7 2-9 Figure 2-5 No-Action Alternative Typical 1-25 Cross Section — South of SH 7 2-9 Figure 2-6 Package A 2-12 Figure 2-7 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 1 to SH 14 2-13 Figure 2-8 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 14 to Crossroads Boulevard 2-13 Figure 2-9 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section — Crossroads Boulevard to SH 60 2-13 Figure 2-10 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 60 to SH 66 2-13 Figure 2-11 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section (same as No-Action) — SH 66 to SH 52 2-13 Figure 2-12 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section —SH 52 to SH 7 2-14 Figure 2-13 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 7 to E-470 2-14 Figure 2-14 SH 14 Interchange 2-16 Figure 2-15 SH 392 Interchange 2-16 Figure 2-16 US 34 Interchange 2-17 Figure 2-17 SH 402 Interchange 2-17 Figure 2-18 LCR 16 Interchange 2-18 Figure 2-19 SH 56 Interchange 2-18 Figure 2-20 SH 7 Interchange 2-19 Figure 2-21 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Design 2-27 Figure 2-22 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Cross Section 2-27 • Figure 2-23 Commuter Bus Downtown Denver Circulation 2-30 List of Figures ix Draft EIS NORTH I-23 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (coNrD) . Page Figure 2-24 Package B 2-36 Figure 2-25 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 1 to SH 14 2-37 Figure 2-26 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 14 to Harmony Rd 2-37 Figure 2-27 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — Harmony Rd. to SH 60 2-37 Figure 2-28 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 60 to SH 66 2-38 Figure 2-29 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 66 to SH 7 2-38 Figure 2-30 Package B Typical 1-25 Cross Section — SH 7 to US 36 2-38 Figure 2-31 Tolled Express Lane Access and Egress Locations 2-40 Figure 2-32 Slip-Ramp Design Concept 2-41 Figure 2-33 Package B, Option B2 — Typical Reversible Cross Section — 120th to 84th Avenue 2-42 Figure 2-34 BRT Station Layout at Windsor (Northbound Lanes with Barrier Separation) 2-45 Figure 2-35 Package B Typical BRT Station Cross Sections 2-46 Figure 2-36 Origins and Destinations from North Front Range to South of SH 66 2-67 Figure 2-37 Highway Alignments Considered 2-70 Figure 2-38 Transit Alignments Considered 2-73 Figure 2-39 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process 2-76 Figure 2-40 Typical Capacity of Facility Types Considered 2-80 Figure 2-41 Capital Cost of 1-25 Lane Options Considered 2-80 • Figure 2-42 Miles of Congestion in 1-25 General Purpose Lanes 2-81 Figure 2-43 Comparing Transit Alternatives by Cost and Ridership 2-82 Figure 2-44 Modes Considered for Combining into Packages 2-84 Figure 2-45 Interchange Configurations Considered 2-87 Figure 2-46 Maintenance Facility Locations Being Evaluated 2-109 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Figure 3.1-1 North 1-25 Regional Study Area Municipal and County Boundaries (as of May 2005) 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-2 North 1-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Existing Land Use (as of 2000) 3.1-6 Figure 3.1-3 North 1-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Future Land Use 3.1-10 Figure 3.1-4 Induced Growth Impacts— No-Action 3.1-14 Figure 3.1-5 Induced Growth Impacts — Package A 3.1-19 Figure 3.1-6 Induced Growth Impacts — Package B 3.1-23 Figure 3.2-1 Future Population Growth Summarized by Municipal Area 3.2-3 Figure 3.2-2 Community Facilities 3.2-4 Figure 3.2-3 Minority and Low-Income Populations Identified Using Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Data 3.2-22 Figure 3.2-4 Minority and Low-Income Populations and Services Identified through Additional Data Sources 3.2-24 • List of Figures x Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (CONT'D) Page Figure 3.3-1 Future Employment Summarized by Municipal Area 3.3-2 Figure 3.4-1 Package A Displacements 3.4-7 Figure 3.4-2 Package B Displacements 3.4-9 Figure 3.5-1 Non-Attainment and Attainment/Maintenance Areas 3.5-5 Figure 3.5-2 U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020 3.5-8 Figure 3.5-3 2002 Ammonia Emissions for the Front Range Area 3.5-13 Figure 3.6-1 Transit Noise Impact Criteria 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-2 Noise Sensitive Areas along Project Corridors 3.6-5 Figure 3.6-3 Existing Noise Barriers along Project Corridor 3.6-6 Figure 3.6-4 Noise and Vibration Measurement Locations 3.6-8 Figure 3.6-5 Existing Traffic Noise Impacted Receivers 3.6-11 Figure 3.6-6 Noise-Impacted Areas for the No-Action Alternative (Year 2030) 3.6-15 Figure 3.6-7 Noise-Impacted Areas for Package A (Year 2030) 3.6-17 Figure 3.6-8 Proposed Bus Transit Parking Lots for Packages A and B 3.6-19 Figure 3.6-9 Projected Commuter Rail Noise Exposure at 75 MPH Train Speed 3.6-20 Figure 3.6-10 Projected Commuter Rail Ground Vibration Levels at 75 MPH 3.6-22 • Figure 3.6-11 Noise-Impacted Areas for Package B (Year 2030) 3.6-24 Figure 3.6-12 Locations of Traffic Noise Barriers Evaluated 3.6-28 Figure 3.6-13 Recommended Noise Barrier near Wellington 3.6-31 Figure 3.6-14 Recommended Noise Barrier near Mountain Range Shadows 3.6-31 Figure 3.6-15 Recommended Noise Barrier near Thorncreek Village 3.6-32 Figure 3.6-16 Recommended Noise Barriers near Community Center Drive 3.6-32 Figure 3.6-17 Recommended Noise Barrier near Badding Reservoir 3.6-33 Figure 3.6-18 Recommended Noise Barrier near Brittany Ridge 3.6-33 Figure 3.7-1 South Platte River Basin 3.7-4 Figure 3.7-2 Watersheds in the Regional Study Area 3.7-5 Figure 3.7-3 Impaired Streams in the Project Area 3.7-8 Figure 3.7-4 Driscoll Model Results by 1-25 Highway Component for Dissolved Copper3.7-15 Figure 3.7-5 Driscoll Model Results by Watershed for Dissolved Copper 3.7-15 Figure 3.7-6 Package A - Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments 3.7-24 Figure 3.7-7 Package B - Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments 3.7-25 Figure 3.8-1 Water Resources in the Project Area 3.8-4 Figure 3.9-1 Watershed Boundaries 3.9-3 Figure 3.9-2 Floodplain Impacts for the No-Action Alternative 3.9-7 Figure 3.9-3 Package A Floodplain Impacts 3.9-9 Figure 3.9-4 Package B Floodplain Impacts 3.9-17 Figure 3.12-1 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats in the Project Area 3.12-7 • Figure 3.13-1 Roost/Nests and Possible Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat in the Regional Study Area 3.13-5 List of Figures xi Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (coNrD) • Page Figure 3.14-1 Visual Resources Identified in the Regional Study Area 3.14-5 Figure 3.14-2 Berthoud Station, View at Commuter Rail Plaza 3.14-14 Figure 3.14-3 Berthoud Station, View at Commuter Rail Station 3.14-14 Figure 3.14-4 Windsor Station, View from BRT Plaza 3.14-26 Figure 3.14-5 Windsor Station, View from BRT Loading/Unloading Zone 3.14-26 Figure 3.15-1 Non-Linear Historical Resources within the Area of Potential Effect 3.15-4 Figure 3.15-2 Linear Historical Resources within the Area of Potential Effect 3.15-5 Figure 3.15-3 5LR.8932.1 (Larimer County Ditch)—Packages A and B 3.15-13 Figure 3.15-4 5LR.11396 (Einarsen Farm)—Packages A and B 3.15-16 Figure 3.15-5 5LR.863.2 (Larimer and Weld Canal)—Packages A and B 3.15-18 Figure 3.15-6 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, 5BL.400 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-20 Figure 3.15-7 5LR.1731.2 (Colorado & Southern Railroad, Black Hollow Branch)—Packages A and B 3.15-22 Figure 3.15-8 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad)—Package A 3.15-24 Figure 3.15-9 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad)—Package B 3.15-26 Figure 3.15-10 Typical Commuter Rail Station Design and Cross Section 3.15-27 Figure 3.15-11 5LR.11393 (Rudolph Farm)—Package A 3.15-31 Figure 3.15-12 5LR.11393 (Rudolph Farm)—Package B 3.15-32 • Figure 3.15-13 5LR.11409.1 (Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet) and 5LR.995.4 (Lake Canal) —Packages A and B 3.15-35 Figure 3.15-14 5LR.2160.1 (Boxelder Ditch)—Packages A and B 3.15-38 Figure 3.15-15 5LR.8930 (Louden Ditch)—Segments intersecting project APE 3.15-41 Figure 3.15-16 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch)—Package A 3.15-43 Figure 3.15-17 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch)—Package B 3.15-44 Figure 3.15-18 5LR.1815 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch)— Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-46 Figure 3.15-19 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch)— Package A 3.15-47 Figure 3.15-20 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch)— Package B 3.15-49 Figure 3.15-21 5LR.503 (Loveland and Greeley Canal)—Segments intersecting project APE 3.15-52 Figure 3.15-22 5LR.503.2 (Loveland and Greeley Canal)—Packages A and B 3.15-53 Figure 3.15-23 5LR.8928 (Farmers' Ditch)—Segments intersecting the project APE 3.15-56 Figure 3.15-24 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch)—Location Map 3.15-57 Figure 3.15-25 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch)—Packages A and B 3.15-58 Figure 3.15-26 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm)—Package A 3.15-61 Figure 3.15-27 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm)—Package B 3.15-62 . List of Figures xii Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES (coNTD) Page Figure 3.15-28 5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514 (Great Western Railway)— Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-64 Figure 3.15-29 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway)—Package A 3.15-65 Figure 3.15-30 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway)—Package B 3.15-66 Figure 3.15-31 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railway)—Package A 3.15-68 Figure 3.15-32 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railway)—Package B 3.15-70 Figure 3.15-33 5WL.841.9 (Great Western Railway)—Packages A and B 3.15-71 Figure 3.15-34 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator)—Package A 3.15-75 Figure 3.15-35 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator)—Package B 3.15-76 Figure 3.15-36 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm)—Package A 3.15-78 Figure 3.15-37 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm)—Package B 3.15-80 Figure 3.15-38 5LR.8927.1 (Hillsboro Ditch)—Packages A and B 3.15-82 Figure 3.15-39 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm)—Package A 3.15-85 Figure 3.15-40 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm)—Package B 3.15-86 Figure 3.15-41 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm)—Package A 3.15-89 Figure 3.15-42 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm)—Package B 3.15-90 Figure 3.15-43 5WL.3149.1 (Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence)—Package A and B 3.15-92 • Figure 3.15-44 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm)—Package A 3.15-95 Figure 3.15-45 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm)—Package B 3.15-97 Figure 3.15-46 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch)—Segments intersecting project APE 3.15-100 Figure 3.15-47 5WL.1974.3 (Rural Ditch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-102 Figure 3.15-48 5WL.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch)—Segments intersecting Project APE 3.15-104 Figure 3.15-49 5WL.1970.7 (Lower Boulder Ditch)—Package A 3.15-106 Figure 3.15-50 5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, 5AM.457 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) Segments intersecting project APE 3.15-109 Figure 3.15-51 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch)— Commuter Rail 3.15-112 Figure 3.15-52 5WL.1966.8 (Bull Ditch segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-114 Figure 3.15-53 5LR.11330 (Public Service Company of Colorado-Fort Collins Sub-station)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-119 Figure 3.15-54 5LR.10819.2 (Larimer County Canal No.2)—Package A 3.15-120 Figure 3.15-55 5LR.488 (Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/Loveland Depot) Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-122 Figure 3.15-56 5LR.1729.2 (Big Thompson Ditch)—Package A 3.15-124 Figure 3.15-57 5BL.3449.2 (Supply Ditch)—Package A 3.15-126 Figure 3.15-58 5BL.3113.67 (Rough & Ready Ditch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-128 • Figure 3.15-59 5BL.4832 (Oligarchy Ditch)—Segments intersecting project APE 3.15-130 Figure 3.15-60 5BL.4832.28 (Oligarchy Ditch)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-131 List of Figures xiii Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (coNr'D) • Page Figure 3.15-61 5BL.4832.26 (Oligarchy Ditch)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-133 Figure 3.15-62 5BL.10636 (Boggs Residence)— Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-135 Figure 3.15-63 5BL.1245 (Old City Electric Building)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-136 Figure 3.15-64 5BL.1244 (Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-138 Figure 3.15-65 5BL.513 (Great Western Sugar Plant and Novartis Seeds/ Syngenta Seeds)—Package A Commuter Rail 3.15-140 Figure 3.15-66 5WL.712 (Sandstone Ranch)—Package A 3.15-144 Figure 3.15-67 5WL.5461.1 (Boulder and Weld County Ditch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-146 Figure 3.15-68 5WL.5263 (Hingley Farm)—Commuter Rail 3.15-148 Figure 3.15-69 5WL.2247.11 (Community Ditch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-150 Figure 3.15-70 5WL.1317, 5AM.472 (UPRR-Dent Branch)—Segments Intersecting Project APE 3.15-152 Figure 3.15-71 5WL.1317.11 (UPRR-Dent Branch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-153 Figure 3.15-72 5WL.1969 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch)— Segments intersecting project APE 3.15-156 Figure 3.15-73 5WL.1969.41 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-157 Figure 3.15-74 5WL.1969.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific • Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-158 Figure 3.15-75 5BF.130.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch)—Commuter Rail 3.15-159 Figure 3.17-1 Location of High-Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination 3.17-3 Figure 3.17-2 Package A—Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized Environmental Conditions 3.17-16 Figure 3.17-3 Package B — Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized Environmental Conditions 3.17-24 Figure 3.18-1 Existing and Proposed Parks and Recreational Resources in the Regional Study Area 3.18-3 Figure 3.20-1 Farmlands in the Regional Study Area 3.20-3 Figure 3.22-1 Emergency Service Provider Locations within the Regional Study Area 3.22-3 Figure 3.23-1 Approximate Best-Case Construction Schedule for Both Build Packages 3.23-2 CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Figure 4-1 Mainline 1-25 Daily Traffic Volume Comparison 4-6 Figure 4-2 Percent Increase in 1-25 2030 Total Daily Traffic Volumes over No-Action Alternative 4-8 Figure 4-3 Parallel Arterial Effects for Packages A and B (2030 Daily Volumes) 4-9 Figure 4-4 Daily Highway Users (People) on 1-25 4-10 • Figure 4-5 Users from E-470 to US 36 (One Tolled Express Lane in Each Direction versus (Two Reversible Tolled Express Lanes) 4-11 List of Figures xiv Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES (coNr'D) Page Figure 4-6 Package A 2030 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership 4-13 Figure 4-7 Package B 2030 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership 4-16 Figure 4-8 2030 Travel Time Comparison 4-18 Figure 4-9 SH 1 to 20th Street - General Purpose Lane Travel Time 4-19 Figure 4-10 SH 1 to 20th Street - Tolled Express Lane Travel Time 4-20 Figure 4-11 Proposed Fort Collins South Transit Center (STC)to Downtown Denver -Transit Travel Time 4-21 Figure 4-12 Downtown Greeley to Downtown Denver -Transit Travel Time 4-22 Figure 4-13 Travel Rate Index Comparison 4-23 Figure 4-14 Level-of-Service Category Definitions 4-25 Figure 4-15 Existing Peak Hour 1-25 Mainline Level of Service 4-26 Figure 4-16 Existing Peak Hour 1-25 Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service 4-27 Figure 4-17 2030 Peak Hour 1-25 Mainline LOS SH 1 to SH 56 4-30 Figure 4-18 2030 Peak Hour 1-25 Mainline LOS from CR 34 to 84th Avenue 4-31 Figure 4-19 2030 Peak Hour 1-25 Ramp Merge / Diverge LOS from SH 1 to SH 56 4-33 Figure 4-20 2030 Peak Hour 1-25 Ramp Merge / Diverge LOS from CR 34 to 84th Ave .4-34 Figure 4-21 2030 Peak Hour 1-25 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersection LOS SH 1 to SH 56 4-37 • Figure 4-22 2030 Peak Hour 1-25 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersection LOS CR 34 to 84th Avenue 4-38 Figure 4-23 No-Action Alternative Carpool Parking Lot LOS 4-40 Figure 4-24 Package A Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS 4-41 Figure 4-25 Package B Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS 4-42 Figure 4-26 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Regional Study Area 4-51 CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION Figure 5-1 Highway Alignments Considered 5-6 Figure 5-2 Transit Alignments Considered 5-8 Figure 5-3 Package A 5-10 Figure 5-4 Package B 5-13 Figure 5-5 Section 4(f) Historic Properties 5-19 Figure 5-6 Section 4(f) Park, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Resources 5-20 Figure 5-7 Louden Ditch Package A Use 5-25 Figure 5-8 Louden Ditch Package B Use 5-26 Figure 5-9 Old City Electric Building Package A Use 5-29 Figure 5-10 Colorado & Southern BNSF Depot Package A Use 5-32 Figure 5-11 Hingley Farm Package A 5-35 Figure 5-12 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& • Boulder Valley Branch—Package A Use 5-39 Figure 5-13 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch—Package A Use 5-40 List of Figures xv Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. LIST OF FIGURES (cowl)) • Page Figure 5-14 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch—Package A Use 5-41 Figure 5-15 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park Use by Packages A and B 5-46 Figure 5-16 Larimer County Ditch—Use Packages A and B 5-55 Figure 5-17 Einarsen Farm Package A Use 5-58 Figure 5-18 Einarsen Farm Package B Use 5-59 Figure 5-19 Rudolph Farm Package A Use 5-63 Figure 5-20 Rudolph Farm Package B Use 5-64 Figure 5-21 Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet—Use Packages A and B 5-67 Figure 5-22 Boxelder Ditch Packages A and B Use 5-70 Figure 5-23 Loveland and Greeley Canal Package A & B Use 5-73 Figure 5-24 Farmers Ditch Packages A and B Location Map 5-77 Figure 5-25 Farmers Ditch Package A Use 5-78 Figure 5-26 Farmers Ditch Package B Use 5-79 Figure 5-27 Schmer Farm Package A Use 5-83 Figure 5-28 Schmer Farm Package B Use 5-84 Figure 5-29 Great Western Railway Package A Use 5-89 Figure 5-30 Great Western Railway Package B Use 5-90 • Figure 5-31 Hatch Farm Package A Use 5-93 Figure 5-32 Hatch Farm Package B Use 5-94 Figure 5-33 Hillsboro Ditch Packages A and B Use 5-97 Figure 5-34 Mountain View Farm Package A Use 5-100 Figure 5-35 Mountain View Farm Package B Use 5-101 Figure 5-36 Bein Farm Package A Use 5-104 Figure 5-37 Bein Farm Package B Use 5-105 Figure 5-38 Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence Use Packages A and B 5-108 Figure 5-39 Olson Farm Package A Use 5-111 Figure 5-40 Olson Farm Package B Use 5-112 Figure 5-41 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch—Packages A and B 5-117 Figure 5-42 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch—Package A Commuter Rail 5-118 Figure 5-43 Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/ Loveland Depot 5-120 Figure 5-44 Supply Ditch Package A Use 5-123 Figure 5-45 Rough & Ready Ditch Package A Use 5-126 Figure 5-46 Oligarchy Ditch Package A Use 5-129 Figure 5-47 Oligarchy Ditch Package A Use 5-130 Figure 5-48 Big Thompson Ditch Package A Use 5-132 Figure 5-49 Great Western Sugar Factory Package A Use 5-135 Figure 5-50 Sandstone Ranch Package A Use 5-138 Figure 5-51 Boulder and Weld County Ditch Package A Use 5-141 • Figure 5-52 Rural Ditch Package A Use 5-144 List of Figures xvi Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • LIST OF FIGURES (CONT'D) Page Figure 5-53 UPRR-Dent Branch Package A Use 5-147 Figure 5-54 Arapaho Bend Natural Area Package A & B Uses 5-153 Figure 5-55 Archery Range Natural Area Use 5-156 Figure 5-56 Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area Use 5-159 Figure 5-57 Little Thompson River Corridor Use for Packages A & B 5-162 Figure 5-58 Civic Center Park Package B Use 5-165 Figure 5-59 Grant Park Package B Use 5-168 Figure 5-60 Sandstone Ranch Package A Use 5-171 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Figure 6-1 Package B Tolled Express Lane Annual Cash Flow Assessment 6-8 Figure 6-2 Package B2 Tolled Express Lane Annual Cash Flow Assessment 6-8 • • List of Figures xvii Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. LIST OF TABLES • Page CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Table 1-1 1-25 Level of Service of Safety 1-6 Table 1-2 Preliminary Assessment of Locations on North 1-25 with High Potential for Crash Reduction by Crash Type 1-7 Table 1-3 Aging and Obsolete Structures 1-11 Table 1-4 RTD FasTracks Project Schedule 1-21 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Table 2-1 No-Action Cost Estimate 2-10 Table 2-2 Package A Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action 2-15 Table 2-3 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments 2-23 Table 2-4 Package A Commuter Rail Stations 2-26 Table 2-5 Package A Commuter Bus Stations and Stops 2-29 Table 2-6 Package A - Congestion Management Measures 2-32 Table 2-7 Package A Cost Estimate 2-34 Table 2-8 Initial Tolled Express Lane Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle Toll Rates 2-39 Table 2-9 Package B Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action 2-43 Table 2-10 Package B BRT Stations 2-47 Table 2-11 Package B Congestion Management Measures 2-49 Table 2-12 Package B Parking Summary 2-50 Table 2-13 Package B Cost Estimate 2-51 Table 2-14 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs 2-52 Table 2-15 Package A Summary 2-61 Table 2-16 Package B Summary 2-65 Table 2-17 Interchange Screening 2-88 Table 2-18 Package A - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail on US 287 2-95 Table 2-19 Package A - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 2-98 Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on 1-25 2-100 Table 2-21 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered 2-110 • List of Tables xviii Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF TABLES (coNrD) Page CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 3.1-1 Summary of Comprehensive/Land Use Plans 3.1-4 Table 3.1-2 Existing Land Use Categories and Acreage 3.1-5 Table 3.1-3 Generalized Zoning Classifications 3.1-8 Table 3.1-4 Future Land Use Categories and Acreage 3.1-9 Table 3.1-5 Component A-T1 Compatibility 3.1-16 Table 3.1-6 Component A-T2 Compatibility 3.1-16 Table 3.1-7 Component A-T3 Compatibility 3.1-17 Table 3.1-8 Component B-T1 Compatibility 3.1-21 Table 3.2-1 Population and Household Forecasts in the Weld, Broomfield, and Larimer County Portions of the Regional Study Area 3.2-1 Table 3.2-2 Impacts to Community Facilities Within 0.25 Mile of the Commuter Rail Alignment 3.2-11 Table 3.2-3 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-H1: Safety Improvements 3.2-29 Table 3.2-4 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes 3.2-32 Table 3.2-5 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail 3.2-36 • Table 3.2-6 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus 3.2-37 Table 3.2-7 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H1: Safety Improvements 3.2-38 Table 3.2-8 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes 3.2-40 Table 3.2-9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit 3.2-42 Table 3.4-1 1-25 Existing Right-of-Way Widths in the Project Area 3.4-1 Table 3.4-2 1-25 Existing Interchange Widths in the Project Area 3.4-2 Table 3.4-3 Existing BNSF Rail Corridor Widths Parallel to US 287 3.4-2 Table 3.4-4 Existing UPRR Right-of-Way Widths for Commuter Rail Alignment at Connection to North Metro Line 3.4-3 Table 3.4-5 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Package A 3.4-4 Table 3.4-6 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Package B 3.4-5 Table 3.4-7 Property Displacements for Package A 3.4-6 Table 3.4-8 Property Displacements for Package B 3.4-8 Table 3.5-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants 3.5-3 Table 3.5-2 2005 Criteria Pollutant Monitoring Stations 3.5-6 Table 3.5-3 Daily Region-Wide Total Mobile Source Emissions Estimates 3.5-16 • List of Tables xix Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. LIST OF TABLES (cowl)) Page Table 3.5-4 Daily Fort Collins Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimates 3.5-20 Table 3.5-5 Daily Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimates 3.5-21 Table 3.5-6 Daily Longmont Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimates 3.5-22 Table 3.5-7 Daily Denver Attainment/Maintenance Area Emissions Estimates 3.5-24 Table 3.5-8 Results of Hot Spot Analyses for Carbon Monoxide 3.5-25 Table 3.5-9 Maximum Annual Mean and 24-Hour Particulate Matter Concentrations 3.5-27 Table 3.5-10 Comparisons of Commuter Rail Maintenance Yards North 1-25 to US 36 Corridor Rennick Rail Maintenance Yard 3.5-29 Table 3.5-11 Comparisons of Physical Attributes of the Commuter Bus Maintenance Facility in Commerce City to North 1-25 Bus and BRT Maintenance Facilities 3.5-31 Table 3.5-12 Comparison of Commerce City, Greeley and Fort Collins Maintenance Facilities 3.5-31 Table 3.5-13 Characteristics of SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Facility 3.5-32 Table 3.5-14 Daily Peak-Hour PM10 Emissions from SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Facility 3.5-32 Table 3.5-15 Comparison of PM10 Dispersion Model Data at SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Lot [B-T1 Component] and Thornton Parkway RTD Facility 3.5-33 Table 3.5-16 MSAT Emissions (tons per year) by Package 3.5-34 • Table 3.5-17 List of Schools, Churches, and Community Centers Along North 1-25 3.5-35 Table 3.5-18 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Package A 3.5-41 Table 3.5-19 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Package B 3.5-42 Table 3.6-1 CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) 3.6-2 Table 3.6-2 Existing Traffic Noise Measurement Results 3.6-7 Table 3.6-3 Rail Noise Measurement Results 3.6-10 Table 3.6-4 Number of Properties Currently Impacted by Traffic Noise 3.6-12 Table 3.6-5 Vibration Measurement Data for Freight Trains 3.6-13 Table 3.6-6 Summary of Traffic Noise Impacts 3.6-16 Table 3.6-7 Summary of Residential Noise Impacts from Commuter Rail 3.6-21 Table 3.6-8 Summary of Residential Vibration Impact Without Mitigation 3.6-23 Table 3.6-9 Traffic Noise Mitigation Barrier Summary 3.6-30 Table 3.6-10 Potential Rail Noise Barrier Mitigation Locations 3.6-36 Table 3.6-11 Potential Ground—Borne Vibration Mitigation Locations 3.6-37 Table 3.7-1 Surface Water Segments, Designated Uses, and Impairments within the Project Area 3.7-7 Table 3.7-2 Mean Contaminant Loading Per Storm Event From The Driscoll Model (Pounds per Event) in the South Platte River Watershed 3.7-9 Table 3.7-3 Common Highway-Related Surface Water Quality Impacts 3.7-12 Table 3.7-4 Summary of Total and Treated Impervious Areas 3.7-13 . Table 3.7-5 Driscoll Model Results for Each 1-25 Highway Component 3.7-14 List of Tables xx Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D) Page Table 3.7-6 Projected Traffic Volumes (AADT) from the North 1-25 Project Alternatives 3.7-17 Table 3.7-7 Summary of Groundwater Wells within the Project Area 3.7-17 Table 3.8-1 Total Wetland Acreage Existing within the North 1-25 Project Corridors 3.8-5 Table 3.8-2 Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Waters Existing within the North 1-25 Project Area by Package 3.8-5 Table 3.8-3 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Water from Package A Components 3.8-7 Table 3.8-4 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Water from Package B Components 3.8-9 Table 3.9-1 Estimated Area of Impacts to Floodplains 3.9-8 Table 3.10-1 Common Plant Species of the North 1-25 Regional Study Area 3.10-2 Table 3.10-2 Distribution of Vegetation Types 3.10-3 Table 3.11-1 State of Colorado, County, and CDOT Weed List Species Observed in the Regional Study Area 3.11-2 Table 3.12-1 Summary of Wildlife Crossing Areas Identified in the Project Area 3.12-4 Table 3.12-2 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats in the Project Area 3.12-6 Table 3.12-3 Common Wildlife Species in the Project Area 3.12-8 Table 3.12-4 Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package A Highway • Components 3.12-12 Table 3.12-5 Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package A Highway Components 3.12-13 Table 3.12-6 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package A Transit Components 3.12-15 Table 3.12-7 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package A Transit Components 3.12-16 Table 3.12-8 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package B Highway Components 3.12-17 Table 3.12-9 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package B Highway Components 3.12-18 Table 3.12-10 Summary of Effects to Aquatic Habitat (Including Fish) by Component 3.12-20 Table 3.12-11 Summary of Effects to Raptor Nests within 0.25 Mile of Project Area by Component 3.12-20 Table 3.12-12 Overall Summary of Effects to Wildlife Habitat by Component 3.12-21 Table 3.13-1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 3.13-3 Table 3.13-21 Federally Listed Wildlife Species Potentially Affected by Depletions to the Platte River System 3.13-3 Table 3.13-3 State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area (Terrestrial) 3.13-7 • Table 3.13-4 State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area (Aquatic) 3.13-8 List of Tables xxi Draft EIS NORTH I-23 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. LIST OF TABLES (coNT'D) • Page Table 3.13-5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area 3.13-9 Table 3.13-6 Summary of Effects to Occupied Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat 3.13-20 Table 3.13-7 Summary of Effects to Bald Eagle Forage Habitat 3.13-21 Table 3.13-8 Summary of Effects to Important Bald Eagle Foraging Habitat Within 3 miles of Nests and Roosts 3.13-22 Table 3.13-9 Summary of Effects to Black Tailed Prairie Dog Occupied Habitat 3.13.23 Table 3.13-10 Summary of Effects to Potential Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake Habitat 3.13-24 Table 3.13-11 Summary of Effects to Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Affected by Packages A and B 3.13-24 Table 3.13-12 Summary of Direct Effects to Habitat for State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species from Packages A and B 3.13-25 Table 3.13-13 Summary of Direct Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species by Component, in Acres 3.13-26 Table 3.14-1 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H1 3.14-7 Table 3.14-2 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-H1 3.14-7 Table 3.14-3 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H2 3.14-8 Table 3.14-4 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-H2 3.14-9 • Table 3.14-5 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H3 3.14-10 Table 3.14-6 Package A Highway Components Effects Analysis 3.14-11 Table 3.14-7 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-T1 3.14-12 Table 3.14-8 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-T1 3.14-12 Table 3.14-9 Component A-T1 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis 3.14-13 Table 3.14-10 Package A Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis 3.14-15 Table 3.14-11 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-T2 3.14-16 Table 3.14-12 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-T2 3.14-16 Table 3.14-13 Package A Commuter Rail Effects Analysis 3.14-17 Table 3.14-14 Component A-T2 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis 3.14-17 Table 3.14-15 Component A-T3 Commuter Bus Station Effects Analysis 3.14-18 Table 3.14-16 Package A Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis 3.14-18 Table 3.14-17 Wall Locations in Component B-H1 3.14-19 Table 3.14-18 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H1 3.14-20 Table 3.14-19 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H2 3.14-21 Table 3.14-20 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H2 3.14-21 Table 3.14-21 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H3 3.14-23 Table 3.14-22 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H4 3.14-24 Table 3.14-23 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H4 3.14-24 Table 3.14-24 Package B Highway Effects Analysis 3.14-25 . Table 3.14-25 Package B BRT Stations Effects Analysis 3.14-27 Table 3.14-26 Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis 3.14-27 List of Tables xxii Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D) Page Table 3.15-1 NRHP Listeda or Eligible Historical Resources and Linear Historical Resource Segments Within the APE Tabulated from North to South by Corridor 3.15-6 Table 3.15-2 Potentially NRHP-Eligible (untested)Archaeological Resources Identified within the North 1-25 APE Listed from North to South 3.15-9 Table 3.15-3 Summary of Historic Properties Affected by Component 3.15-164 Table 3.15-4 Mitigation Measures—Historic and Archaeological Preservation 3.15-176 Table 3.16-1 Summarized Paleontological Resource Mitigation Recommendations for the North 1-25 DEIS by Geologic Formation 3.16-4 Table 3.17-1 Summary of High-Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination 3.17-2 Table 3.17-2 Package A - Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized Environmental Conditions 3.17-6 Table 3.17-3 Package B - Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized Environmental Conditions 3.17-18 Table 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources 3.18-4 Table 3.18-2 Proposed Parks and Recreational Resources 3.18-7 Table 3.18-3 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with Package A 3.18-8 • Table 3.18-4 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with Package B 3.18-11 Table 3.20-1 Farmlands in the Regional Study Area 3.20-2 Table 3.20-2 Package A- Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component 3.20-5 Table 3.20-3 Package B - Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component 3.20-6 Table 3.20-4 NRCS Site Assessment Scores 3.20-7 Table 3.21-1 Daily VMT in the North 1-25 Regional Study Area 3.21-2 Table 3.21-2 Energy Consumption by Alternative (Daily BTUs) 3.21-2 Table 3.21-3 Daily CO2 Production by Alternative 3.21-2 Table 3.23-1 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels at 50 Feet 3.23-6 Table 3.23-2 Acceptable Construction Noise Levels 3.23-6 Table 3.23-3 Vibration Source Levels For Construction (From Measured Data) 3.23-7 Table 3.23-4 Energy Consumption for Construction 3.23-9 Table 3.23-5 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies 3.23-10 Table 3.26-1 Transportation Projects within the Regional Study Area 3.26-4 Table 3.26-2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area 3.26-8 Table 3.26-3 Major Infrastructure Projects within the Regional Study Area 3.26-20 Table 3.26-4 Population Totals by County 1950-2000 3.26-23 Table 3.26-5 Land Use Change in Acres 1950-2005 3.26-24 Table 3.26-6 Estimated Impervious Surfaces within the Regional Study Area: 2005 and 2030 3.26-26 • Table 3.26-7 Annual CO2 Emissions Comparison 3.26-33 List of Tables xxiii Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 E15 information. cooperation transportation. LIST OF TABLES (coNrD) . Page CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Table 4-1 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed 4-5 Table 4-2 Mainline 1-25 Daily Traffic Volume Comparison 4-7 Table 4-3 2030 Weekday Transit Ridership 4-12 Table 4-4 Package A Commuter Rail Station Activity (2030 Riders) 4-14 Table 4-5 Package B Bus Rapid Transit Station Activity (2030 Riders) 4-15 Table 4-6 Transit Market Share of Northern Commuters to Downtown Denver 4-17 Table 4-7 Additional Average Ridership Generated by Special Event Travel 4-17 Table 4-8 Existing Peak-Hour Travel Time 4-17 Table 4-9 Miles of 1-25 Operating at LOS E or F (General Purpose Lanes) 4-28 Table 4-10 2030 Interchange Ramp Merge/Diverge Locations Operating at LOS E or F 4-32 Table 4-11 Summary of Managed Lane Ramp Level of Service and Impact to General Purpose Lane Level of Service 4-32 Table 4-12 2030 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersections Operating at LOS E or F 4-36 Table 4-13 Annual Revenue Hours of Service 4-44 Table 4-14 Functionally Obsolete Interchanges 4-46 Table 4-15 2030 Crash Prediction Comparison 4-48 • Table 4-16 Effect on Highway Travel Demand 4-61 Table 4-17 Physical Characteristics 4-61 Table 4-18 Summary of 1-25 Operation Evaluation 4-62 Table 4-19 Summary of Transit Operation Evaluation 4-62 CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION Table 5-1 Section 4(f) Resources—Historic Properties 5-16 Table 5-2 Section 4(f) Resources—Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Areas 5-17 Table 5-3 Use of Section 4(f) Historic Resources 5-22 Table 5-4 Use of Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Section 4(f) Resources 5-42 Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources 5-49 Table 5-6 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge 5-149 Table 5-7 Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity 5-173 Table 5-8 Section 4(f) Resources—Identical Use for Both Packages A and B 5-184 Table 5-9 Public Parks and Recreation Areas 5-185 Table 5-10 Summary of Non-De Minimis Historic Property Uses 5-186 Table 5-11 Summary of Historic Property De Minimis Uses 5-189 • Table 5-12 Historic Resources Least Harm Analysis 5-191 Table 5-13 Least Harm Analysis Summary 5-192 List of Tables xxiv Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF TABLES (coNrD) Page CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Table 6-1 Package A Capital Cost Estimate (2005 dollars) 6-2 Table 6-2 Package B Capital Cost Estimate (2005 dollars) 6-2 Table 6-3 Option B2 Capital Cost Estimate (in millions) 6-2 Table 6-4 Available Existing Funding Sources/ Funding Gap (2005 dollars) 6-3 Table 6-5 Annual Transit O&M Cost Estimates for 2030 Conditions (12005 dollars) 6-4 Table 6-6 Annual Highway O&M Cost Estimates for 2030 Conditions (2005 dollars) 6-5 Table 6-7 Potential Annual Farebox Revenues and Recovery Ratios (2005 dollars) 6-6 Table 6-8 Potential Tolled Express Lane Annual Toll Revenues (2005 dollars) 6-6 CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Table 7-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation 7-8 CHAPTER 8 COMMENTS & COORDINATION Table 8-1 Regional Coordination Committee / Technical Advisory Committee Meetings 8-8 Table 8-2 Public Meetings 8-10 Table 8-3 Transit Station Working Group Meetings 8-10 • Table 8-4 Specialized Outreach Meetings 8-12 Table 8-5 Specialized Outreach Events 8-12 Table 8-6 Local Group and Organization Meeting 8-15 CHAPTER 9 LIST OF PREPARERS Table 9-1 List of Preparers 9-2 • List of Tables xxv Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS • A AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACM asbestos-containing material ACP Access Control Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APCD Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE) APE area of potential effects APEN Air Pollution Emission Notice APTA American Public Transportation Association AST above ground storage tank B BMP best management practice BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway BRT bus rapid transit BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene BTU British Thermal Unit C C&S Colorado & Southern Railroad CAA Clean Air Act • CAMP Continuous Ambient Monitoring Program CAQCC Colorado Air Quality Control Commission CB commuter bus CB&Q Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad CBC concrete box culvert CBD Central Business District CC Colorado Central Railroad CCR Code of Colorado Regulations CDH Colorado Department of Health CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System CEO Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act • List of Abbreviated Terms xxvi Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (coNT'D) CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFRT Colorado Front Range Trail CGS Colorado Geological Survey CMP corrugated metal pipe CNG compressed natural gas CNHP Colorado National Heritage Program CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CORRACTS RCRA corrective action CORSIM corridor simulation traffic micro-simulation tool CPI Consumer Price Index CR County Road CR commuter rail • CRS Colorado Revised Statute CSU Colorado State University CTE Colorado Tolling Enterprise D DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DIA Denver International Airport D&RG Denver & Rio Grande Railroad dB decibels dBA A-weighted decibel DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DMU diesel multiple unit DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DPM diesel particulate emissions DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments E EA Environmental Assessment EAC Early Action Compact EB eastbound EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOC Executive Oversight Committee • EOS Environmental Overview Study List of Abbreviated Terms xxvii Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation_ LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (coNrD) • EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ERO ERO Resources Corporation ESA Endangered Species Act F FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FHU Felsburg Holt & Ullevig FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FINDS Facility Index System FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FRA Federal Railroad Administration FRCR Front Range Commuter Rail FREX Front Range Express FS feasibility study • FTA Federal Transit Administration FTTS FIFRA and TSCA Tracking System G GIS geographic information system g/mi grams of pollutant per vehicle mile traveled GHG greenhouse gas GPL general purpose lane gpm gallons per minute GPS global positioning system GWR Great Western Railway H H&S health and safety HC hydrocarbon HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HIRSYS Hotline Information Record System HMMH Harris, Miller, Miller& Hanson HOT high-occupancy toll HOV high-occupancy vehicle HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Hz hertz 1-25 Interstate 25 List of Abbreviated Terms xxviii Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (coNT'D) IF isolated find IRIS Integrated Risk Information System ISA initial site assessment ISCST3 Industrial Source Complex Short-Term dispersion model IMPLAN Impact Analyses and Planning ITS intelligent transportation system L L&WCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Program of Assistance to States and Urban Parks Ldn day-night average sound level Leg equivalent continuous sound level LCR Larimer County Road LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative LEP limited English proficient LHC locomotive hauling coach LOS level of service LOSS level of service of safety • LRT light rail transit LUST leaking underground storage tank M MBTE methyl tert-butyl ether MESA Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment pg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter mg/mi milligrams per mile MHWMB Mile High Wetland Mitigation Bank MIS Major Investment Study MMP Materials Management Plan MP mile post mph miles per hour MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSAT mobile source air toxics MSE mechanically stabilized earth MSPWM Middle South Platte Wetland Mitigation Bank N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NATA National Air Toxics Assessment • NB Northbound NDIS Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source List of Abbreviated Terms xxix Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation, LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (coNrD) • NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFRAP no further remedial action planned NFR North Front Range NFRMPO North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization NFRTAFS North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study NH3 ammonia NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NLEV National low emission vehicle N2O nitrous oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NO oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priority List NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NTD National Transit Database • O O&M operation and maintenance O3 Ozone OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation OPS Division of Oil and Public Safety (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment) OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OUR Outreach United Resource Center P ParClo partial cloverleaf interchange Pb lead PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PEM palustrine emergent wetland PID photoionization detector PM afternoon and evening PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size POTW publicly owned treatment work ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity • List of Abbreviated Terms xxx Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (CONT'D) PSI preliminary site assessment PSS palustrine, scrub-shrub wetland PUD Planned Unit Development R R1 Residential 1 RAQC Regional Air Quality Council RCC Regional Coordination Committee RCP reinforced concrete pipe RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RFG reformulated gasoline RI remedial investigation RL Residential Low RMRA Rocky Mountain Rail Authority ROD Record of Decision ROE right-of-entry ROW right-of-way • RTD Regional Transportation District RTP Regional Transportation Plan S SB southbound SB Colorado Senate Bill SH State Highway SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPUI single-point urban interchange SRHP State Register of Historic Places STC South Transit Center SWF solid waste landfill STIP State Transportation Improvement Program T TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAFS Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDA tire derived aggregate TEL tolled express lane • TEPH total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons TMDL total maximum daily load List of Abbreviated Terms xxxi Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (coNTD) • TMP transportation management plan TMU Transit Mixed Use TPR Transportation Planning Region tpy tons per year T-REX Transportation Expansion Project TRI travel rate index TSD treatment, storage, and disposal TSP total suspended particulates TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TSS total suspended solids TVPH total volatile petroleum hydrocarbon U UDFCD Urban Drainage and Flood Control District UFR Upper Front Range UFRRPC Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission UPRR Union Pacific Railroad US United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Department of Interior Geological Survey UST underground storage tank V VCUP CDPHE Voluntary Clean-up Program VdB vibration decibel VHT vehicle hours of travel VMT vehicle miles of travel VOC volatile organic compound vpd vehicles per day VRE Virginia Railway Express W WB westbound WCR Weld County Road WQCD Water Quality Control Division (CDPHE) WQCV water quality capture volume WTTN Western Transportation Trade Network • WWTP wastewater treatment plant List of Abbreviated Terms xxxii Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit What's In Chapter 1? Administration (FTA), in cooperation with Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need the Colorado Department of Transportation 1.1 Introduction (CDOT), have initiated preparation of an 1.2 Project Location 1.3 Background and Project History Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to se identify and evaluate multi-modal 1.4 Project for the Action 1.5 Need the Action transportation improvements along 1.6 Relationship to Transportation approximately 61 miles of the 1-25 corridor Planning Process from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to 1.7 Concurrent Corridor Studies Denver. The improvements being 1.8 Relationship to NEPA considered in this Draft EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the 1-25 corridor. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The regional study area extends from Wellington at the north end to Denver Union Station on the south, and from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway routes • on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east. The regional study area, depicted in Figure 1-1, spans portions of seven counties: Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld. The regional study area includes 38 incorporated communities and three transportation planning regions (TPRs): the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFRRPC). Major population centers in the regional study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and the communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area (Denver Metro Area). • Purpose and Need 1.1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. Figure 1-1 North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area 1 1, LEGEND Burlington Northern Santa Fe wellington •— — — — — — Great Western Railway \ r' 0 . �',-� • (t1i7Z • __ J� z87 - - — - — — - — Union Pacific Railroad - . . NA?.�= A h be , - ( Ault Abandoned Railroad 14 Right-of-Way �� -. , ' ' o - Fort oil' e ` - US or Interstate Highway I _ _ 85 II f I. I F 'I - wEna A • f�i• etanc !Eton State Highway J L Luc ern P.1 ‘ i - I . ----zzLtElk: t 't \` G- - l � �\RN (_?,..4 . 34 , Greele,� I . .. � Garden city , .: I ----- 40 — I ZS jvajler . 80 R • .a.---- Cr r + -int � / � Las LARIMER ' • d c .. �I MM ' r . 36 d �: , ,�.Po�„e- 58 .. 1ill G, `' G 19'_ . ______ _ . - f° .s JCR34wE M a h • /Flattevl• 0 e (( LOngm t a •73 . 36 85 (119 r 0 i_F Edell ; - hoot i • 52 �— ^� rtlaeferle �s ell R Boulder 25 f✓ • 9_ 36 'Louisville /. c? i. Broomfield Supt.do Thornton w� r,, Coin co .e ` Non ylenn Denver st inter :E470� International i... Airport �..V /121: JEFFERSON ! ' p I '►fie . r 7' * Unio Station __ 7• 40' 7• 0 2 4 6 8 10 ' 6 ■ De ver ■ — Miles North • _ <;s Purpose and Need 1-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1.3 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT HISTORY This northern Colorado corridor has become the focus of a substantial portion of statewide growth over the years, with 1-25 serving as the primary north-south spine of the transportation system. These growth pressures have resulted in considerable increases in travel demand to the corridor, including both travel between northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area and travel between communities in northern Colorado. At the same time, this corridor is a major link in the nationwide interstate highway system serving long distance travel, and is a critical element of the Western Transportation Trade Network (WTTN). The WTTN is a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states; it carries the majority of freight through the western United States. As traffic volumes and safety concerns have increased on 1-25 and connecting roadways, awareness of the need to plan for transportation improvements in this corridor has grown. Illustrating the growth in the North 1-25 corridor, Figure 1-2 compares year 2000 households and employment to projected year 2030 future households and employment in the regional study area. Projections show an increase of 84 percent in households, while projections for employment show an increase of more than 56 percent over the year 2000 levels. This growth will result in increases in travel demand throughout the regional study area. Providing transportation systems that operate safely, efficiently, and allow travelers to conveniently access shopping, recreational activities, work, and community services, as well • as providing for efficient movement of freight, are important to maintain an economically viable region. In 1993, CDOT initiated a feasibility study, with a subsequent 1995 Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), for improvements to enhance the capacity and safety of 1-25 between State Highway (SH) 7 and SH 66. This supported the decision making process for improvements on 1-25, which have either just been completed (between SH 7 and SH 52) or are under construction (between SH 52 and SH 66). Subsequently, CDOT, in conjunction with regional planning groups (North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council, UFRRPC, and DRCOG), undertook a major investment study called the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study(TAFS), to evaluate an extensive range of alternative highway improvements, bus transit alternatives, passenger-rail alternatives, and travel demand management programs for the corridor from SH 7 to SH 14. This study, published in March 2000, recommended a Vision Plan that included as major components an inter-regional bus service, combination general purpose/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and passenger rail service. In more recent years, a number of studies have been conducted by communities or groups of communities to establish planning guidelines for growth in segments of this corridor. These plans have addressed both land use and transportation issues. The initiation of this North 1-25 EIS represents the next step in evaluating and planning for implementation of improvements in this corridor. • Purpose and Need 1-3 NORTH I-25 riglia. Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 1-2 Year 2000 and 2030 Households and Employment in the Regional Study Area 1 , 200 — 1 072 1 , 000 — "\1 800 — 744 0 - 685 co 0 600 — c .- 404 400 — \ ,,,,, 200 - \� 0 • L 2000 2030 2000 2030 Households Employment 51 52 53 Source: Household and employment study area projections provided by NFRMPO and DRCOG in 2004. 54 55 1 .4 PROJECT PURPOSE 56 The purpose of the project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro Area 5t and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins- 58 Wellington area . To meet long-term travel needs, the project must improve safety, mobility and 59 accessibility, and provide modal alternatives and interrelationships. Il Purpose and Need 1 -4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1.5 NEED FOR THE ACTION The need for the project can be summarized in the following four categories: ► Increased frequency and severity of crashes ► Increasing traffic congestion leading to mobility and accessibility problems ► Aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure ► Lack of modal alternatives The project needs relate differently to highway and transit components of the solutions. Highway alternatives were evaluated in addressing all four of these needs. Transit alternatives were evaluated in addressing two of the needs: increasing traffic congestion leading to mobility and accessibility problems, and lack of modal alternatives. Specific measures were developed for each of the needs in order to provide a means for evaluating the effectiveness of each alternative. These measures and results of the evaluation are included in Chapter 2 Alternatives. 1.5.1 Highway Safety Concerns Over the last decade, the number of crashes along 1-25 has increased, and a number of locations on 1-25 currently experience worse than expected safety performance when • compared to other four-lane and six-lane interstate facilities in Colorado with similar traffic volumes. This, in part, can be attributed to congestion and the fact that portions of 1-25 do not meet current design standards. There is a need to reduce crashes on the portions of 1-25 that have worse than average safety performance, as described in Section 1.5.1.1. 1.5.1.1 CRASH DATA In 1991, 331 crashes were reported along 1-25 between SH 7 and Wellington. By 2001, this number had more than tripled to 1,130 crashes. The largest increases in the number of crashes occurred on 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 52 (the section improved in 2005) and between SH 66 and SH 56. In 1991, injury and/or fatal crashes accounted for 144 of the reported crashes along 1-25 between SH 7 and Wellington. By 2001, the number of injury and/or fatal crashes had increased to 351. Level of service of safety (LOSS) is a qualitative measure that characterizes safety of a roadway segment in reference to its expected performance (Kononov and Allery, 2004). Locations that are considered to be LOSS I and LOSS II operate more safely than other facilities of a similar size and with similar traffic volumes throughout the state. Locations identified as LOSS III and LOSS IV represent sections with a less than average safety performance when compared to similar facilities statewide. Sections of 1-25 that fall into the LOSS IV category are considered to have a "high potential for crash reduction," and were reviewed in more detail. • As shown in Table 1-1, six locations in the regional study area along 1-25 are considered to have a high potential for crash reduction and over half operate worse than other comparable Purpose and Need 1-5 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. facilities . When injury and fatality crashes are separated from crashes resulting only in 111 property damage, 1-25 between SH 14 and Mountain Vista Road also falls into the high potential for crash reduction category . Table 1-1 I-25 Level of Service of Safety LOSS I LOSS II LOSS III Low Better than Less than LOSS IV potential expected expected High potential for crash safety safety for crash Location on 1-25 reduction performance performance reduction US 36 — 84th Ave. • 84th Ave. — Thornton Pkwy • Thornton Pkwy — 112th Ave. • 112th Ave. — 136th Ave. • 136th Ave. — SH 7 • SH 7 — County Road (CR) 8 • CR8 — SH52 • SH52 - SH119 • SH 119 - SH 66 • SH66 - CR34 _ • CR34 - SH56 • SH56 - SH60 1 • SH 60 - SH 402 _ • SH 402 - US 34 • US 34 — Crossroads • Crossroads — SH 392 • SH 392 - Harmony • Harmony - Prospect • Prospect - SH 14 • SH 14 — Mtn. Vista • Mtn. Vista — SH 1 • Average Safety Performance = Portion of 1-25 recently reconstructed and widened to six lanes. = Portion of 1-25 under construction to widen to six lanes. NOTE: A median barrier to reduce the potential for crossover, head-on crashes was installed from SH 7 to US 34 in 2004 since these crash data were recorded. Source: CDOT crash records, January 2000 - December 2002. This is the most recent data set available prior to sections of 1-25 being under construction. CDOT Safety Performance Functions Intersection Diagnostics, April 2004. Purpose and Need 1-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 1-2 lists the locations identified as having high potential for crash reduction and identifies the types of crashes that are higher than what is anticipated. As shown, a preliminary assessment indicates that a number of the locations exceed the anticipated number of rear- end crashes, crashes involving the guardrail, and crashes involving other objects. On many facilities, rear-end crashes are a result of congestion, while crashes involving other objects are a result of debris, or other objects in the travel way. A more thorough diagnostic analysis was conducted to identify the cause of crashes and to then recommend mitigation measures. The safety analysis included the following: ► Review CDOT database of crashes compiled through Highway Patrol reports ► Perform statistical analysis in areas with a high-crash concentration to identify any abnormal crash patterns (i.e., identify trends) ► Review accident reports to obtain additional information on the accident experience ► Identify possible causes for areas of high-accident concentration/above-normal accident experience, focusing on statistically problematic accident types ► Identify possible roadway improvement options to help minimize specific accident types/improve overall accident experience The recommendations for mitigation measures were folded into the alternatives described in Chapter 2 of this EIS. • It is anticipated that safety will improve between SH 7 and SH 52, where 1-25 was recently widened to six lanes and updated to current design standards. Rear-end crashes and crashes involving the guardrail will likely be reduced as a result of this improvement. In addition, a median barrier was installed in 2004 between SH 7 and US 34, reducing the potential for crossover head-on crashes. Table 1-2 Preliminary Assessment of Locations on North I-25 with High Potential for Crash Reduction by Crash Type Sideswipe Other same Involving Head- non- Location Rear-end direction Guardrail other object on* collision** SH7 - CR8 A/ CR8 - SH52 SH52 - SH119 \I \I CR34 - SH56 \ SH 56- SH 60 \/ US 34 - Crossroads \/ SH 14 — Mtn. Vista =Types of crashes that exceed the number anticipated. " A median barrier,reducing the potential for crossover head-on crashes,was installed from SH 7 to US 34 in 2004 since these crash data were recorded. "" These include incidents creating a hazardous road condition but that did not involve a crash(e.g.,losing cargo on road,losing wheel,engine or brake fire,or broken down or stopped vehicle in travel lane). • Source: CDOT crash records,January 2000—December 2002. This is the most recent data set available prior to sections of 1-25 being under construction. CDOT Safety Performance Functions Intersection Diagnostics,April 2004. Purpose and Need 1.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 1.5.1.2 I-25 ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES • Roadway characteristics were evaluated along 1-25, and comparisons were made to the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2004) and CDOT (CDOT, 2006) standards. This assessment included shoulder widths, stopping sight distance, horizontal alignment, and vertical alignment. The existing 10-foot outside shoulder width is substandard along the entire 1-25 corridor from SH 66 to SH 1. Current standards require a 12-foot outside shoulder width, which is important to provide continuous, safe refuge for stopped vehicles and emergency use. The stopping sight distance is deficient at numerous locations between SH 66 and SH 1 based on a design speed of 80 miles per hour (mph). 1-25 has a maximum posted speed limit of 75 mph and a design speed of 5-10 mph in excess of the maximum posted speed limit, which is a standard design practice. Deficiencies in the horizontal alignment include curves that are too sharp and inadequate transitions coming into or out of curves. Horizontal deficiencies in the 1-25 corridor exist between Weld County Road (WCR) 34 and Larimer County Road (LCR) 26 and between SH 392 and Harmony Road. In 2005, 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 52 was improved and widened to six lanes. Design deficiencies on 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 52 were assumed to be corrected with these improvements. 1.5.2 Highway and Transit Mobility and Accessibility Population and employment growth are causing increasing traffic congestion, limiting mobility and accessibility within the regional study area. This situation is expected to • continue to worsen, and there is a need for transportation improvements to address year 2030 transportation demand, which balances mobility and accessibility along the 1- 25 corridor. There is also a need to plan transportation improvements in such a manner as to not preclude improvements which may be needed after year 2030. Within the regional study area, residential and commercial growth is occurring at a very high rate, which contributes to and will continue to contribute to increasing traffic volumes. Despite the fact that a large portion of the corridor remains in agricultural use, new development is springing up at a rapid pace. Recent projections by NFRMPO indicate that households and employment in their planning area (which extends outside the regional study area) are expected to increase by 80 to 90 percent from year 2000 levels by the year 2030. This indicates that the high rate of growth is expected to continue over an extended period of time. Development is occurring or being planned for without the benefit of a coordinated, overall long-term strategy. Land use and development patterns in the 1-25 corridor are literally evolving on a daily basis. A significant number of new commercial developments have been recently developed or are planned, including a 700,000-square-foot regional mall (Centerra), a new regional hospital, and other regional retail and employment centers. In addition, south of the SH 7/E-470 area, there are a number of recently completed or planned major developments located along the 1-25 corridor in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, and unincorporated areas. At this time, there are no common development standards in place to ensure right-of-way preservation to accommodate future transportation needs along the 1-25 corridor. • Purpose and Need 1.8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Without improvements, by year 2030, 75 percent of 1-25 is projected to be congested and to operate over capacity during the peak periods of travel. Figure 1-3 illustrates year 2002 and 2030 daily traffic volumes along 1-25. As shown, in year 2030 the demand along 1-25 is expected to exceed capacity everywhere except the very northern segment. In addition, congestion on the arterial network that connects the residential and employment centers in northern Colorado to 1-25 is expected to substantially increase by year 2030. This situation is illustrated on Figure 1-3. In the year 2030 (the second illustration), the top red line shows demand on 1-25 while the pink bands below this show the capacity on 1-25. The differential between demand and capacity would typically show up as congestion on 1-25 and on the adjacent arterial roadways. With regard to highway accessibility, many of the interchanges along 1-25 were built before 1966, when travel demand was much lower. Approximately 60 percent of the interchanges between SH 7 and SH 1 are currently considered functionally obsolete. These interchanges were designed to operate in a rural, low-volume environment, and do not have the capacity to safely or efficiently accommodate the higher traffic volumes that they are currently experiencing. The configuration of these interchanges impedes accessibility to and from 1-25 and restricts capacity east and west between the northern Colorado communities. Regarding freight movement, commodity flow projections made in the Eastern Colorado Mobility Study(Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig [FHU], 2002) indicate that freight tonnage in and out of Adams, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties is expected to increase from 96.2 million tons in • 1998 to 192.3 million tons in 2025. This reflects more than a doubling of commodity movement to/from these four counties alone. Truck volume projections indicate that volumes could increase from approximately 8,000 trucks daily in 2004 to 17,000 trucks daily in year 2030. The anticipated congestion will create slower travel speeds and longer travel times for both freight and personal travel. AM peak hour southbound travel time between SH 1 and 20th Street (Denver) is expected to increase more than 94 percent over the existing travel time. Between SH 1 and 20th Street, the average peak hour speed is expected to be less than 31 mph (compared to the maximum posted speed of 75 mph). • Purpose and Need 1.9 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 1-3 Current and Future Daily Traffic Volumes and Capacities , 2002 180,000 160,000 140,000 >' 120,000 - G ws 100,000 1-25 DAILY CAPACITY c 80,000 a a, 60,000 Ca L Q 40,000 1-25 DAILY DEMAND 20,000 ---- I i I I SH-7 SH-52 SH-66 US-34 SH-68 SH-14 SH-1 S H-402 South • • North 2030 180,000 1 160,000 ---- 1-25 DAILY DEMAND Ece 140,000 �` 120,000 0 Ca 100,000 ' C 80,000 Q ao 60,000 i CCAILY CAPACITY 4 40.000 20,000 1 i I I i r SH-7 SH-52 SH-66 US-34 SH-68 SH-14 SH-1 SH-402 South • • North Purpose and Need 1-10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1.5.3 Aging and Obsolete Highway Infrastructure A number of structures along 1-25 are currently structurally deficient or are expected to be so by year 2030. Structurally deficient means that one or more components of the bridge rate poor or worse with regard to structural condition. Segments of pavement on 1-25 are reaching the end of the pavement's life expectancy and surface conditions are deteriorating rapidly. Aging infrastructure along 1-25 needs to be replaced. 1.5.3.1 STRUCTURES Seventy-three percent of the structures on 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 1 were constructed before 1966, according to CDOT's publication, Field Log of Structures (CDOT, 2005b). By the year 2030, it is anticipated that all of these structures will need to be replaced or rehabilitated. Also, the structures located from SH 52 to SH 66 are being replaced as part of the current widening projects adding general purpose lanes to 1-25. The following 11 interchanges and 6 railroad structures, shown on Table 1-3, would need to be replaced for the year 2030 design horizon due to deficiencies based on age (built before 1980 and assuming a service life of 50 years) or condition. Table 1-3 Aging and Obsolete Structures Interchange Structures Railroad Structures • WCR 34 LCR 26 GWR - north of WCR 34 (MP 246) SH 56 SH 392 GWR - north of SH 56 (MP 252) SH 60 Prospect Rd. GWR - north of LCR 20E (MP 257) LCR 16 SH 14 UPRR - north of US 34 (MP 259) SH 402 SH 1 BNSF — north of SH 68 (MP 267) US 34 BNSF - north of SH 14 (MP 270) Notes. BNSF-Burlington,Northern,and Santa Fe Railway LCR-Lamer County Road SH-State Highway WCR-Weld County Road GWR-Great Western Railway MP-Milepost UPRR-Union Pacific Railroad According to CDOT's Field Log of Structures (CDOT, 2005b), two structures along this stretch of 1-25 have a minimum vertical clearance of less than 16.5 feet (the interstate highway standard). The structures are WCR 34 and WCR 38. Damage to these structures due to substandard vertical clearance could occur by the larger commercial vehicles using 1-25. 1.5.3.2 PAVEMENT CDOT data shows approximately 60 percent of the pavement on 1-25 between SH 7 and SH 1 is rated as either"fair" (sufficient or adequate) or "poor" (less than adequate) and has a service life of less than 11 years remaining. The worst segment along 1-25 is between CR 34 and US 34, which is rated "poor" by CDOT throughout its length. By year 2030, it is anticipated that the pavement along 1-25 on the roadway segment between CR 34 and CR 50 would need to be replaced due to deficient conditions. • Purpose and Need 1.11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1.5.3.3 DRAINAGE • Most of the existing drainage structures along 1-25 were built during the 1960s. At that time, the adjacent areas were rural, and flood damage was limited to agricultural land. The sizes of many of these drainage structures were based on limited rainfall data for what was estimated to be a 25- or 50-year storm event. The 100-year storm is now used for drainage design in urbanized areas and for floodplains under the jurisdiction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Many of the existing drainage structures constrict stormwater flows, cause flooding, and overtopping of the adjacent highways. In order to conform to newer criteria and control flooding, most drainage structures along 1-25 should be replaced with a larger structure. There are no facilities in place along 1-25 to treat runoff from paved areas, except for the newly constructed facilities between SH 52 and SH 119. Prior to 2001, CDOT and many municipalities were not required to treat runoff from paved areas. CDOT now has a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). This permit requires CDOT to implement a program to reduce the discharge of pollutants by installing permanent facilities. 1.5.4 Highway and Transit Modal Alternatives and Interrelationships Alternative modes of travel are very limited in northern Colorado and between northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area. In 1999, when the TAFS was being conducted, • residents of northern Colorado were asked to complete a transportation survey (Kimley- Horn and Associates, 1999). Results of this survey indicated a strong desire by residents to see regional transit options provided in northern Colorado. As evidenced through public input throughout this project, the results of the 1999 survey remain valid. In addition to a strong desire for transit options, there is a need for public transportation due to the increasing cost of gas, the decreasing supply of energy, and the aging population, which will likely result in more transit dependent individuals. In addition, the increasing unreliability of auto travel points out a need for other transportation mode alternatives. 1.5.4.1 RAIL SERVICE Participants in the TAFS survey were asked to rate potential transportation solutions such as bus service, highway widening, and rail service. On a scale of one to five with five being the best, "rail service on 1-25" received a 3.95, the highest score of all the potential solutions on the survey. In addition, over 50 percent of the written comments received were in support of providing transit service or suggested ways to move away from single-occupant vehicle use. An electronic survey, conducted as part of the same study, found that 61 percent of respondents felt that the best transportation policy option for Coloradans was rail, while only 18 percent favored widening 1-25. In recent public opinion surveys conducted for NFRMPO (ETC Institute, 2002, 2005), 44 percent of respondents stated that they would like to see their tax dollars spent on • providing commuter rail service between the northern Colorado communities and Denver. This option rated higher than any other improvement listed on the questionnaire. Purpose and Need 1.12 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1.5.4.2 Bus SERVICE There is very little intra-regional (such as Loveland to Greeley) and no inter-regional (Fort Collins to Denver) public transit service serving the 1-25 corridor. Existing public-transit service in northern Colorado is essentially limited to service within the individual communities. Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland each operate fixed-route and demand responsive service in their communities. FoxTrot is an intercity service connecting Loveland and Fort Collins. The Weld County Mini-Bus program provides connections between Weld County communities and Boulder, Fort Collins, Fort Morgan, and Loveland. The Town of Berthoud operates a demand responsive service that operates in the Berthoud Fire District. This service also connects to Longmont and Loveland. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) provides bus service from Longmont to Boulder or Denver or from communities south of SH 66 to Denver. The NFRMPO Household Survey and the Front Range Commuter Bus study both indicate that there is a demand for transit service connecting the North Front Range communities to each other and to the Denver Metro Area. Private bus operators (such as Greyhound) provide limited service connecting northern Colorado to the Denver Metro Area. However, these trips are not scheduled around a typical commuter schedule. 1.5.4.3 VANPOOLS The NFRMPO operates a vanpool program that provides trips between Greeley, Fort Collins, and Loveland and to the Denver Metro Area. In July 2006, there were 64 vanpool routes in • the program. Nearly 50 vans travel between the northern Colorado communities and the Denver Metro Area. Other vans travel within the northern region or from the Denver Metro Area to northern Colorado. Each week, NFRMPO responds to about 50 calls from residents interested in participating in the vanpool program and estimates that there is a demand for 150 vans. Almost all of these calls come from people traveling to the Denver Metro Area. The level of interest in this service indicates in part that there is an unmet demand for alternative modes of inter-regional travel in the region. 1.5.4.4 CARPOOLS The NFRMPO also operates an automated ride matching service on the NFRMPO web site. In the first few months of 2005, interest in ride sharing increased by about 400 percent over demand estimates made toward the end of 2004. Much of this was attributed to the increase in gas prices that occurred during that same period. A number of well-utilized carpool lots are located along 1-25. A survey of these lots was conducted for CDOT Region 4 and also for the Front Range Commuter Bus Study (TransitPlus and FHU, 2003). Both studies showed that the 250 parking spaces located between SH 60 and SH 392 were approximately 85 percent occupied. The parking lots located along the south end of the corridor are not as well utilized, but demand for all of these lots is expected to increase as population and employment in the area continues to grow. • Purpose and Need 1.13 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRANSPORTATION • PLANNING PROCESS A number of communities in the regional study area have developed transportation plans that recommend transportation improvements to accommodate the travel needs of their communities now and in the future. The three transportation planning regions (TPRs) in the regional study area coordinate the efforts of these local communities to create a comprehensive, fiscally-constrained, transportation plan for each region. The NFRMPO coordinates the planning efforts of the urban area including Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland. UFRRPC provides the same type of planning coordination efforts for rural portions of Larimer, Morgan, and Weld counties that are not part of NFRMPO. DRCOG coordinates efforts in the Denver Metro Area. Figure 1-4 illustrates the three TPRs in the regional study area. The Statewide Transportation Plan (CDOT, 2005a)melds the Colorado Transportation Commission policy with the goals and recommendations from each of the state's TPRs. Each document identifies a vision for the area's transportation network and establishes goals and policies for implementation of the transportation vision. Relevant regional and statewide transportation planning goals and policies are described briefly below. 1.6.1 North Front Range NFRMPO adopted the North Front Range Year 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in • October 2004(NFRMPO, 2004). The North Front Range RTP's value statement reads: "Recognizing the unique character of the region, we will provide an environmentally, socially, and economically sensitive multi-modal transportation system for all users that protects and enhances the region's quality of life." Other goals identified in the RTP that are relevant to the North 1-25 EIS are: provide a safe, balanced multi-modal system; foster regional coordination; minimize congestion; minimize environmental impacts; and provide a positive economic impact. The NFRMPO 2035 RTP identifies the 1-25 corridor as one of the top three priority corridors. 1.6.2 Upper Front Range UFRRPC adopted the Upper Front Range Year 2030 Regional Transportation Plan in November 2004 (FHU, 2004).The Upper Front Range RTP's stated goal is: "To provide a multi-modal transportation system that maximizes public input, fosters cooperation, and meets the transportation needs of all travelers in the Upper Front Range." The plan also states that UFRRPC would like to include 1-25 in any future strategic funding programs. UFRRPC has adopted a number of policy directives which support passenger rail service and expansion and coordination of bus transit service in the Upper Front Range. • Purpose and Need 1-14 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. i Figure 1-4 Transportation Planning Region Boundaries GN.,_ ,71 Wellington '28-71,, LEGEND f,i..1 Au t North Front Range Fort Collin 85 Upper Front Range Timtifath(3:!) Severance Eato Denver Regional Council _y ;97, . ce e of Governments 287 Windsor f Loveland 34 �.. � ova � - _ 3_ Greele -i --140-\ Garden City Evans ,CR_5U LARIMER Ca pj . 60 Johnstown La Salle i. ..) I %(--\ Milliken Berthoud• Mica- t r 1 CR34 WELD 85 r) Me . ' Platte He 66 , Lonam ' t , - 1 �'"r, it, 119 r ir. 36 S .f r BOULDER; 2 t19' _ I Firestone 87( ederick Niwot - - I %5z ( q •r, ! J 5`, • )` , 52 _ f' -.I ort , Dacono upton Erle 1 11c Ara•ahoe Rd. . B ulder Baseline Rd.. .�� L = ayette a 7 ' a,;' 36 ouisv it Br htor}�r, oomfield - - J sups . ROOM I : Thornton _ ". Co I 'eE470 L2 , II No thglenn -- es Minot. -,__/-L i121 1 • / .. I_I a. q r /� Dent*. 7I 0 2 ♦ 6 8 to ' ` /Br N VER Union Station u-- _ _..� FO) North 0 Purpose and Need 1-15 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1.6.3 Denver Area DRCOG adopted the year 2030 Metro Vision RTP in January 2005. DRCOG's Metro Vision plan includes plans for three regional transit lines in the regional study area. The three regional transit lines are: (1) the proposed North Metro rail line from downtown Denver to SH 7 east of 1-25, (2) the US 36 corridor that would include Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along US 36, and (3) the Northwest Rail corridor that includes 38 miles of commuter rail between downtown Denver, Longmont, and Boulder. The plan also includes widening I-25 between US 36 and Thornton Parkway with one additional general purpose lane in each direction. 1.6.4 Statewide Plan The Colorado Transportation Commission adopted the year 2030 Statewide Transportation Plan in February 2005. The report states that the mission of the Transportation Commission is to: "Provide the best multi-modal transportation system for Colorado that most effectively moves people, goods, and information." The mission statement was expanded to include the following: "Enhance the quality of life and the environment of the citizens of Colorado by creating an integrated transportation system that focuses on moving people and goods by offering convenient linkages among modal choices." The plan identifies a corridor vision for 1-25 with the following goals: ► Increase travel reliability and improve mobility ► Reduce fatalities, injuries, and property-damage-only crash rates • ► Preserve the existing transportation system ► Accommodate growth in freight transport ► Optimize the transportation system through intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and travel demand management measures • Purpose and Need 1.16 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation• . 1.7 CONCURRENT CORRIDOR STUDIES A number of other corridor studies in the regional study area are being conducted simultaneously with the North 1-25 EIS, or have been recently completed. Coordination with each of these efforts has been occurring throughout the project. A summary of each of the other corridor studies that occurred or is occurring in the regional study area is provided below. Figure 1-5 shows the locations of other corridor studies within the regional study area. 1.7.1 US 287 Environmental Assessment FHWA, in conjunction with CDOT, completed an EA for US 287 north of Fort Collins, beginning at SH 1 and extending two miles northwest. The project addressed mobility and safety issues along this stretch of highway. This EA and FONSI are completed and design is underway. 1.7.2 US 287 Environmental Overview Study CDOT completed an environmental overview study (EOS) for US 287 from 29th Street in Loveland to Harmony Road in Fort Collins. This study evaluated corridor route location alternatives. The No-Action Alternative was defined as the existing transportation system (including transportation improvements currently under construction) plus committed projects. As part of CDOT's comprehensive transportation planning process that integrates multi-modal transportation, land use, and environmental considerations, this EOS analyzed the need for • transportation improvements and identified environmentally sensitive sites along the corridor in order to implement and coordinate a comprehensive transportation network. CDOT initiated this study because of development pressure along the corridor. CDOT worked with local agencies, the public, stakeholders, and resource agencies to develop a highway footprint that addresses future improvements that may be financed through local agencies. This EOS is completed and awaiting signatures on the Access Control Plan. 1.7.3 SH 392 Environmental Overview Study As part of CDOT's comprehensive transportation planning process that integrates multi-modal transportation, land use, and environmental considerations, this EOS analyzed the need for transportation improvements along SH 392 from US 287 to east of Windsor in order to implement and coordinate a comprehensive transportation network. CDOT initiated this study because of development pressure along the corridor. The purpose for studying SH 392 from US 287 to east of Windsor is to accommodate future growth and development in south Fort Collins and Windsor and ensure mobility given present and predicted future traffic conditions. CDOT is working with the local agencies, the public, stakeholders, and resource agencies to develop a highway footprint that addresses future improvements that may be financed through local agencies. This EOS is completed and awaiting approval on the Access Control Plan. • Purpose and Need 1.17 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 1-5 Concurrent Corridor Studies 111 44,, US 287 Environmental et WsflIn `°° SH 392 Environmental Assessment Overview Study -. t li I Mason Corridor '"' Environmental Assessment "----_____ fr I �a v, ~ z , , O Fort US 287 Environmental Collins I _ ' I 4 _ - US 34 Business Overview Study tltaea s wto. '' Environmental ' '1' , Assessment L. . Luc a c3 US 34 Environmental MR :. ., rrt�+. t J Assessment - I ' ,`_ • j r } >v `4' Greeley t Lovelan • a c._. • 9 A :a \ i5 =14 i. s. '. - SndsaGK1 ,i- r x� ! . Evan / SH 402 Environmental a�- Assessmentme, CR 50 own { L. WILARI MER n i O ° ED Nom' IP-I J SH 60 Environmental ' Overview Study I Mfrs JcR34 :Fit n 411 © r r FasTracks Northwest Rail Lon • • i o tlit , Environmental Impact -71 4iirPi Statement �� al ficA Vii+ , s. ''5`368 ��'SH 7 (Arapahoe Road) l / . ® • ® ( f Environment- ! I— ' '. - fTess Assessment r'- \, ii - ≥ - �, o FasTracks North Metro Bould J _ Environmental Impact _ I`Lie)pouritif ) Statement $ Mg° I- - 1 - I:-:, 0 3i odar i.r�` 76 ' ' . c V US 36 Environmental ir Breeafteld FasTracks East Impact Statement ea i Corridor Environmental co- P Impact Statement j ' R: D `� N C Denver •r rcI 1 a International I ' Airport Northwest Corridor t i' 'J Transportation and Environmental �� • ,o V' Planning Study RSON 1 1-70 70 East t- 1Ir Environmental 70 (E470 Impact Statement a t40 '" oe , esti" `III . i70 6 6th Ave. Denver I M 0 2 4 6 8 lin0 North .- y ,: alI fly Purpose and Need 1-18 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1.7.4 US 34 Environmental Assessment FHWA, in conjunction with CDOT, initiated an EA for improvements to US 34 between Garfield Avenue and just east of Larimer CR 3. The EA addresses future mobility, safety, and access. The EA does not address interchange improvements at 1-25 and US 34. Planned improvements include multi-modal transportation and widening the highway from four to six lanes. This EA and FONSI are complete. 1.7.5 US 34 Business Environmental Assessment FHWA, in conjunction with CDOT, initiated an EA for transportation improvements along US 34 Business Route between 71st Avenue and SH 257. The purpose of the project is to alleviate congestion, both current and future; improve safety; improve access; and connect this segment of the highway with four lanes that currently exist on the western and eastern boundary of the project. This EA and FONSI are complete and design is underway. 1.7.6 SH 60 Environmental Overview Study As part of CDOT's comprehensive transportation planning process that integrates multi-modal transportation, land use, and environmental considerations, this EOS analyzed the need for transportation improvements and identify environmentally sensitive sites along SH 60 between 1-25 and SH 257 in order to implement and coordinate a comprehensive transportation network. • CDOT is initiating this study because of development pressure along the corridor. The purpose and need for studying SH 60 from 1-25 to SH 257 is to ensure mobility especially given recent annexations by Milliken and Johnstown and the amount and rate of ongoing and planned developments in those areas. CDOT will work with local agencies, the public, stakeholders, and resource agencies to develop a highway footprint that addresses future improvements that may be financed through local agencies. This EOS is complete. 1.7.7 SH 402 Environmental Assessment FHWA and CDOT conducted an EA and subsequently approved a FONSI for improvements along SH 402 from US 287 to the 1-25 interchange. The purpose of the project was to improve travel and safety on SH 402 within the study area. The difficulty experienced by drivers making a left turn to or from SH 402 contributes to this need. As traffic volumes increase, current mobility and safety issues will become worse if improvements are not made to the existing roadway. 1.7.8 SH 7 (Arapahoe Road) Environmental Assessment The SH 7 EA is evaluating transportation alternatives between Cherryvale Road and 75th Street. This is a major transportation corridor which serves the cities of Boulder, Erie, Lafayette, and Louisville, as well as Boulder County. This corridor has experienced tremendous growth over the last few years and motorists are encountering steadily increasing congestion. FHWA is conducting the EA in cooperation with CDOT and the local agencies. • Purpose and Need 1.19 Pratt EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1.7.9 US 36 Environmental Impact Statement • The US 36 Mobility Partnership is preparing an EIS to identify multi-modal transportation improvements between Denver and Boulder. Bus improvements associated with this EIS are in the FasTracks plan. The EIS study will develop and evaluate highway and BRT alternatives developed in the MIS and consider all other reasonable alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, to ensure maximum multi-modal capacity for the corridor. The study area is roughly 18 miles of US 36 between 1-25 and the Table Mesa park-n-Ride in Boulder. The study area incorporates a number of communities in the northwest metropolitan Denver area, including the cities of Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, and Westminster, as well as unincorporated Boulder County. The Draft EIS was released for public review in August 2007. 1.7.10 Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study CDOT is looking at long-range regional transportation needs in the northwest Denver Metro Area. By the year 2030, the Denver Metro Area, including the northwest region, will have an estimated population of approximately 3.2 million people. That is an increase of approximately 900,000 residents. Such growth demonstrates the need for the continuing study of future mobility in and through the region. CDOT's evaluation is being documented in the Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study. 1.7.11 I-70 East Environmental Impact Statement • The 1-70 East EIS is evaluating highway improvements for the 1-70 corridor between 1-25 and Tower Road. The EIS will decide which transportation projects, if any, will be built to improve safety and mobility, and address congestion in the corridor. The 1-70 East EIS includes an extensive community involvement process. It will focus on how proposed improvements would impact the community and the environment. FHWA is conducting the EIS in cooperation with CDOT and the City and County of Denver. This EIS is evaluating additional general purpose lanes and additional tolled lanes. 1.7.12 FasTracks FasTracks is RTD's 12-year comprehensive plan to build and operate 119 miles of new rail line, to expand and improve bus service, and to add 21,000 new park-n-Ride spaces throughout the Denver Metro Area. FasTracks will cost $ 6.1 billion to construct and will be funded by a combination of a region-wide sales tax, federal funds, and local and private contributions. The four cent per $10 purchase sales tax went into effect on January 1, 2005. The project schedule for FasTracks is shown in Table 1-4. • Purpose and Need 1-20 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 EIS October 2008 information, cooperation. transportation. • Table 1-4 RTD FasTracks Project Schedule Year Corridor Facilities 2013 Union Station West Corridor Light Rail Northwest Commuter Rail 2014 East Corridor Commuter Rail Central Corridor Light Rail Extension North Metro Corridor Commuter Rail 2015 1-225 Corridor Light Rail Gold Line Commuter Rail Southwest Corridor Light Rail Extension 2016 US 36 Corridor BRT Southeast Corridor Light Rail Extension Four of these projects are adjacent to the northern front range communities. These are described in the following sections in more detail. 1.7.13 Northwest Rail Environmental Assessment This EA is being conducted by RTD (for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers [USAGE]) to evaluate passenger rail alignments from Longmont to Denver. These improvements are in the FasTracks plan. Potential improvements include a 38.1-mile commuter rail line along the existing railroad right-of-way between Denver Union Station in downtown Denver and • Longmont (through Boulder). Like the US 36 EIS, the study area incorporates a number of communities in the northwest metropolitan Denver area, including the cities of Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, and Westminster, as well as unincorporated Boulder County. 1.7.14 North Metro Environmental Impact Statement RTD is conducting an EIS of the 18-mile North Metro corridor that extends from Denver Union Station in downtown Denver north to 160th Avenue (SH 7). The commuter rail line (which is in the FasTracks plan) generally follows the UPRR right-of-way to the east of 1-25. The North Metro Corridor greatly expands transit access and service to the north metro area between 1-25 and 1-76. This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the Denver Metro Area and is expected to more than double in population and employment by 2025. 1.7.15 East Corridor Environmental Impact Statement The East Corridor EIS is evaluating high-capacity, fixed-guideway transit alternatives between downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA). These improvements are in the FasTracks plan. The EIS will identify the benefits and impacts associated with the various alternatives being evaluated in the corridor. The East Corridor EIS includes an extensive community involvement process. FTA is conducting the study in cooperation with RTD, and the City and County of Denver. RTD has submitted the project for consideration for New Starts funding from FTA. • Purpose and Need 1.21 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1.7.16 Denver Union Station Environmental Impact Statement A Final EIS is now being completed to evaluate the transportation recommendations of Phase 1 of the approved Master Plan for Denver Union Station. The Station currently offers RTD light rail service, bus service, and passenger service by AMTRAK. Through implementation of the Master Plan, Denver Union Station will be transformed into a transportation hub serving the needs of residents, tourists, and commuters. 1.7.17 Colorado Rail Relocation Implementation Study CDOT and the two Class One Railroads operating in Colorado, the BNSF and the UPRR, have been holding discussions regarding the possible relocation of rail infrastructure east, away from the Front Range. These preliminary efforts between CDOT and the railroads is known as the "Colorado Railroad Partnership Project" or alternatively as "Colorado's Safety and Mobility Partnership Project," and provide the backdrop for the current study. The purpose of this public benefits and costs study is to identify public benefits, drawbacks and costs associated with a possible partnership project between CDOT, BNSF, UPRR, and other public entities. This will allow the parties to better assess the type and extent of their potential financial participation. The study's ultimate goal is to investigate whether there are likely to be sufficient benefits for the citizens of Colorado to warrant consideration of the investment of public dollars in the proposed railroad project. The study is in the process of being finalized and, pending CDOT's review and approval, findings and recommendations will be published. 1.7.18 Colorado Tolling Enterprise • The Colorado Tolling Enterprise (CTE) was created by CDOT to finance, build, operate, and maintain toll highways. CTE was made possible by legislation that enables CDOT and the state Transportation Commission to issue bonds for new or additional highway capacity toll projects throughout Colorado. The non-profit CTE provides a mechanism for funding capacity improvements. A recent study by CTE evaluated the feasibility of creating a tolling facility along 1-25. Two scenarios were evaluated and found to be potentially feasible. The first includes three general purpose lanes plus two express toll lanes in each direction from 120th to SH 66. From 120th to US 36, 1-25 would have three general purpose lanes in each direction and two reversible express toll lanes. The second scenario includes three general purpose lanes in each direction and a two-lane reversible express toll lane facility between SH 7 and US 36. These tolling alternatives were considered in this North 1-25 Draft EIS. 1.7.19 Front Range Commuter Rail Study Front Range Commuter Rail is a Colorado non-profit corporation promoting development of high-speed passenger rail service connecting Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In 2007, the Front Range Rail group created an Intergovernmental Agreement Authority called Rocky Mountain Rail Authority (RMRA) to receive the monies from CDOT in order to complete a feasibility study for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The feasibility study is expected to begin in 2008. RMRA membership is made up of the local governments served by the proposed statewide passenger rail system. In addition to the feasibility study, the group is proposing a November 2008 ballot issue to establish a statewide district/authority to fund construction and operation of the proposed rail line. • Purpose and Need 1.22 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1.7.20 Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment This EA is being conducted by the City of Fort Collins (for the FTA) to evaluate bus rapid transit along the Mason Corridor from Cherry Street to Harmony Road in Fort Collins. The Mason Corridor includes a new bicycle and pedestrian trail, as well as a planned bus rapid transit system in a fixed guideway for the majority of the corridor. The corridor is centered along Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway property, a few hundred feet west of College Avenue (US 287). In the fall of 2007, the Mason Corridor project was recommended for 2009 funding in the FTA New Starts report. 1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO NEPA This EIS has been prepared pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) regulations implementing NEPA, FHWA, and FTA environmental impact and related procedures (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 771), FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, and other applicable laws. It details the process through which transportation alternatives have been developed; discloses foreseeable social, economic, and environmental impacts resulting from the project; provides findings for public review; and outlines potential mitigation options. The lead federal agencies, FHWA and FTA, have signature authority on the Record of Decision (ROD). CDOT is preparing this EIS under the guidance of the lead agencies. • • Purpose and Need 1.23 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES 2 This chapter provides information about the alternatives development and evaluation process. 3 The identification, consideration, and analysis of alternatives are essential to the NEPA process 4 and the goal of objective decision making. Regulations for implementing NEPA require the following in an alternatives chapter: t, ► Rigorous exploration and objective What's in Chapter 2? 7 evaluation of all reasonable alternatives Chapter 2 -Alternatives tt and brief discussion of the reasons for 2.1 Description of Process 9 elimination of any alternatives from 2.2 Alternatives Advanced for Detailed detailed study Evaluation 2.3 Screening of Primary Elements ► Devotion of substantial treatment to 2.4 Screening of Secondary Elements 12 each alternative considered in detail 2.5 Alternatives Screening Summary 13 ► Inclusion of reasonable alternatives not 14 within the jurisdiction of the lead agencies I 5 (FHWAandFTA) 16 ► Inclusion of the No-Action Alternative 17 This Draft EIS presents the environmental impacts of the alternatives in comparative form, 18 thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the 19 decision makers and the public. • 20 This chapter is organized into the following five sections: 21 ► Section 2.1 Description of Process presents the process of developing and screening 22 alternatives. 23 ► Section 2.2 Alternatives Advanced for Detailed Evaluation provides a textual and 24 graphical description of the reasonable alternatives advanced for full evaluation in this Draft EIS. 26 ► Section 2.3 Screening of Primary Elements is a series of four questions used to develop the main elements of each package. 2\ ► Section 2.4 Screening of Secondary Elements summarizes the development and 29 evaluation of elements that are used in conjunction with the primary elements identified in 30 Section 2.3. These include interchanges, transit stations, and maintenance facilities. 31 ► Section 2.5 Alternatives Screening Summary summarizes all alternatives considered and 32 why they were either screened out from further consideration or advanced. 33 The report Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a) is 34 incorporated by reference per CEQ 40 CFR 1502.21. This report includes additional detailed 35 information about the alternatives development and evaluation process. This report compiles the 36 three levels of alternatives development and screening that took place as part of the North 1-25 37 EIS study process. It describes how alternatives were developed, how they were evaluated on 38 their ability to meet the project's Purpose and Need, environmental impact and practicability. It 39 also describes how the alternatives were combined to create the two build packages that are 40 included in this Draft EIS. The Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, • 41 2008a) will be available for review along with this Draft EIS. Alternatives 2.1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. I 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS • 2 A wide range of alternatives was initially developed that included multiple transit technologies on 3 various feasible alignments and highway improvements on both existing and new alignments. The 4 process of developing and screening alternatives took into account the following: ► State and federal requirements ► Ability to avoid or minimize environmental impacts ► The purpose and need for the project ► The regional planning context ► The reasonableness of an alternative ► Public input 5 2.1.1 State and Federal Requirements 6 Federal agencies are required by NEPA to prepare an EIS for major federal actions that 7 significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment. The intent of the North 1-25 k EIS is to identify a multi-modal transportation solution along the corridor through a process that 9 complies with NEPA policies and procedures. 10 The lead federal agencies, FHWA and FTA, have signature authority on the Record of Decision I I (ROD). CDOT is preparing this EIS under the guidance of the lead agencies. 12 Requirements of other applicable laws were incorporated throughout the process. State and 13 federal agency representatives were involved as this was occurring. Other laws that influenced 14 the location and configuration of the alternatives include: I5 ► Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The North 1-25 EIS was conducted using a • I6 NEPA/Section 404 merger process as documented in a letter dated February 5, 2004 from 1 7 FHWA and FTA to USACE. This included coordination with the USACE, U.S. Environmental 18 Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Written concurrence 19 from USAGE was received at two points in the process: at acceptance of Chapter 1 Purpose 20 and Need and at acceptance of the reasonable alternatives to be fully evaluated in this Draft 21 EIS. This correspondence is provided in Appendix B. Reasonable alternatives in this document, including the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, were 23 located to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. 24 ► Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Section 106 process included 25 consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other consulting parties 26 (mainly interested local governments) to identify historic properties potentially subject to 27 project impacts. The SHPO has formally concurred that this project will use a document 2i+ substitution process, whereby this Draft EIS is used for consultation of effects of the 29 undertaking upon historic properties. 30 ► Clean Air Act as Amended 1990. Coordination occurred with CDPHE and EPA to obtain 3I concurrence on the methodology used for the air quality analysis for this project. 32 ► Section 4(f) of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act. A number of 33 historic, park, and wildlife refuge properties protected by this legislation are located along the 34 alternatives. These properties were avoided where feasible and prudent. • Alternatives 2-2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 2.1.2 Purpose and Need, Reasonableness, and Potential to 2 Impact Environmental Resources 3 Alternatives were developed to address the project's purpose and need, which included 4 addressing safety concerns along 1-25, increasing mobility, improving accessibility, providing 5 multi-modal transportation alternatives, and replacing aging infrastructure along 1-25. These are 6 described in detail in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need. Alternatives were evaluated based on their 7 reasonableness, as defined by whether or not it is practical or feasible from a technical and s economic standpoint, whether or not it meets purpose and need, and whether or not it has 0 environmental impacts that are acceptable. 10 Concerted efforts were taken as all alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize the effect of I I the alternatives on wetlands and other waters of the U.S., on sensitive wildlife species, on historic 12 properties, and on park properties. This effort influenced highway and transit corridor alignment 13 selection, highway and transit corridor design recommendations, highway interchange 14 configurations, transit station locations, and maintenance facility locations. 15 Additional avoidance and minimization efforts will be undertaken as the NEPA process proceeds 16 through the Final EIS and the ROD, and during final design. 1- 2.1.3 Regional Planning Context s Consideration of regional plans throughout the regional study area also helped to shape the 19 development of alternatives. Plans considered in the development process are depicted in 21) Figure 2-1. Understanding the regional planning context helped the alternatives development • 21 process to avoid precluding other public transportation investments. It also improved the cost 22 effectiveness of alternatives by connecting them with planned and funded projects, such as 23 FasTracks and the Mason Transportation Corridor. Regional plans considered include: 24 ► Mason Transportation Corridor. This plan involves a bus rapid transit system running from 25 Mason and Maple Streets to Mason Street and Harmony Road in Fort Collins. 26 ► North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (commonly referred to 27 as TAFS). TAFS examined how to increase mobility from the North Front Range to Denver; it 25 was completed in 2001. TAFS recommended that commuter rail be built from Denver to a point 29 just south of US 34, where it would branch, with one line extending to Fort Collins, and one line 30 extending to Greeley. It also recommended that HOV lanes be added to 1-25 and bus service be 3I offered along 1-25 until rail service was available. 32 ► Interstate 25 (SH 7 to SH 66) Environmental Assessment. I-25 is being expanded from two 33 lanes in each direction to three lanes in each direction from SH 52 to SH 66. Improvements 34 between SH 7 and SH 52 were recently constructed. This improvement will be completed 35 regardless of the alternative selected for the North 1-25 project. 36 ► US 85 Access Control Plan. This adopted plan extends from SH 14 south to 1-76 and provides 37 guidance about location and configuration of future access points along US 85. While 12 entities 3s have adopted the access control plan, it is not fully funded at this time. 39 ► DRCOG Metro Vision. DRCOG's 2030 RTP includes new general purpose lanes and 411 HOV lanes on 1-25 from US 36 to SH 7 and a new interchange at Sheridan Parkway (north of 41 SH 7). The fiscally constrained plan includes general purpose lanes from US 36 to Thornton 42 Parkway. 43 ► RTD FasTracks. This Denver Metro Area transit expansion project will include two 44 commuter rail lines extending north toward the regional study area, terminating in Longmont 45 and in Thornton. It also includes right-of-way preservation for additional transit service 46 between Commerce City and Brighton. 47 Alternatives 2-3 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 • information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 2-1 Regional Planning Context 1 ,ta .. m ■ * ` Rail "Loop" Plan ' Mason Transportation P Commuter rail system �- Corridor connecting Greeley, Fort �~_ ,,-� - L- ' Bus rapid transit and trails from 81 , Maple to Harmony ,. (' 1I /04 \ Collins and Loveland N „ , (not approved or funded) (funding has been approved .-n H . A to/by FTA} , Collins 1 I ,, c • 65 Transportation Alternatives PP � Feasibililty Study (TAPS) tint k Commuter Rail Element T ,. ="°°' Commuter rail from Denver to Fort ,� Luc • Collins and Greeley. HOV lanes from 8. €) 1 SH 7 to SH 66. Bus service on 1-25 ...La_K , prior to implementation of rail service. - ;- -(not funded) ` _ • 34 r -Gree1-25 1995 Environmental LOVelan .„- . Bartle •l t Assessment -' I I , ■ �.-� 6-lane widening of 1-25 Leos cR so (completed from SH 7 to SH 52, Os ea —liosew� / ■ funded from SH 52 to SH 66) -- �' \60, --ti / V MUNkOn' ■ • 36 � .- N _all , 4PartofstatewideraiiPlan Front Range Rail 7 p _ .. p _. US 85 �i _` seeking federal designation Access Control Plan CR34 wP) n 7as a high-speed rail corridor controlplan adopted r rt,�,t„ (currently being studied) I Access p (not yet funded) ■ Lon . mont Prairie Falcon Parkway DRCOG Metro Vision - 7 -- t . { " ) New multi-modal facility on Widen 1-25 with a buffer- J 7 L_ fl 85 eastern plains separated HOV lane and a BOULDER 41 I - 25 ,,,. (not approved or funded) general purpose lane from 84th CI 8 r N1-2 I Avenue to SH 7, and construct b. I 52 7tr ■ a new interchange at Sheridan i y I' .�.�.�ns� ® - Pkwy. (partially funded) ` ,r.,- -\ wins i- • , _ ■ ■ C 36 LontsvuIIIII4 / ffst RTD FasTracks - ill . ■ Northwest Rail commuter rail swum., _ j Bras id a ■ line (funded) I Mon r ■ Cora � _,-n__ — __ 1� e ■ ,72, N 1 RTD FasTracks IL_ - .1 �� iiriltar—ill ■ Intentional North Metro commuter rail line L'_` ,_ �© RTD FasTracks(funded) 121 Right-of-way preserv�. • passenger rail serviAA a i .rCommerce City to B - 70 -0 -- `f n'• State IF X17\140' �� 1 ,70 / ■ l De ver , M 0 2 4 6 8, I0 'mots North I \ =S I Alternatives 2-4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • I In addition, there are several private initiatives under discussion within the regional study area that 2 influence public and agency opinion toward new transportation investments. These discussions 3 have been presented to various groups, communities, and agencies, but are not included on a 4 publicly adopted transportation plan, nor have they begun a NEPA process. They include: 5 ► Rail "Loop" Plan. There is private and community interest in building a rail transit system in the North Front Range that would allow residents in Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland to 7 connect by rail to the FasTracks system, DIA, and each of the three cities. 8 ► Front Range Rail. There is continuing private and citizen interest in rail service that could 9 extend from Wyoming to New Mexico, primarily utilizing the BNSF railroad line for the northern o part of the service. I I ► Prairie Falcon Parkway. There is a private interest pursuing the feasibility of building a new 12 multi-modal facility that would relocate long-distance travelers and freight traffic, including 13 trucks and rail, to the eastern plains of Colorado. 14 The effect of the planning context on the North 1-25 project was substantial. It resulted in: 15 ► Consideration of opportunities for connecting with and potentially interlining with the 16 FasTracks system and Mason Transportation Corridor. 17 ► The need to plan to either connect with additional lanes being built from SH 52 to SH 66 I8 (making a six-lane cross section) or to further expand North 1-25 south of SH 66 (making an 19 eight-lane cross section or greater). 20 ► The need to avoid precluding future freight or passenger rail service on active and abandoned • 21 rail corridors in the regional study area. 22 ► The need to provide a flexible solution south of SH 7 to accommodate improvements planned 23 and included in DRCOG's adopted Metro Vision. 24 2.1.4 Public Input 25 A substantial proactive public and local agency involvement program was conducted to provide 26 input to the alternatives development and evaluation process. This program included: 27 ► Executive Oversight Committee (EOC). An EOC was established, consisting of _'8 representatives from the lead agencies (FHWA and FTA) and CDOT, which met to determine 29 policy decisions relating to the project. The EOC met at key project milestones. 30 ► Regional Coordination Committee (RCC). The RCC was established at the beginning of the 31 project. It consisted of elected officials from the 45 municipalities and counties that chose to 32 participate as well as RTD and the metropolitan planning organizations in the North 1-25 33 regional study area. The RCC met about every other month throughout the study. 34 ► Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC was established at the beginning of the 35 project. It included staff representatives from the 45 municipalities and counties in the regional 36 study area that chose to participate, as well as representatives from RTD, EPA, and 37 metropolitan planning organizations. The TAC met approximately monthly throughout the early 38 part of the study and every other month beginning in 2007. 39 ► Project Website. A project website was established in 2004. • 40 ► Newsletters. Seven issues of the NorthLink newsletters were prepared and distributed to a I I mailing list of 5,007 people. In addition, six issues of an electronic newsletter, E-Link, were 42 e-mailed to an electronic mailing list of 1,632 people. Alternatives 2-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 ► Public Meetings and Working Groups. To date, 27 public meetings or working group • 2 • meetings have been held; 11 in 2004, 4 in 2005, and 12 in 2006. A total of 853 people have attended one or more of these meetings. In addition, 45 interchange working group meetings 4 were held with adjacent property owners between spring and fall 2006 to solicit input regarding 5 interchange layout options. Eight transit station working group meetings were held to solicit input regarding locations for bus and rail transit stations. 7 ► Other Community Meetings. A total of 47 small group meetings were held to provide K presentations to civic organizations, such as Kiwanis, Rotary, and Lions clubs, and other 9 community groups. A total of 11 meetings were held specifically to solicit input about the EIS process from low income and minority groups. I I ► Community Events. Project representatives had booths or participated in a total of 12 17 community events, such as the Taste of Fort Collins and the Milliken Beef and Bean 13 Festival. la This public outreach effort helped the team to understand the various transportation needs in I; northern Colorado and the public's strong desire to see a multi-modal solution included in this 16 Draft EIS, specifically a rail alternative. 17 2.1.5 Alternatives Screening Process 1 8 The alternatives screening process was based on three primary project objectives: (1) address the 19 project's purpose and need, (2) provide a solution that is practical (defined by cost and ability to 20 implement), and (3) avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Evaluation criteria were used to 21 determine how well each alternative could address the project's three objectives. • 22 The criteria were applied to the alternatives three successive times, using increasingly detailed 23 measures, in order to screen and develop the alternatives that were ultimately selected for 24 inclusion in this Draft EIS. Applying the criteria narrowed the range of alternatives considered and 25 provided a means of comparison between them as the project progressed. The three phases of 26 screening were as follows: 27 ► The first phase of screening used select evaluation criteria to eliminate alternatives considered 2$ to have a fatal flaw, such as compromised safety or excessive cost. 20 ► The second phase of screening compared alternatives against each other to identify which 3o met the project's purpose and need and which had the least potential to impact environmental 31 resources. 32 ► The third phase of screening used evaluation criteria such as miles of congestion, accessibility 33 to population and employment centers, cost, and impacts to built and natural resources to 3a identify which combinations or "packages" of alternatives would work best together (that is, 35 create the most mobility benefits with the least redundancy and the least environmental 36 impact). • Alternatives 2.6 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • i 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION 3 The following section describes the three packages (No-Action, Package A, and Package B) that 4 were developed through the screening process. These packages are being fully evaluated in this 5 Draft EIS. A detailed description of the screening and evaluation process used to identify these o three packages is described in sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this chapter. 7 Improvements identified in the three packages assume that currently funded, programmed projects K will be added to the existing transportation system. Some of the key programmed projects include: 9 ► Widening of 1-25 to six lanes from SH 52 to SH 66 o ► Replacement of the SH 66/1-25 interchange ► Modification of the US 34/1-25 interchange to a partial cloverleaf configuration i 2 ► Signalization of the SH 402/1-25 and Prospect Road/l-25 interchange ramp terminals 13 ► Widening and extension of SH 392/1-25 interchange off-ramps to increase storage 14 ► Construction of RTD FasTracks commuter rail lines 1; Construction of the South Transit Center near Mason Street and Harmony Road has received 16 funding. The South Transit Center is part of the Mason Express BRT Project. The Environmental 17 Assessment for this project has been completed, with a Finding of No Significant Impact issued in 18 September, 2008. In addition, the Mason Corridor project was recommended for 2009 funding in • I9 the FTA New Starts report. The Final EIS will likely assume these are in place. 20 2.2.1 No-Action Alternative 21 The No-Action Alternative is a conservative estimate of safety improvements and maintenance 22 requirements that would be necessary if a build alternative were not constructed. It is presented for 23 comparison with the build alternatives in accordance with NEPA requirements. This alternative 24 could have environmental impacts and costs associated with it. It will be evaluated on the same set 25 of criteria as, and compared against, the build alternatives. No-Action Alternative improvements are 26 described below and graphically summarized in Figure 2-2. Typical cross sections for the No- 27 Action Alternative are illustrated in Figure 2-3 through Figure 2-5. f1 2.2.1.1 MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURES 29 From US 36 to SH 1, two structures (at 84th Avenue and 104th Avenue) would require major 30 rehabilitation and 24 structures would require minor rehabilitation by 2030. These are evaluated as 31 part of the No-Action Alternative. 32 2.2.1.2 MAINTENANCE OF PAVEMENT 33 Pavement north of SH 66 would need to be replaced by 2030. Replacement of the pavement is 34 assumed to include milling and replacing the top 6 inches of pavement. Pavement between SH 52 35 and SH 66 will be upgraded as part of a separate action. This pavement maintenance is included 36 and evaluated as part of the No-Action Alternative. • Alternatives 2.7 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. i Figure 2-2 No-Action Alternative III 1 1 1 LEGEND _I1 * Major Structure Rehab by 2030 SKI SH1 -:.x Bier Creek • Minor Structure Rehab by 2030 Wellington 1 Replace / Rehab Pavement by 2030 I • Minor Safety Modifications by 2030 z f3 ' 25 1 S , Vlsid, Mountain Vida,CR 50 FasTracks Rail Line 7 'i:�-,. ? - Au -, I "--"---\ lake Cana Timm Dith,Box Erde�Creek �: Prospect Rd. Prospect rid Fort r ' lins-n S- CS RR 185 SH t t• US 34 � Harmonyqd Cache la,• t AA— • Nnnath r vtane• -Eli H392 : ae Kg L •rn• ti / , LC; I Windsor l7 vG_reele��" I ,.. - 34 tl 7. 4 r ` ;34 E6&WB ; r t,11, _ 34 -ovel d- 20El It� L Cer a �r Lr ° tmw 5 IEv. s aw Johnson%Corner 6 J C ''• u Sall L1d1R! MER Camp on r .l•h , sem �. ' SHBo u � 60 .r SH56. 56 SH ba LIM;Sart lid I ere • , I US 34 t. SH • • _1 Pasn 34 Draw W E L D C 4 r- Platt•vl I CI iI 66 '• ng ont 119 S ` 855 BOULDER I ❑ l n '. 11 ` sinI ■ #trt 36 SZ 52 Road) orP 'ton 11 e.no Eris ❑ � 25 119 Arapahoe.Rf. 38 l � aidi,� -�• � � 1s4thAve.J1 t I + S Sup rlo 136100. rnlo hm w\ ROOM IF4 , a,a.1z: A E470 Ca • • , Cs ores not Thor Pod et . Northwest �2 Rail Corridor S38 f North Metro V I / � 7t /\ F Denv-r 0 2 4 6 8 10 ' ` Union Station i wits North DENVEF; Alternatives 2-8 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 2-3 No-Action Alternative Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 1 to SH 66 2 3 Varies 114' - 156' 4 5 10' 24' 8' Median Varies 8' 24' 10' t > < ) < > < > C > < > < )I 6 Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr 30' - 72' Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr 7 Lanes Lanes 8 9 .�_• 10 12 13 14 15 Figure 24 No-Action Alternative Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 66 to SH 7 16 17 Varies 132' - 180' 12' 37 15' Median Varies 15' 37 12' Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. 4' - 52' Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. 111 . it la i 18 19 20 21 Figure 2-5 No-Action Alternative Typical I-25 Cross Section - South of SH 7 22 23 Varies 114' - 118' 24 25 26 8'-10' < 36' > 12' 17 36' 8'-10' Shldr 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. hldr. 3 Travel Lanes hldr 2' S Alternatives 2-9 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 2.2.1.3 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS • 2 Minor improvements would be necessary to address safety concerns along 1-25. A small amount of 3 improvement can be realized through the installation of traffic signals at ramp terminals that are 4 currently unsignalized. This improvement is included in the No-Action Alternative at SH 1, 5 Mountain Vista, SH 56, SH 60, and WCR 34. At Prospect Road, widening the 1-25 off-ramps is 6 included to minimize queuing into the 1-25 mainline. 7 2.2.1.4 NO-ACTION PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES x Capital cost for the No-Action Alternative is estimated to be approximately $57 million. 9 Additionally, as they do today, the road and structures would require ongoing maintenance. The III annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately $4 million. These estimates and a i I 30-year annualized capital cost estimate are shown in Table 2-1. I2_ Table 2-1 No-Action Cost Estimate Cost Element Cost (2005 dollars) Capital Cost General Purpose Lanes $57M Annualized Capital General Purpose Lanes $4M Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) General Purpose Lanes $4M • M=million 13 I4 • Alternatives 2-10 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 2.2.2 Package A 2 Figure 2-6 illustrates Package A. It includes new general purpose lanes, interchange 3 reconstruction/upgrades, a commuter rail line, commuter bus service, feeder bus service, and 4 congestion management measures. These are described in detail in the following sections. The 5 Package Concept Plans (FHU and Jacobs, 2008b) illustrate the layout of Package A in more detail. 6 2.2.2.1 PACKAGE A NEW GENERAL PURPOSE LANES 7 This package would add one additional general purpose lane from SH 14 to SH 66 for a six-lane n cross section and from SH 52 to E-470 for an eight—lane cross section. North of SH 66, widening 1-25 would include reconstructing the entire interstate cross section and rebuilding it to today's 10 standards. This includes improving horizontal and vertical alignment, widening both the inside and outside shoulders, and reconstructing aging interchanges and structures. Design criteria were i_ established by CDOT for the highway improvements. Design guidelines recommend avoiding use 13 of median barrier where practical. Consistent with the existing wide median and rural setting, the 14 design criteria for the proposed highway improvements includes a grass median for 1-25 north of I5 SH 66. South of SH 52, the interstate cross section has recently been rebuilt; additional widening I6 would generally occur within the median in those locations. Table 2-2 lists the interchange I improvements included in Package A compared to No-Action. IS Frontage roads along 1-25 would be rebuilt approximately where they exist today. At the 19 interchanges, frontage roads would be relocated east or west away from the ramp terminals to 20 address storage and safety concerns at the intersections. Along the 1-25 mainline, the frontage • 21 roads would be offset 40 feet, based on current design standards. 22 Typical 1-25 cross sections are depicted in Figures 2-7 through 2-13. To maintain the ability to 23 accommodate future (post 2030) transportation needs, the grass median would be maintained 24 from SH 52 north. South of SH 52, where the densely urbanized areas abut 1-25, Package A 25 highway widening would occur toward the center using portions of the median. As a safety 26 measure, a tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with an open median. 27 Avoidance and Minimization 25 Minor shifts in 1-25 interchange ramp and frontage road horizontal alignments were used in 29 conceptual design to minimize impacts to wetlands at the following locations: ► WCR 34 ► Prospect Road ► SH 56 ► Harmony Road ► LCR 16 ► SH 14 ► SH 392 30 1-25 horizontal alignment modifications were also made at SH 402 and SH 56 to improve safety. 31 Minor modifications to the 1-25 vertical alignment were implemented to improve safety at SH 56, 32 SH 402 and LCR 16, and to avoid impacts to a historic ditch north of US 34. • Alternatives 2-11 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2-6 Package A a LEGEND 1 New General Purpose Lane Wo on \ (GPL) in Each Direction 1Mountain Vista C • rr - et • - • m -trie • i■ - • 1 New General Purpose Lane i - , 4 • ' ' ' - n • r - • . c - . • in • (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each ' 287 I infr . structur - Direction Fat Collins Downtown Transit Center - BNSF and Maple St. � • Ault 14 Commuter Rail (CR) CSU - Mason St. between University Ave. and W. Pitkin St. Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort •'. 'lin 85 U S 85 South Fort Collins Transit Center - • ""Mason St. and W. Fairway Lane Severest* 57 • Feeder Bus Service �9z, Laura* O Interchange Upgrades 871 !"""'• Greeley - US85 '34 Croccrords BMd and 0 St. Number of Lanes I Love I nd © North Loveland - BNSF and 29th St. . South Greeley - * Greele 8th Ave. and O Commuter Bus Station / Stop Downtown Loveland - BNSF and i 24th St. approximately 6th St. 02 + C Garda City O V 57 Eva Evans US 85 Commuter Rail Station \CR,e + CR so and 42nd St. 60 - La Salle lA R l ivl t is C s " Ja\estswe FasTracks Rail Line ' - 60 Berthoud BNSF and SH 56 {its f Milken 0 FasTracks / RTD Transit Station erthoud Gaon J Potential Commuter Rail i • Operational & Maintenance I Facility 36 ` CR34 North Longmont - BNSF and SH 66 _ Mead Plattevll Potential Commuter Bus .1,7_, se, Platteville - US 85 and Grand Ave. Operational & Maintenance Longmont at Sugar P411 - North of Facility Longmont I alignment.south of Rogers Rd. 119 36 T. 185 , BOULDER • Fir.st.s. 19 �, eidetic.' ;287 wet (52 Fort Lupton - US 85 and CR 14.5 O I-25 and WCR B - NW i 52 Fort corner of 1-25 and CR 8 wcR s• Diem minim Erie �g - oulder �s Laf yetis i 7 ) � eTh 93 36 Levis , • ea c.•t awn. :S Right-of-Way, Northwest 5 Preservation Rail Corridor sand* • Bros eld MI ten Cri a* `r r • n n0 I m • I - m - nt `— w`� .r North Metro E470 Denver O Corridor Iwternetion al N • ' 4 Ctr • n Airport It - rn - tiv - 611hAv,� 2 • r . j - cts 12,1 —t r O! a.---\JEFFER r - 1 Denve 4 Union on •tenon 40 ?I (7\1 / fi V� Denier, Z\ I 0 2 4 ? 8 j1l,Idr•, N orth Alternatives 2-12 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2-7 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 1 to SH 14 152' 12'1< 24' f 12' 56' Median 24' 12' ( < > t > 412', t > < Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr Lanes Lanes 2 3 Figure 2-8 Package A Typical 1-25 Cross Section - SH 14 to Crossroads Boulevard 176' 4 e 5 12' 36' 12' 56' Median 12' 36' 12' ( >K J < J C ) > < 6 shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. 7 9 10 11 12 13 Figure 2-9 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - Crossroads Boulevard to SH 60 200' 14 15 12' 12' 36' 17 56' Median 12' 36' >412' >412'). 16 Shldr Aux. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr hldr. 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr. Lane Lane 17 18I I esai 19 20 21 22 23 Figure 2-10 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 60 to SH 66 176' 24 J 25 26 17 36' 56' Median 12' 36' 12' < > 4 >417). 4 > ( f 1 ) > 27 Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. .e- 28 .P 29 30 •� a . - 31 — - - 32 33 34 Figure 2-11 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section (same as No-Action) - 35 SH 66 to SH 52 184' < > <12', 37 p, 15' , <56' Median 3 15' > ! 3T > <12r Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. Shldr. 3 Travel Lanes Shldr. Alternatives 2-13 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. I Figure 2-12 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 52 to SH 7 184' 12' 48' 12' 40' Median 112' 48' 3. 12' Shldr. 4 Travel Lanes a hldr. Shldr. 4 Travel Lanes Shldr. 4 ler ii: 2 3 4 Figure 2-13 Package A Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 7 to E-470 5 6 170' L 7 26' Median 8 12' 12' 48' 17 12' 48' 12' 12' 9 Shldr. Aux. 4 Travel Lanes a Shldr. Shldr. 4 Travel Lanes a Aux. Shldr. 10 Lane 2' Lane 12 13 14 2.2.2.2 PACKAGE A INTERCHANGES ' 15 A reconstructed diamond interchange that increases capacity and meets current design standards 16 could accommodate projected 2030 traffic volumes at most existing interchange locations for the 17 lowest cost. At locations where environmental considerations, traffic volumes, or property impacts 18 were unfavorable for a typical diamond configuration, other configurations were selected. These 19 are described below. Table 2-2 summarizes the interchange improvements associated with 20 Package A. A more detailed description of the interchange configurations considered and the 21 screening process is included in Section 2.4.1 of this document. For detailed information about 22 each interchange refer to the Transportation Analysis Technical Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008c). Alternatives 2.14 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 2-2 Package A Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action Existing Interchange No-Action Package A Location Configuration Improvement SH 1 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Mountain Vista substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 14 substandard partial cloverleaf reconstructed diamond Prospect Road substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Harmony Road standard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 392 substandard diamond reconstructed tight diamond Crossroads Boulevard substandard cloverleaf reconstructed diamond US 34 substandard diamond dual directional/diamond SH 402 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond LCR 16 substandard off ramps reconstructed diamond SH 60 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 56 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond WCR 34 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 66 standard diamond no improvement SH 119 standard diamond bridge widening • SH 52 standard diamond bridge widening WCR 8 standard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 7 standard diamond reconstructed diamond E-470 fully directional no improvement 144th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 136th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 120th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 104th Avenue substandard diamond structure rehabilitation Thornton Parkway substandard diamond structure rehabilitation 84th Avenue substandard diamond structure rehabilitation • Alternatives 2-15 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 2-14 SH 14 Interchange a 2 SH 14 r -it I ; 3 An enhanced new diamond interchange s, 4 with northbound to westbound triple left- Cif. : ! , 5 turns would accommodate the projected r, • \ I l - 6 2030 traffic volumes . However, to minimize All-Ways.' , IF - fri s 7 impacts to the properties in the southwest t$T°P . w; 8 quadrant, special consideration for - - ;. 14 9 placement of the frontage roads along 1-25 _ _ . ,-:. ■ter : 1 -. ••10 and along SH 14 was required . As shown in An-wax ; kt- tin 1 1 Figure 2-14, the southwest frontage road .- . sTOP , ,. 12 would be pulled in close to 1-25 and i ; LEGEND 0 13 restricted to one-way southbound '' [ ` ` / _ - Roadway North 14 movement. The SH 14 frontage road/I-25 _ ' ► , 15 west frontage road intersection just west of V 9 ..', i - r Impact Line - � 16 the southbound ramps would be grade- t { _f Structures 17 separated at SH 14 . Though Stockton �' s~ ' 1 i - II Traffic Signal 18 Avenue at SH 14 would be signalized , it ,.. , . Stop Sign r 19 would be restricted to right-in/right-out : ', 5r, 20 movement. ; ;l .► , -- °` _ 21 22 23 24 Figure 2-15 SH 392 Interchange 1 25 SH 392 26 Because of wetlands and bald eagle roosting l , t . `i� ' ki 27 sites in the northwest quadrant of this • . r� 28 interchange a tight diamond is proposed . This EiN 29 configuration avoids impacting the roosting sir . 30 sites and minimizes impacts to the wetlands . - - 3.4.- ; is 31 The proposed interchange configuration is in Y (t_c_j !3 t 32 Figure 2-15. This configuration would reduce 33 the spacing from the standard 660 feet to 34 450 feet between ramp terminals . This was LEGEND pN ►f 35 determined to be an acceptable mitigation - Roadway North i ` 4114; 36 measure because overall interchange . t : ... , 6,,,f4,40 37 operation would continue to be LOS D or Impact Line r f,` 38 better during both peak hours in 2030. Both =4 Structures T r 4 _ , 4 39 ramp termini would be signalized as well as El Traffic Signal 40 the two frontage road intersections with Z Stop Sign 41 SH 392/Carpenter Road . I Alternatives 2-16 NORTH 1-25 OlIM Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation transportation. IlFigure 2-16 US 34 Interchange • US 34 -, _ , , . kt., __-. , As the primary interchange access/egress il .4 ttnr N 1 -` point for Loveland and Greeley, projected g: -. , volumes at this interchange exceed the x` '-{�{�('� t'~°►. oil. '�, CFt ,�t��- � ,_. ` i, J1 6 volumes that can be handled by a typical �,-_ .r 7 diamond interchange . In order to achieve - d r 8 an acceptable level-of-service (LOS) and LEGEND v\4 '� ; I. 9 maintain access to the existing and rapidly D ;t '; 1 a � Roadway North I / f � = q \ ,_ � 10 growing commercial development centers Impact Line • 11 at this interchange, a new dual ,:-,,,; • — Structures i Ifr ' i 12 directional/diamond interchange with 0 Traffic Signal I _3__ -- _ 13 single-point urban interchanges at adjacent c Stop Sign 14 intersections is proposed . Direct-connect 15 ramps are planned for southbound-to-eastbound movement, northbound-to-westbound movement, 16 and westbound-to-southbound movement. As shown in Figure 2-16 these would provide access to 17 trips destined to Loveland and Greeley. The eastbound-to-northbound ramp was eliminated to avoid 18 impacts to a historic property located south of US 34 and west of 1-25 . This was determined to be an 19 acceptable mitigation measure because overall interchange operation would continue to be LOS D 20 or better during both peak hours in 2030 . The diamond interchange would include dual left-turn 21 lanes and exclusive right-turn lanes and would provide local access to the developments adjacent to 22 the interchange . 03 24 25 Figure 2-17 SH 402 Interchange 26 SH 402 27 A new diamond interchange with additional 28 lanes on the ramps at SH 402 would 29 accommodate anticipated 2030 demand . , K..._\ . 30 This is shown in Figure 2-17 . The ry _ r 31 interchange upgrade would also include - 32 reversing the grade separation between 402 33 SH 402 and 1-25. Today, 1-25 is on P 34 a structure and passes over the top of LEGEND 35 SH 402 . The proposed configuration �- 36 reverses this so that SH 402 would pass Roadway Northr. 37 over 1-25. This reconfiguration would improve Impact Line - 38 the vertical alignment and safety of 1-25 at Structures 39 this location . - . • UTraffic Signal . 4I 40 Z Stop Sign r. Alternatives 2-17 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation Figure 2-18 LCR 16 Interchange LCR 16 Similar to SH 402 , the profile of LCR 16 would be modified to go over I- 25, thereby improving the vertical .. 6 alignment of 1-25 . In addition , on-ramps 7 that are not included in today's • ---, 8 configuration would be added to - % ; __Johnson's Cornet 9 improve accessibility and operation at 10 this interchange . This is shown in LEGEND 1 i Figure 2-18 . 0 - North Roadway -, 2 \ 12 Impact Line this ji _ Structures - 1 3 U Traffic Signal •: Z Stop Sign 14 15 16 Figure 2-19 SH 56 Interchange 18 SH 56 Al 20 A new diamond interchange with additional • 22 lanes on the ramps at SH 56 would , 24 accommodate anticipated 2030 demand . 26 While the design itself is fairly straightforward . ii121;\.28 this interchange upgrade also would include 30 reversing the grade separation between32 SH 56 and 1-25 . Today, 1-25 passes under i • ss 34 SH 56 . The proposed configuration would 36 reverse this so that 1-25 would pass over LEGEND N 1 1 38 SH 56, as shown in Figure 2-19 . This North Roadway \\ kg" 40 reconfiguration would improve the vertical 42 alignment and safety of I-25 at this location . Impact Line L_—I Structures 4-4 Ll Traffic Signal Z Stop Sign I Alternatives 2-18 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Figure 2-20 SH 7 Interchange 2 SH 7 . a , i ii 3 The SH 7 interchange is depicted in Figure 2- ,. t - 4 20. A new diamond interchange with free right- w ", 5 turn movements from the off ramps to SH 7 can - " . = ,)v 6 accommodate 2030 projected traffic demand . E c J r ,tip \it 7 However, the City and County of Broomfield and -'� ,., 8 the City of Thornton have expressed a desire for _ _ , p - 9 a partial cloverleaf configuration (loop ramps for I r_--: h 10 the westbound-to-southbound and eastbound- LEGEND N 11 to-northbound movements) provided at this - Roadway North • 41h, 12 location . To accommodate this request, without -`> Impact Line . 13 substantially increasing the impacts or .4 Firl Structures 14 expenditure for this project, ramp terminal ' p g Traffic Signal �1 15 spacing has been increased to 1 , 150 feet. This to Stop Sign 16 spacing would allow local governments to - - - 17 modify this interchange to a partial cloverleaf design in the future without major reconstruction of the 18 interchange . 20 2.2.2.3 PACKAGE A COMMUTER RAIL WHAT IS 22 Package A track design would be built to locomotive hauled coach COMMUTER RAIL? 24 specifications to be the most flexible in accommodating different 6 rail vehicles. The service is assumed to operate with diesel A passenger rail service W�8 multiple unit vehicles, similar to those assumed in the FasTracks that often operates within freight rail right-of-way and 30 plan to maintain interoperability. serves regional trips. It may use locomotives with 32 A regional transit operator has not yet been identified to operate passenger cars or self- 34 the commuter rail service . propelled passenger cars, known as diesel multiple 36 The commuter rail service would run every 30 minutes during the units. Commuter rail trains 38 AM and PM peak periods when demand is highest and every hour could be diesel-powered 40 in the off-peak periods . Hours of operation are assumed to be 4:00 (most common) or 42 AM to 1 :30 AM . Service to Denver would travel through Longmont electrically-powered . 44 and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor; a transfer would 46 not be necessary. To reach Boulder, northern Colorado riders 47 would transfer to the Northwest (NW) Rail Corridor at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont. 48 While specific fares have not yet been identified , the typical national average commuter rail peak 49 period fare is $0 .22 per mile. Based on this rate, it would cost a rider about $ 14.00 one way to 50 travel from the Fort Collins South Transit Center to Denver Union Station . 51 Fort Collins to Longmont 52 As part of Package A, a double-tracked commuter rail system would be developed from 53 downtown Fort Collins at University Avenue and Maple Street along the BNSF right-of-way to 54 3rd Street in downtown Longmont, using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track. 55 New commuter rail track would be added to the east of the existing freight track and both sets of W6 tracks would be used by commuter rail and freight rail . On the alignment's northern end in Fort 7 Collins from Mason Street and University Avenue to Mason Street and Maple Street, commuter 58 rail service would be added to the existing single-track BNSF line . Alternatives 2-19 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 1 An additional double-track segment would be constructed in Longmont between the Sugar Mill • 2 station and the proposed Northwest Rail Corridor end-of-line at 1st and Terry to allow FasTracks 3 proposed Northwest Rail Corridor service to be extended to the North 1-25 rail corridor. 4 Avoidance and Minimization 5 Retaining walls were added along the east side of the commuter rail alignment to minimize 6 impacts to wetlands along the corridor and avoid impacts to a historic structure north of Prospect 7 Road in Fort Collins. The new second track was eliminated for a 500-foot segment of the S corridor in Loveland to avoid the historic Loveland Depot and in a second location — adjacent to 9 a historic residential property at 122 8th Avenue in Longmont. This results in bi-directional service 10 along the existing single-track BNSF line near the proposed Loveland station and adjacent to the residential property in Longmont. 12 Longmont to Thornton I3 In addition, a new double track commuter rail line would be built from 3rd Street south and east 14 to FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line in Thornton. Nineteen alternatives were analyzed 15 for this alignment in order to identify the best rail connection from Longmont to the proposed I o FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line at 162nd Avenue. The selected alignment follows 17 the BNSF and GWRR tracks from 3rd Street southeast to the Sugar Mill site, then east along the 18 south side of SH 119 to CR 7, where it would turn south along CR 7 to the Union Pacific Railroad 19 (UPRR). Once the alignment meets the railroad, it follows the UPRR corridor east across 1-25 20 and then southeast to the North Metro Corridor end-of-line at 162nd Avenue. This alignment was 21 chosen because relative to other options it: 22 ► Avoided sensitive wildlife and water resources associated with St. Vrain and Left Hand • creeks, including two active bald eagle nests. 24 ► Avoided two resources on the north side of SH 119, including a community facility which 25 serves as a home for at-risk youth and an eligible historic property, the Dickens House. 26 ► Minimized out-of-direction travel, utilized more existing rail corridors and avoided more utilities. 28 ► Had 22 fewer residential right-of-way acquisitions and fewer impacts to one existing park, 29 and 2 open space properties and wetlands associated with 5 additional creek crossings. 30 Appendix F of the Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2008a) 31 provides a detailed, quantitative comparison of the 19 alignments considered between Longmont 32 and Thornton. 33 Single Tracking 34 A phasing or reduced cost option was considered for the entire commuter rail corridor. This 35 option of single tracking, or jointly using the existing freight rail corridor for passenger service as 36 well, is consistent with some commuter rail projects that have been implemented across the 37 country, such as in Seattle, Albuquerque, San Jose and San Diego. It is also consistent with 38 portions of the approved Denver FasTracks projects, which have very recently been subject to 39 cost-cutting measures such as single tracking. RTD has developed this option for cost-cutting 40 (along with other options such as cutting certain corridors back in overall length) to provide more 41 limited rail service in a corridor while saving capital costs of building an entire second track and • 42 operating costs of scaling back train operations to focus on the peak periods of travel only. The 43 single tracking option is being considered, along with other cost-cutting options and options to 44 increase available funding, by RTD on the Northwest Rail commuter rail corridor, the North Alternatives 2.20 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. Metro commuter rail corridor, the 1-225 light rail corridor and portions of the Gold Line commuter •2 rail Corridor. RTD is already implementing this cost cutting measure on the West Corridor (light 3 rail)for a short section, from the Denver Federal Center to the Jefferson County Government 4 Center end of line. The single tracking options that were considered for the North 1-25 project are fully documented 6 in the Alternatives Development and Screening Report—Appendix I (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). 7 Two options were developed. Both included use of single tracking from the 1st and Terry Station 8 in Longmont to the South Transit Center in Fort Collins. Both assumed fairly limited rail service 9 of three trips per direction in each peak period and no service during the rest of the day. Both 10 assumed a reduced number of stations (four instead of eight.) Both assumed limited passing I I tracks that would be provided. Both applied only to the Longmont to Fort Collins component of 12 the commuter rail (Component A-T1) because that is the only component that had operating 13 freight rail service. The difference between the two options was that one option would require a 14 transfer at 1st and Terry to continue into downtown Denver. The second assumed that 15 passengers could get on a train from Fort Collins and continue into Denver via Boulder without 16 needing to transfer to a second train in Longmont. 7 These options were not advanced to full analysis in this Draft EIS because of the very noticeable I s reductions in ridership that would result. The reductions in ridership would occur due to: I9 ► The substantial reduction in service provided (a reduction from trains running every thirty 20 minutes during peak periods and every hour during off-peak periods to only three trips every 21 peak period and no trains during off-peak periods. This reduction means rather than a train 41 every thirty minutes during a peak period there would be a train every sixty minutes); and 23 ► The reduction in travel time because the current freight rail only allows for a maximum speed 24 of 49 mph; and 25 ► The reduction in number of stations. 26 These reductions in ridership (from approximately 5850 with Package A to around 1000 with one 27 of the single tracking options and around 250 with another single tracking option) made single 28 tracking uncompetitive with the other transit options in this Draft EIS and thus this option was not 29 advanced in this Draft EIS. 30 Because these options would not include constructing a new track adjacent to the existing freight 31 rail track, they would result in substantially less construction and thus result in substantially less 32 impact to environmental impacts. Less right of way would be needed from parks and historic 33 properties, which would reduce impacts to resources protected by the National Historic 34 Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the DOT Act. At river crossings, since there would be no 35 new track, no new bridges or culverts would be needed, so there would be fewer temporary and 36 permanent impacts to wetlands and waters of the US. Noise and vibration impacts would be 37 lessened for residences adjacent to the new track, but about the same as Package A impacts for 38 residences adjacent to the freight rail track. Water quality impacts would not be much different 39 except at station areas, because there would be fewer stations. Wildlife habitat impacts would 40 be lessened with the single track options because substantially less habitat would be 4 I permanently removed due to fill for the new track. From a social standpoint, however, these 42 options would not provide as much service to low income and minority populations and to the 43 general population. It would be more difficult for new riders or transit dependent riders to use the 04 system since stations would be farther apart. The system would also be operating so 45 infrequently that its usefulness as a mode of transportation would be compromised. Alternatives 2-21 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. I The estimate of capital costs is that costs for commuter rail could be reduced approximately in . 2 half—from around $625 million (just for component A-T1, which is commuter rail from Fort 3 Collins to Longmont) to around $250 to $300 million. These estimates are very general. The 4 annual operating costs would also be expected to be substantially lower. While the single tracking options that were evaluated were not considered competitive with the 6 other transit alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIS, these or other similar options may have 7 merit as phasing options (see phasing discussion on page 2-52). If commuter rail is selected as x part of the preferred alternative, these cost cutting options will be evaluated further in the Final 9 EIS. All of the cost cutting options would have reduced impacts when compared to commuter rail 10 defined as part of Package A. All of them would also have reduced levels of service for transit i I patrons. Other possible options that can be considered include: 12 ► A single tracking option with more frequent train service, including passing track to allow I3 directional service 14 ► Track upgrades to improve travel time I; ► Double tracking for portions of the corridor with single tracking for other portions of the 16 corridor 1 7 ► An increase in number of stations assumed in the single tracking options that were I8 considered but not as many as were evaluated in Package A 19 ► Assuming a double tracked configuration but stopping short of the current end of line in Fort 20 Collins. This is similar to one of the options currently being considered as a cost-cutting 21 measure for the FasTracks system. • 22 Grade Crossings 23 The track design includes grade crossing treatments, as described below. 24 Table 2-3 summarizes the grade crossing improvements included in Package A. The table uses 25 the following terms: 26 ► Passive: A crossing with signs and pavement markings as traffic control devices that are not 27 activated by trains. 28 ► Gates: A crossing that consists of lights, bells, and moveable barriers on the highway 29 approaches that are activated by trains. 30 ► Four quadrant gates with medians: A crossing that includes all elements of the gated 31 crossing plus a raised center divider to further discourage vehicles from entering the 32 crossing. 33 ► Grade separation: A crossing that includes constructing a rail overpass or overpass for cars, 34 trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians, eliminating the need to cross at-grade. 35 Special consideration has been given to downtown Longmont, where the existing BNSF 36 alignment runs in the median of Atwood Street between 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue. In this 37 area, minor roadway improvements would be made to enable the installation of the second track, 38 and the grade crossings would be upgraded as shown in the grade crossing table. The existing 39 BNSF tracks run in a dense urban / campus area between Harmony Road and University 40 Avenue in Fort Collins. Similar minor roadway and grade crossing improvements would be • 41 made in this area. Between Maple Street and University Avenue, the single BNSF track would 42 be in Mason Street. This area would be maintained as a single track with grade crossing 43 improvements as part of the project. Alternatives 2.22 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-3 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments LOCATION EXISTING PACKAGE A BNSF—Maple Street- Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Laporte Avenue - Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF— Mountain Avenue- Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Oak Street- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF-Olive Street- Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Magnolia Street- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—Mulberry Street- Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Myrtle Street- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—Laurel Street- Fort Collins Lights Gates BNSF—Old Main/Plum Street- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF— University Avenue - Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF— Pitkin Street- Fort Collins Gates Gates BNSF—Lake Street- Fort Collins Passive Gates BNSF—Prospect Road - Fort Collins Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Drake Road - Fort Collins Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF-Swallow Road - Fort Collins Gates Gates BNSF— Horsetooth Road - Fort Collins Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF— Harmony Road - Fort Collins Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians • BNSF—Trilby Road—SE Larimer Co. Gates Gates BNSF—West 57th St. - SE Larimer Co. Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—West 37th Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF—West 29th Street- Loveland Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Garfield Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-US 34 - Loveland Grade separation Grade Separation BNSF - 10th Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-7th Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-6th Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-4th Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF— 1st Street- Loveland Gates Gates BNSF-South Railroad Avenue—SE Larimer Co. Gates Gates S Alternatives 2-23 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 2-3 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments (cont'd) . LOCATION EXISTING PACKAGE A BNSF- 14th Street SW-SE Larimer Co. Gates with barrier curbs 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF-28th Street SW/ LCR 16-SE Larimer Co. Gates Gates BNSF—42nd Street SW—SE Larimer Co. Gates Gates BNSF-US 287-SE Larimer Co. Grade separation Grade separation BNSF— Berthoud Road/ LCR 10E - Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF—Water Ave/LCR 10 - Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF— Bunyan Avenue - Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF—Mountain Avenue/SH 56 - Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF—Welch Avenue— Berthoud Gates Gates BNSF— LCR 15a— NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF—LCR 15a —NE Boulder Co. Gates Gates BNSF—LCR 2E— NE Boulder Co. Gates Gates BNSF— North County Line Rd. —NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF-North 115th St. —NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF—Vermillion Road— NE Boulder Co. Passive Gates BNSF— Ute Highway/SH 66 - Longmont Gates Gates BNSF—21st Avenue - Longmont Gates Gates BNSF— 17th Avenue - Longmont Gates with barrier curbs 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF—Mountain View Ave. - Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—9th Avenue - Longmont Passive Gates • BNSF—Longs Peak Avenue - Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—6th Avenue - Longmont Passive Gates BNSF— 5th Avenue - Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—4th Avenue - Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—3rd Avenue- Longmont Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF— Emery Street- Longmont Passive Gates BNSF— Main Street- Longmont Gates 4-quadrant gates with medians BNSF— Coffman Street-Longmont Passive Gates BNSF—Terry Street- Longmont Passive Gates BNSF - Martin Street- Longmont Passive Gates GWR—Sugar Mill Road - Longmont Passive Gates GWR—Sugar Mill Road - Longmont Passive Gates SH 119- Longmont N/A Grade separation East County Line Road —SW Weld Co. N/A 4-quadrant gates with medians WCR 119—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Fairview Street/Sandstone Dr.—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 3— SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 5—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Harbor Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Shoreline Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 20.5—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates • WCR 20—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates 2 Alternatives 2-24 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-3 Package A Train/Roadway Grade Crossing Treatments (cont'd) LOCATION EXISTING PACKAGE A Private Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Private Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Private Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 18—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Private Drive—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Lower Boulder Ditch Road —SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 16—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates Wyndham Hill Parkway—SW Weld Co. N/A Grade separation SH 52-SW Weld Co. N/A Grade separation WCR 12—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates WCR 7—SW Weld Co. N/A Gates UPRR -WCR 10-SW Weld Co. Passive Gates UPRR- 1-25— SW Weld Co. Grade separation Grade separation UPRR- 1-25 East Frontage Rd—SW Weld Co. Grade separation Grade separation UPRR- Summit Blvd. /WCR 8—SW Weld Co. Passive Gates UPRR -York Street/WCR 11 —SW Weld Co. Passive Gates UPRR -WCR 6—SW Weld Co. Passive Gates UPRR- East 168th Avenue—SW Weld Co. Passive Gates • ' 12.2.4 PACKAGE A COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 3 Once the commuter rail alignment was determined, a station site selection process was set in 4 motion. Seventeen potential station locations were identified and evaluated using a set of screening 5 criteria that screened if the potential station location met the following criteria: 6 ► Serves a population center 7 ► Provides east/west access across the regional study area s ► Supported by existing transit infrastructure 0 ► Has committee and stakeholder support 0 A transit working group that consisted of the general public and municipality representatives met 3 I 1 times throughout the station design process. At the first transit working group meeting the potential 12 station locations were presented to this group. As a result additional stations were added and 13 screened out per their input. As a result of the station site selection process seventeen potential 14 station locations were screened down to nine new stations and a connection to two existing RTD 15 stations. 16 After determining the general vicinity of station locations, a more detailed evaluation was conducted 1 7 for each station location. The primary criteria were: minimal neighborhood and environmental I s impacts, connectivity, opportunity for joint development, and compatibility with adjacent land use. A I9 more detailed description of the station sites considered and the screening process is included in 20 Section 2.4.2 of this document and a full description of the station screening process is found in the 21 Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). As a result, a preferred W22 site(s) was identified at each station to house the platform, park-and-ride and bus activity. Table 2-4 23 lists the stations included in Package A along the commuter rail alignment. The connection at the 24 Sugar Mill station in Longmont would allow patrons to transfer to FasTracks proposed Northwest Alternatives 2.25 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information, cooperation transportation. i Rail Corridor. Patrons remaining on the train would continue southeast, eventually traveling along • 2 the FasTracks North Metro Corridor into downtown Denver. While the Package A commuter rail 3 would serve all of the planned North Metro Corridor stations, it does not include any additional 4 improvements at these stations. 5 The station design at the South Transit Center in Fort Collins was developed before funding was 6 committed for that project. Therefore, the North 1-25 station design does not incorporate the Mason 7 Corridor South Transit Center. As detailed engineering occurs for the South Transit Center, the r North 1-25 EIS process will coordinate with the Mason Corridor to appropriately accommodate both 9 projects. 10 Table 2-4 Package A Commuter Rail Stations Station Name Location Parking Spaces Fort Collins Downtown Transit BNSF and Maple Street 100 Center Colorado State University (CSU) On Mason Street between none University Avenue and West Pitkin Street South Fort Collins Transit Center Mason Street and West Fairway 110 Lane North Loveland BNSF and 29th Street 140 Downtown Loveland BNSF and approximately 6th Street 40 Berthoud BNSF and SH 56 70 . North Longmont BNSF and SH 66 30 Longmont at Sugar Mill North of alignment, south of Rogers 150 Road 1-25 and WCR 8 NW corner of 1-25 and CR 8 210 FasTracks North Metro Corridor All planned FasTracks North Metro No new spaces Corridor stations proposed as part of this project 11 The station layout proposed two side loaded platforms within the double-tracked alignment, with 12 vertical circulation for pedestrian access across the tracks connecting the platform to the park-and- 13 ride and surrounding community as shown in Figure 2-21 and Figure 2-22. For additional 14 information on the commuter rail station process, refer to the Alternatives Development and 5 Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). • Alternatives 2-26 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Figure 2-21 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Design AV . . do ` -art ' :Ig .., 1 _ - s e;rir . , _Ifni II 2; • • it .d 1 1 _ 11 a . ' :i I..I , I el; ..,..I a r • • NM • 3 4 Figure 2-22 Package A Typical Commuter Rail Station Cross Section 5 ' I 19' 8" > 5.�-' 4>� 25' 5 lit >' 4 19' 8" '1 7 I PLATFORM PLATFORM 8 9 ZN / 10 II _ C in 11 d 12 C 13 I C C 14 _ - _ C I 15 = = 16 1 8 f c -, , ' , _ if t 19 8' E 8' ' 20 I TRACKS TRACKS 21 I 50' I 50' 4i PARK-AND-RIDE 24 25 • Alternatives 2-27 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 2.2.2.5 PACKAGE A COMMUTER RAIL MAINTENANCE FACILITY • 2 The layout of the commuter rail maintenance facility would require a minimum of 30 acres, 3 including facilities for vehicle maintenance, cleaning, fueling and storage; track maintenance; 4 parts storage; and vehicle operator facilities. The commuter rail maintenance facility would 5 accommodate an estimated 90 employees. The potential locations are: 6 ► Vine Drive and Timberline Road in Fort Collins 7 ► CR 46 and US 287 in Berthoud s The site identified in Fort Collins is 76.1 acres, while the site identified in Berthoud is 61.6 acres. 9 Either could accommodate the necessary uses. They are being evaluated as part of Package A to 10 determine the most favorable location based on impacts to environmental resources, community impacts, and costs. 12 The commuter rail service defined in Package A will serve as an extension of planned RTD 13 services. The RTD commuter rail maintenance facility planning process has not proceeded far 14 enough to evaluate the feasibility of using that facility to maintain the additional vehicles required I5 for Package A commuter rail service. In addition, it is probable that an overnight layover facility 16 within the North 1-25 study area will be required even if trains are maintained within the RTD area. 17 Hence, it has been assumed that a maintenance facility will be required as part of the North 1-25 18 process to ensure the independent utility of Package A. 19 2.2.2.6 PACKAGE A COMMUTER BUS 20 Package A includes a commuter bus service along US 85 WHAT IS • 21 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA. This COMMUTER BUS? 22 service would operate every 30 minutes in AM and PM 23 peak hours and every hour during off-peak periods. Commuter bus service is 24 Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at regional transit service with 25 some signalized intersections, would be included to help limited stops in order to 26 achieve reliable speeds for bus services. operate faster than other bus services. This type of transit 27 Queue jumps typically require modifying an intersection service usually operates on 2s to provide a short lane for the bus between the right-turn roads designated as arterials 29 lane and the through lanes. Signal equipment also would or higher and has park-and- 30 be upgraded to sense the presence of a bus and provide ride facilities located at its 31 a short signal phase where the bus is able to travel stops. 32 through the intersection first, bypassing the queued 33 traffic. Intersection control, traffic volumes, speed limits, 34 road configuration, and community plans were taken into consideration when recommending 35 locations for queue jumps. Additional information on queue jump location screening is available in 36 the Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). 37 The following queue jump or transit signal enhancement locations are included in Package A 38 along the US 85 corridor: • Alternatives 2.28 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • ► 31st Street— Evans ► CR 34 — Platteville ► 136th Avenue — Brighton ► 37th Street— Evans ► Grand Avenue (CR 32)— ► 124th Avenue — Brighton ► 42nd Street— Evans Platteville ► 120th Avenue - 1st Avenue LaSalle ► SH 66 — Platteville Commerce City ► CR 42 — Gilcrest/ ► 168th Avenue — Brighton ► 112th Avenue — Weld County ► Bromley Lane — Brighton Commerce City ► Elm Street— Gilcrest ► 144th Avenue — Brighton ► 104th Avenue - Commerce City I While specific fares have not been identified, a review of commuter bus systems nationwide 2 indicates that a typical fare would be about $0.12 per mile. Based on this rate, it would cost a rider 3 traveling from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver approximately $6.60 one-way. 4 A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the commuter bus service. However, in the 5 southern front range a similar commuter style service is operated by the City of Colorado Springs in partnership with the other communities served. This would indicate that one of the local transit 7 providers in the area (Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins) could operate this service. S 2.2.2.7 PACKAGE A COMMUTER BUS STATIONS AND STOPS 9 Station design for commuter bus assumed that the passenger would access the bus from the I o proposed park-and-ride or an on-street bus stop with no formal platform. The station site selection I I process was similar to those applied to the commuter rail stations. Thirteen potential station lip 2 locations were screened down to five new stations and connections to four existing RTD stations— I ; Brighton, Commerce City, downtown Denver and DIA. No improvements are proposed at these 14 stations as part of this EIS. i 5 A range of two to thirteen sites were evaluated for each station location. As a result of the station I c. site evaluation one preferred site was identified at each station to house the park-and-ride and bus 1- activity. A more detailed description of the station sites considered and the screening process is I included in Section 2.4.2 of this document and a full description of the station screening process is 19 found in the Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). 20 Table 2-5 lists the station sites and stops for the commuter bus service. 1 Table 2-5 Package A Commuter Bus Stations and Stops Station/Stop Name Description Parking Spaces Greeley US 85 and D Street 40 South Greeley 8th Avenue and 24th Street 80 Evans US 85 and 42nd Street 70 Platteville US 85 and Grand Avenue 60 Fort Lupton US 85 and CR 14.5 110 Brighton US 85 and SH 7 Existing RTD park-n-Ride Commerce City Colorado Blvd and 72nd Ave. Proposed RTD park-n-Ride Denver Downtown Denver 0 • DIA Denver International Airport 0 Alternatives 2.29 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. During the AM peak hours, southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via the North 1-25 express lanes and go into downtown using 19th Street, turning southwest on Arapahoe and I providing stops at 17th and 15th Streets . From there, buses would turn right on 15th Street, left at Little Raven Street, and proceed to Elitch Gardens to layover before making the return trip. Downtown circulation is shown in Figure 2-23 . This downtown route is similar to the route of the current Front Range Express (FREX) bus from Colorado Springs to Denver. During hours when the reversible express lane flow is headed northbound , southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via the 20th Street interchange , take 20th to Arapahoe, and follow the remainder of the route described above . i N Figure 2-23 Commuter Bus Downtown Denver Circulation 4007, 'HI it 87 I ' . 11 \ t/ 4.7 II 46> •\ . ...J' / ..4\' /HI - eto . q / .. .,..... 4 of / O/I / Coors ‘ J Field / % // / • r • • /( . . Union 7.14 a ---•.0 . A'VStation . / • es, (Amtrak)# .,>s # .: \e/./ e* \ PI, , ,te . 4,. x 40 tr 4e :! o , € :: X41 $ir �` Lf itch .-n. � te.SI Gardens CPI ea 4/4) • °Th S L Pepsi <be N. r UPS.- f Center '' - .+ / 1 AUR:IRLA \CAMPUS /\ fi Z\ /SC North Alternatives 2-30 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I During the PM peak hours, northbound buses would exit downtown Denver by turning right out of 2_ Elitch Gardens onto 15th Street, turning right again to access 14th Street and eventually turning 3 left on Lawrence Street, picking up passengers at 15th and 17th Streets, and proceed to the 1-25 4 HOV entrance ramp on 20th Street. During hours when the reversible express lane flow is headed 5 southbound, northbound buses would access 1-25 via the 20th Street interchange. n Planned improvements at Denver Union Station may allow these buses to access and egress the 7 HOV lanes from 18th and 19th Streets and serve Denver Union Station via Wewatta Street. In s addition, provided there is enough space, the commuter bus service may also be able to layover 9 at Denver Union Station before making the return trip instead of traveling the extra distance to 10 Elitch Gardens. These possible connections could be further evaluated as planning for II Denver Union Station moves forward. 12 2.2.2.8 PACKAGE A FEEDER Bus 13 Four feeder bus routes are proposed to enable riders to WHAT IS 1-I access the commuter rail and commuter bus services in FEEDER BUS? 15 Package A. These services would travel: Feeder bus service 16 ► Along SH 257, connecting Windsor and Timnath to the connects communities 17 commuter rail and the commuter bus. throughout the region to a major transit investment h ► Along US 34, connecting Greeley and Loveland to both such as passenger rail or 19 services. bus rapid transit. It Wo ► Along SH 60 / SH 56, connecting Milliken, Johnstown, provides an alternative to I and Berthoud to the commuter rail. driving alone and 22 ► Along WCR 13 / WCR 8, connecting the tri-towns tmprovdep s accessibility nd to 23 (Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono) and Erie to the passengers. 24 commuter rail. passengers. 25 These feeder bus services would operate every 30 minutes during AM and PM peak periods and 26 every 60 minutes during off-peak periods. They have been designed to coincide with commuter rail 27 and commuter bus schedules. A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the feeder 28 bus service. 29 2.2.2.9 PACKAGE A Bus MAINTENANCE FACILITY 30 In Package A, two sites are being evaluated for the bus maintenance facility: Portner Road and Al Trilby Road in Fort Collins, and 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley. The layout requires a 32 minimum of approximately five to six acres. The site in Fort Collins is 7.8 acres, while the site in 33 Greeley is 4.6 acres. The two sites are being evaluated to determine the more favorable site based 34 on impacts to environmental resources, community impacts, and costs. The commuter bus 35 maintenance facility would accommodate an estimated 85 employees, including staff for the 36 maintenance and operation of buses for both the commuter bus and the feeder bus routes. • Alternatives 2.31 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. I 2.2.2.10 PACKAGE A CONGESTION MANAGEMENT • 2 Many potential congestion management measures were considered as enhancements to the 3 packages. Detailed documentation of the Congestion Management Alternative development and 4 screening process is provided in the Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and 5 Jacobs, 2008a). 6 Table 2-6 summarizes congestion management measures that were selected for Package A. 7 Table 2-6 Package A- Congestion Management Measures Congestion Description of Application Management Strategy Local Transit Service Existing local routes would connect to rail service at the Downtown and South Transit centers in Fort Collins; at US 34 in Loveland; and at Sugar Mill in Longmont. Package A local routes would connect to commuter bus service at 8th Street and D, Greeley South, the Brighton park-n-Ride, and the FasTracks North Metro Corridor rail stations. Carpool CarpoolNanpool lots would be provided along 1-25 at: and Location Spaces Location Spaces Vanpool a SH 1 80 o SH 60 80 o SH 14 150 o SH 56 30 o Prospect Rd. 130 o SH 66 70 o Harmony Rd. 300 o SH 119 90 o SH 392 90 o SH 52 80 o SH 402 340 o SH 7 180 These lots would replace and be in addition to the existing carpool/vanpool lots. They • would be paved, have lighting, and have security cameras. Incident Courtesy patrols -Tow trucks with fuel, coolant, air, etc. would drive up and down 1-25 Management from SH 14 to SH 7 during peak period travel times (6:15 AM to 8:45 AM and 3:15 PM Program to 6:45 PM). These vehicles would pick up debris, help stalled motorists, and assist with other incidents as needed. Signal Coordination Timing at signals at interchanges along 1-25 would be optimized as part of the and Prioritization interchange design process. Queue jumps, including signal treatments, would be incorporated into the commuter bus design along US 85. Ramp Metering Based on a CDOT Region 6 precedent and policy along the Transportation Expansion (T-REX) corridor, ramp meters would be installed along the freeway in order to prevent trip detouring. At such time when volumes dictate ramp metering along I-25, ramp meters would be recommended at the following interchanges: o SH 14 o SH 402 o Prospect Rd. o SH 119 o Harmony Rd. o SH 52 o SH 392 o WCR 8 o Crossroads Blvd. o SH 7 o US 34 Real-Time The CDOT Region 4 intelligent transportation plan would be implemented in its entirety Transportation with additional variable message signs northbound and southbound north of SH 14. Information Bicycle/ Pedestrian Station areas would be designed to provide pedestrian links to the nearest local road. Facilities A 12-ft wide multi-use path and 6-ft tree lawn would provide connectivity between the bus drop-off, park-and-ride and connectivity to the closest road. All stations would be designed in accordance with the accessibility standards set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). • Travel Demand During construction, proactive measures could be taken by the contractor to encourage Measures use of alternative modes. Alternatives 2.32 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I 2.2.2.11 OTHER PACKAGE A FEATURES 2 Package A also includes retaining walls, water quality ponds, and drainage features. 3 Retaining Walls 4 Retaining walls would be used along highway general purpose lanes and commuter rail lines to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and existing commercial buildings or other 6 developments. 7 Water Quality Y To conform to CDOT's MS4 permit, roadway runoff would need to be treated within urbanized 9 areas. Using land use projections from the NFRMPO, urban areas were determined and 10 potential treatment locations have been identified in Package A. These would be located along I I highways and at transit stations, maintenance facilities, and parking lots. Suggested locations I2 for the water quality features are included in the Package A concept plans. Various methods for 13 treating stormwater runoff, such as ponds, vaults, and infiltration basins would be considered 14 during final design. 1> Floodplains and Drainage Features 6 Almost all of the existing drainage structures are undersized; they cannot pass the 100-year 1_ storm flows under the rail routes, 1-25, or US 85. If Package A were selected, final design would 18 include a detailed hydraulic analysis for each crossing. This would include addressing allowable •9 backwater and methods for mitigating impacts to the environment. Additional items that would be 20 considered include costs for construction, maintenance, and operations. Federal Emergency 21 Management Agency floodplain regulations and CDOT drainage criteria would be followed. 22 2.2.2.12 PACKAGE A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES 23 The capital cost for Package A is estimated to be approximately $2.433 billion. Additionally, the 24 roadway would continue to require ongoing maintenance and the new rail and bus service would 25 have annual operating and maintenance cost associated with it. The total operating and 26 maintenance cost is estimated to be $43 million annually. These estimates and a 30-year annualized 27 capital cost estimate at 7 percent are shown in Table 2-7. • Alternatives 2.33 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2-7 Package A Cost Estimate • Cost Element Cost (2005 dollars*) Capital Cost Commuter Rail $1.098B Commuter Bus—Downtown Denver and DIA $28M Feeder/Local Bus $18M General Purpose Lanes $1.289B Total $2.433B Annualized Capital Commuter Rail $88M Commuter Bus— Downtown Denver and DIA $2M Feeder/Local Bus $2M General Purpose Lanes $103M Total $195M Annual O&M Commuter Rail $28M Commuter Bus—Denver Union Station and DIA $5M Feeder/Local Bus $5M • General Purpose Lanes $5M Total $43M 'B=billion; M=million • Alternatives 2-34 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 2.2.3 Package B 2 Figure 2-24 illustrates Package B. As shown, Package B includes tolled express lanes (TEL), 3 interchange upgrades, bus rapid transit (BRT), feeder bus service, and congestion management 4 measures. Each of these features is described in more detail below. The Package Concept Plans 5 (FHU and Jacobs, 2008b) illustrate the layout of Package B in more detail. 6 2.2.3.1 PACKAGE B NEW TOLLED EXPRESS LANES s Package B consists of adding one buffer-separated tolled I0 express lane in each direction along the entire corridor except WHAT ARE 12 between Harmony Road and SH 60 where two barrier- TOLLED EXPRESS LANES? 1-t separated lanes would be added in each direction. Lane 16 configuration is depicted in Figure 2-25 through Figure 2-30. Lanes separated from general 18 Design criteria were established by CDOT for the highway purpose lanes by a striped 20 improvements. Design guidelines recommend avoiding use of buffer or a raised median 22 median barrier where practical. Consistent with the existing barrier. Lanes whose demand 24 wide median and rural setting, the design criteria for the is managed to maintain 26 proposed highway improvements includes a grass median for l- reliable, fast operation even 2x 25 north of SH 66. The buffer-separated section would consist during peak periods. The lanes 30 of a painted 4-foot strip separating the tolled express lanes from are managed by allowing use 32 the general purpose lanes. The barrier-separated section would only by single-occupant 34 consist of a raised concrete barrier separating the tolled vehicle drivers willing to pay a 36 express lanes from the general purpose lanes, which would be toll or by high-occupant vehicles. These would be •s approximately 4 feet high and 2 feet wide. Where possible, the similar theexisting 40 grass median would be maintained north of SH 66 with the HOT 4 lanes between 84th Avenue 42 exception of the BRT median stations. The median would be and 20th Street in Denver. 44 used to accommodate median BRT stations from SH 7 north. 46 South of SH 66, where the more densely urbanized areas abut 47 1-25, highway widening would occur toward the center using portions of the median. As a safety 4x measure, a tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with an open median. 49 Frontage roads along 1-25 would be rebuilt approximately where they exist today. At the 50 interchanges, frontage roads would be relocated east or west away from the ramp terminals to 51 address storage and safety concerns at the intersections. Along the 1-25 mainline, the frontage 52 roads would be offset 40 feet, based on current design standards. • Alternatives 2-35 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 2-24 Package B II .se 5 <- SH 1 _-- LEGEND de ` Vieille Correct geometric 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled r'' ~- 4". Mountain Vista Express Lane (TEL) in Each i deficiencies Direction B7 4 and replace aging infrastructure • • • 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled - 114 An Express Lanes (TEL) in Each Timberline Harmony R. and Direction • trt 4/2 rospec . US 34 and SH 257 South Fort Collins Transit Center - CO1 S Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route US 287 and Harmony Rd., Fort Collins �• .•; • Harmony Estee (Uses TELs on 1-25) math 57 Severance West Greeley - US 34 and I-25 and Harmony Rd- - Fort Collins I 83rd Ave., Greeley Feeder Bus Service I Windsor l25andSH392 ` Luzern It+ttlods.e, Greeley Downtown Transfer Center - 8th Ave. and ® Interchange Upgrades Crccvo•sand . , 8th St., Greeley ALovel nd r. _(Th © Number of Lanes: General — 34 Greeley Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes Crossroads Blvd. - Loveland between 02 I Garden City Crossroads Blvd. and US 34 cR 57) Evens Bus Rapid Transit Station (-6?).`-- ` C 50 Cann •n ' Johnstown__ LaSalle I Berthoud - I-25 and SH 56 fee , ILL_ _ FasTracks Rail Line MUBh•a 56 Q FasTracks / RTD Transit Station motd G crest LARIMER ❑ Potential Commuter Bus Operational & Maintenance -31:5\r ; CR34WELD Facility •••• Platt , �7 t s6 Firestone - 1-25 and SH 119 II Longmont tit -._ iii MS .TtDULDER Freston 19 riot wet r -- I " ` -'' �• ,5� r Frederick/Dacono - I-2SJ 1 net and SH 52 •• Cee Erie • /2 ,9 - oulder �° LI , I-25 and SH 7 Laterott•( 7 :i •�. , ,93 r 36 Louisville `✓ tart Sern • l • Right-of-Way Preservation Swede Br•emfl•Id et en • • •• Coin C n• y Northwest ---, Rail Corridor lO N�rthgl North /172' *smile O Metro E47o. Dourer • InternationalAirport • sat4Art. i It k 2 ) flu i • JEFFER- '' � r _r L . L . i Deny: t' Union rtatb0n `ao 6 Denier PrN 0 2 4 r. F; w `e Miles North I Alternatives 2-36 NORTH 1-25 101 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Figure 2-25 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 1 to SH 14 152' 3 4 12' 24' 17 56' Median 17 24' 12' 5 Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr, Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr, 6 Lanes Lanes 7 8 9 10 i r 11 12 13 Figure 2-26 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 14 to Harmony Rd. 184' 12' 24' 12' 12' 56' Median 12' 12' 24' 12' Shldr 2 Travel a TEL Shldr.< Shldr. TEL 2 ve Shldr. Lanes with with Lanes 4, BRT BRT 4, Buffe E— Buffer SSE a , nye% 11114 15 16 Figure 2-27 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - Harmony Rd. to SH 60 252' E - 12' 24' 12' 12' 24' 12' 56' Median 12' 24' 12' 12' 24' 12' < >< >H >< >< >< > < „H H >< > Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr Shldr 2 TEL Shldr. Shldr. 2 TEL Shldr, Shldr 2 Travel Shldr. Lanes 2' with BRT with BRT 2' Lanes <— —> 4c- - -- ir ps=_�? • Alternatives 2-37 Draft EIS NORTH I ZS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. i Figure 2-28 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 60 to SH 66 II 2 184' 3 < ' 4 12' 24' 12' 12' 56' Median 12' : 12' 24' 12' Shldr c 2 Travel > TEL Shldr. c Shldr1 TEL 2 Travel Shldr. 6 Lanes with with Lanes 7 4, BRT BRT E— 4' 8 ., Buffer - Buffer 9 I n I 0 - r.. _ 11 12 13 14 Figure 2-29 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 66 to SH 7 15 184' 16 > I 12' 36' 12' 12' 32' Median 12' 12' 36' 12' 18 < > � > < > < > < < > < > Shldr. 3 Travel TEL Shldr. Shldr. TEL 3 Travel Shldr. 19 Lanes with with Lanes 20 4' BRT BRT 4' 21 Buffer 4— Buffer 23 0 O 15 II 26 27 28 Figure 2-30 Package B Typical I-25 Cross Section - SH 7 to US 36 29 178' 30 17 17 36' 12' 17 17 12' 36' 12' 12' < > C > it > 4--a 4> [ >• < > 4 > 4 > 4 > Shldr. Aux. 3 Travel Lanes TEL Shldr. Shldr. TEL 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr. Lane with with Lane BRT BRT 4' 2' 4' Buffer Buffer < c p. N 4I 41 Alternatives 2-38 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. WIThe tolled express lanes would require a transponder for all vehicles. The transponder would be 2 automatically scanned as the vehicle travels in the lane; for single-occupant vehicles the 3 transponders would collect a toll via the credit card on file for that transponder. Transponders 4 registered to HOVs would not be assessed a toll. There would be no toll booths and no cash would 5 be accepted with this transponder-required system. The initial pricing used for evaluation of the 6 system is shown in Table 2-8. Tolls would vary by time of day, and congestion in tolled express 7 lanes would be managed by pricing so that these lanes would be less congested than the general S purpose lanes. 9 Table 2-8 Initial Tolled Express Lane Peak Direction Single-Occupant Vehicle Toll Rates Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour on 1-25 Southbound Northbound North of E-470 $0.13/mi $0.10/mi South of E-470 $0.75/mi $0.75/mi Source:Wilbur Smith Associates,January 2007. 10 Based on this pricing, it would cost an AM peak-hour traveler $5.33 to use the tolled express lanes II from SH 14 to E-470. 12 Access to the tolled express lanes would be provided via slip ramps connecting the general purpose 13 lanes to the tolled express lanes. Figure 2-31 illustrates the slip-ramp access and egress locations 14 included in Package B. Figure 2-32 illustrates the design of the slip ramps in more detail. A 12-foot I5 inside shoulder is included in the design of the tolled express lanes to enable safe and efficient •a enforcement along the entire corridor. 17 Evaluation of tolled express lane traffic indicated that operation might benefit from a reversible two- lane section in the Denver Metro Area. Projected volumes show that it would be particularly 19 beneficial south of 120th Avenue where demand could exceed the ideal capacity under the HOT 20 management scenario. In addition, CDOT expressed an interest in providing a two-lane, barrier- 2I separated system in the metro area to provide more capacity and separate the two lane types. This 22 operational variation is referred to as Option B2; it would extend the current two barrier-separated 23 reversible lanes north to 120th Avenue and then would tie in to a single buffer-separated managed 24 lane in each direction from 120th to E-470. A typical cross section for this operational variation is 25 shown in Figure 2-33. 26 Avoidance and Minimization 27 In Package B, minor shifts in 1-25, interchange ramps, and frontage road horizontal alignments were 25 included in the conceptual design that would minimize impacts to wetlands at WCR 34, SH 56, 29 LCR 16, SH 392, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, and SH 14. 1-25 horizontal alignment 30 modifications also were included at SH 402 and SH 56 that would improve safety. 31 Minor modifications to the 1-25 vertical alignment were included to improve safety at SH 56, SH 402, 32 and LCR 16 and to avoid impacts to a historic ditch north of US 34. • Alternatives 2-39 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2-31 Tolled Express Lane Access and Egress Locations Ill MATCHLINE MATCHLINE V 9 @a-4 >" CR 8 1 LEGEND Egress p ' Access imm TEL Lanes slil General Purpose Lanes Johnson's Corner 7 < mi--‹ Access/Egress Egress i R Access Mountain Vista, mim < > E-4711 CR 50 C I ›— < ›• •(63) Access y A Egress Access \\ j Egress Egress M Access 144th Ave. 1 > 56 C 1 I> Access y pi Egress 136th Ave. 4 > Prospect Rd. > CR 34 \ II 1›-' Egress p t. Access Access y A Egress > 120th Ave. Egress p C Access Harmony Rd. 1 > Access y A Egress 9 FV--4 f , Egress O C Access 4 > lo4thAve Access y A Egress < > O 19 > , Thornton Pkwy Access �I Egress � /, Crossroads I if Egress p C Access > Access i E AEgress 9 E6,yY'E'SS (f 1 ACCPSS > 8hAve. C > 34 52 I )/ Access Access \_ , Egress Access , E ress } >} MATCHLINE _ _ -erg `3 r/n MATCHLINE North NOT TO SCALE I Alternatives 2-40 NORTH 1-25 154 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Figure 2-32 Slip-Ramp Design Concept TOLLED EXPRESS LANE ACCESS CONCEPT TOLLED EXPRESS LANE-"' -�~ ACCEL INTO TEL -i► GENERAL PURPOSE LANES• 4` TOLLED EXPRESS LANE EGRESS CONCEPT TOLLED EXPRESS LANE -► "0 -0 DECEL FROM TEL INTO G.P '--0 -- -p -Di- GENERAL PURPOSE LANES --► • 7 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 12-06 • Alternatives 2-41 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I Figure 2-33 Package B, Option B2 - Typical Reversible Cross Section - . 2 120th to 84th Avenue 190' 4 12 12 36' 12 6' 24' 12 12 36' 12 12 Shldr Aux7 3TravelLanes Shla'. 2 Shldr Shldr 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr Lane n Reversible Lane Lanes 2 ? leT: �W x ' ' - YYVM "T".'""" ..+alb • '. 4 2.2.3.2 PACKAGE B INTERCHANGES 5 Preliminary travel demand forecasts indicate that Packages A and B would have similar travel 6 demand in 2030 north of E-470. Therefore, while the design details would be somewhat 7 different to accommodate mainline I-25, the interchange configurations north of E-470 would be k similar between the two packages. Table 2-9 lists the interchange improvements included in 9 Package B. Unlike Package A, Package B includes a new structure at Harmony Road and 10 upgrades south of E-470. The differences in interchange design between the two packages are II described below. 12 ► Harmony Road. Unlike Package A, the wider cross section of Package B improvements on 13 I-25 would require replacement of this relatively new structure. • 14 ► 104th Avenue. Package B includes a new diamond interchange with two through lanes and double left-turns from 104th Avenue to the northbound and southbound on ramps. 16 ► Thornton Parkway. Package B would extend the northbound on and southbound off ramps 17 by 380 feet compared to the existing configuration. 18 ► 84th Avenue. Package B includes a new diamond interchange with two through lanes and 19 double left-turns from 84th Avenue to the northbound and southbound on ramps. 20 A more detailed description of the interchange configurations considered and the screening process 21 is included in Section 2.4.1 of this document. For detailed information about each interchange refer 22 to the Transportation Analysis Technical Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008c). • Alternatives 2-42 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information, cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-9 summarizes the interchange improvements associated with Package B. 3 Table 2-9 Package B Interchange Improvements Compared to No-Action Existing Interchange No-Action Package B Location Configuration Improvement SH 1 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Mountain Vista substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 14 substandard partial cloverleaf reconstructed diamond Prospect Road substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Harmony Road standard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 392 substandard diamond reconstructed tight diamond Crossroads Boulevard substandard cloverleaf reconstructed diamond US 34 substandard diamond dual directional/diamond SH 402 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond WCR 16 substandard off ramps reconstructed diamond SH 60 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 56 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond WCR 34 substandard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 66 standard diamond no improvement SH 119 standard diamond bridge widening SH 52 standard diamond bridge widening WCR 8 standard diamond reconstructed diamond SH 7 standard diamond reconstructed diamond • E-470 fully directional no improvement 144th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 136th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 120th Avenue standard diamond no improvement 104th Avenue substandard diamond reconstructed diamond Thornton Parkway substandard diamond structure rehabilitation and ramp extensions 84th Avenue substandard diamond reconstructed diamond 4 Option B2 would require replacement of the 104th Avenue, Thornton Parkway, and 84th Avenue 5 interchange structures. These structures would be replaced to accommodate the reversible section 6 as well as a single additional general purpose lane in each direction in order to accommodate 7 DRCOG's Metro Vision. 9 2.2.3.3 PACKAGE B Bus RAPID TRANSIT I BRT services would operate from Fort Collins and Greeley to WHAT IS 13 downtown Denver, utilizing the express lanes along 1-25. The BUS RAPID TRANSIT? IS service from Fort Collins would begin at the South Transit I 7 Center and operate along Harmony Road in mixed traffic A transit service that combines 19 until accessing 1-25 at its interchange with Harmony Road. In features of a passenger rail 2I addition, BRT service would operate from Fort Collins to DIA, system with the flexibility of a bus system. It can travel in an 23 using Harmony Road in shared general purpose lanes to 25 access 1-25. During the peak period, there would be three exclustreet,sive or lane along an lane,ar such ? buses per hour, with two going to downtown Denver and one s te ore express such as the tolled express lanes. 29 going to DIA. During off-peak hours, buses would depart 31 every 30 minutes with, one going to downtown Denver and 32 one going to DIA. Alternatives 2-43 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Service from Greeley would begin at the 8th Street and 8th Avenue Transit Center in downtown • 2 Greeley and serve stops along US 34 in mixed traffic. It would access 1-25 at US 34 and access 3 the tolled express lane via a slip ramp south of US 34. It then would serve the same stations along 4 1-25 as the service from Fort Collins to downtown Denver. During peak hours, buses would depart 5 every 20 minutes from Greeley to downtown Denver; during off-peak hours, buses would depart 6 every 30 minutes. 7 Stations along 1-25 would be located in the median. This configuration was chosen to make this 3 BRT service as competitive as possible with commuter rail service. Stops on interchange ramps 9 could instead be considered, which would reduce capital costs. "Queue jumps" (intersection and to signal treatments that allow buses to bypass queues) were considered along US 34 and Harmony II Road in Package B. Intersection control, traffic volumes, speed limits, road configuration, and I2 community plans for those roads were taken into consideration when recommending locations for 13 queue jumps. No queue jumps were included along Harmony Road because the City of Fort 14 Collins has designated it as an enhanced travel corridor that would include undefined transit 15 amenities. The following US 34 queue jump locations are included in Package B: ► 26th Avenue Eastbound and Westbound ► 39th Avenue Eastbound and Westbound ► 28th Avenue Eastbound and Westbound ► 43rd Avenue Eastbound and Westbound ► 35th Avenue Eastbound and Westbound ► 47th Avenue Eastbound and Westbound ► 37th Avenue Court Eastbound and ► 71st Avenue Eastbound and Westbound Westbound 16 Circulation in downtown Denver would be similar to the commuter bus route shown in Figure 2- • 17 23 and described below. During AM peak hours, southbound buses would enter downtown I S Denver via the North 1-25 express lanes and go into downtown using 19th Street, turning 19 southwest on Arapahoe and providing stops at 17th and 15th Streets. From there, buses would 20 turn right on 15th Street, left at Little Raven and proceed to Elitch Gardens to layover before 21 making the return trip. This downtown route is similar to the route of the current Front Range 22 Express (FREX) bus from Colorado Springs to Denver. During hours when the reversible 23 express lane flow is headed northbound, southbound buses would enter downtown Denver via 24 the 20th Street interchange, take 20th to Arapahoe, and follow the remainder of the route 25 described above. 26 During the PM peak hours, northbound buses would exit downtown Denver by turning right out 27 of Flitch Gardens onto 15th Street, turning right again to access 14th Street and eventually 25 turning left on Lawrence Street, picking up passengers at 15th and 17th Streets, and proceeding 29 to the 1-25 HOV entrance ramp on 20th Street. During hours when the reversible express lane 30 flow is headed southbound, northbound buses would access 1-25 via the 20th Street 31 interchange. 32 Planned improvements at Denver Union Station might allow these buses to access and egress 33 the HOV lanes from 18th and 19th Streets and serve Denver Union Station via Wewatta Street. 34 In addition, provided there is enough space, the commuter bus service also might be able to 35 layover at Denver Union Station before making the return trip instead of traveling the extra 36 distance to Elitch Gardens. These possible connections could be further evaluated as planning 37 for Denver Union Station moves forward. • Alternatives 2-44 NORTH 125 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the bus rapid transit service. However, • - in the southern front range a similar commuter style service is operated by the City of Colorado Springs in partnership with the other communities served . This would indicate that one of the local transit providers in the area (Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins) could operate this service . While fares have not yet been determined , it is estimated that a BRT fare may be 25 percent higher than a commuter bus fare. This would yield a rate of approximately $0 . 15 per mile . Based on this rate, a BRT patron traveling from Fort Collins South Transit Center to downtown Denver would pay $8 .70 one-way. A similar fare would be charged for a patron traveling from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver. 11 I 2.2.3.4 PACKAGE B Bus RAPID TRANSIT STATIONS H 1 BRT is proposed to travel on arterial roads and on 1-25 . When BRT travels on arterial roads, it 12 would function similar to commuter bus . The BRT would load and unload passengers in the 13 park-and-ride or at an on-street bus stop. When BRT travels on 1-25, the BRT would stop at a 14 platform located in the median of 1-25. A pedestrian overpass would be provided from the 15 median platform over 1-25 to the proposed park-and-ride with the exception of SH 7 where the 16 grade separated cross street would be utilized for pedestrian connectivity . The proposed 17 overpass would only cross one side of 1-25 but would not preclude a municipality or private 18 developer from continuing the connection to the other side of the highway. 19 The station design at the South Transit Center in Fort Collins was developed before funding was 20 committed for the South Transit Center; therefore does not incorporate the Mason Corridor Alin South Transit Center. As detailed engineering occurs for the South Transit Center the North W22 1-25 EIS will coordinate with the Mason Corridor to appropriately accommodate both projects. 23 Conceptual station layouts are shown in Figure 2-34 and Figure 2-35. 2-1 Figure 2-34 BRT Station Layout at Windsor (Northbound Lanes with Barrier Separation) 4, g0 Southbound Northbound G0 ,z, co'� BRT Loading/ BRT Loading/ r Managed Lanes , Northbound ! �,N Q- Unloading Unloading With BR I 1-25 at Station at Station F t a+. 11Mani �i�tllltill1111111{11111{111111111111141!rt��_'•� ' : 0:_i .r __ 7 larT •\\. •-St%--;.- -:------ ----_-_-4---___ •"1(0 -_-'445.-- - ----- - ii,i .‘- \ -4eae...#44%4 ',or i _ -- )444k.._ ' re-e-4*---- -- N . e - Nis N. Sobs Al%be ill Alternatives 2-45 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I Figure 2-35 Package B Typical BRT Station Cross Sections • 4 rz Iz 'z q Iz 9 __ yUFORM P 9 IV Iz Iz Iz URO'12 snoJmEi ANE F,E Ewa snoULCE E fpns,lc n"1"1" a NEE 51 E 0'p EO NE uEx 1 LANE FX E6E Ifr 4444A2 LAen44 o 7 h 911111-10 = t SOUTHBOUND I-25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NORTHBOUND I-25 PARK-°NO-RIDE 1 WITH BUFFER-SEPARATED TOLLED EXPRESS LANES 12 Y 3 3 IF' 1' 'Z ,R _ 17±_41 9 10 9 1 Z D P I? 12 9V r SHOULDER TRAVEL I TRAVEL XD. I0.LF O E9 S n I E PSS ALL AI OPIA g. EAPA9S ,DER TOLLED TOLLED E O NFx 0 DER T.AV - SHOULDER LANE LA.IE R E49ENS EAPFEDALANE LOAp G i AU'R DANE EXPRESS EAEAAEDA 1E LANE LANE LANE 444 44, aan L Er .T'n7i SOUTHBOUND -25 BRT MEDIAN STATION NORTHBOUND I-2S PARK-AND-RI. WITH BARRIER-SEPARATED TOLLED EXPRESS LANES 13 14 Station site selection criteria were similar to those applied to Package A commuter rail and 15 commuter bus stations. Twenty-four potential station locations were screened down to twelve new 16 stations and connections to three existing RTD stations. A range of three to sixteen sites were 17 evaluated for each station location with the exception of the Fort Collins South Transit Center where I 8 one site was evaluated because the City of Fort Collins has an approved plan that identifies a 9 location for a transit center. The South Transit Center is proposed to serve as the end of line for the 20 Mason Street BRT system. In order to maximize ridership and access for the community it is 21 important that the North 1-25 commuter rail station connect to the proposed Mason Street BRT 22 system. As a result of the station site evaluation one to three preferred site(s) were identified at each 23 station to house the platform, park-and-ride and bus activity. A more detailed description of the 24 station sites considered and the screening process is included in Section 2.4.2 of this document 25 and a full description of the station screening process is found in the Alternatives Development and 26 Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). As a result of the screening process, the following 27 station sites were selected, as shown in Table 2-10. While bus rapid transit would serve three sites 2s in the RTD district, no improvements or additional parking spaces are proposed as part of this EIS. 29 Additional parking information is provided in 30 Section 2.2.3.8 Parking. • Alternatives 2-46 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-10 Package B BRT Stations BRT Station/Stop Location South Fort Collins Transit Center* US 287 and Harmony Road - Fort Collins Harmony Road and Timberline Fort Collins 1-25 and Harmony Road Fort Collins Windsor I-25 and SH 392 Crossroads Boulevard Loveland Between Crossroads Boulevard and US 34 Greeley Downtown Transfer Center 8th Avenue and 8th Street- Greeley West Greeley US 34 and 83rd Avenue—Greeley US 34 and SH 257 US 34 and SH 257—Greeley Berthoud 1-25 and SH 56 Firestone I-25 and SH 119 Frederick/Dacono 1-25 and SH 52 I-25** and SH 7 1-25 at SH 7 Wagon Road 1-25 at 120th Avenue Denver Downtown Denver DIA Denver International Airport • * Station design will be coordinated with the recently funded Mason Corridor project. ** 'Iwo different sites are being evaluated as part of this Draft EIS. 2.2.3.5 PACKAGE B FEEDER Bus 3 Package B includes four feeder bus routes that would enable riders to access BRT service from 4 the communities located along US 85 and US 287. These services would travel: 5 ► Along SH 257, connecting Windsor and Timnath to the BRT ► Along US 34, connecting Loveland to the BRT ► Along SH 56, US 287, and SH 119, connecting Berthoud and Longmont to the BRT ► Along SH 52, connecting Fort Lupton, the tri-town area, and Niwot to the BRT o These feeder bus services would operate every 30 minutes during AM and PM peak periods and 10 every 60 minutes during off-peak periods and would be scheduled to coincide with BRT service I I when possible. I2 A transit operator has not yet been identified to operate the feeder bus service • Alternatives 2-47 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information_ cooperation. transportation. 1 2.2.3.6 PACKAGE B Bus MAINTENANCE FACILITY • 2 The two potential bus maintenance facility site locations being considered in Package A also are 3 being considered in Package B. 4 The BRT maintenance facility would accommodate an estimated 90 employees, including staff for the maintenance and operation of buses for both the BRT and the North 1-25 feeder bus 6 routes. Approximately 200 daily trips would be generated to and from this facility, including visitor 7 trips. An estimated 150 bus trips, including BRT and feeder bus trips, would occur to and from 8 the site each day. Bus trips also would be spread throughout the day with little to no bus activity 9 during peak hours, as nearly all buses would be in service during those times. i c 2.2.3.7 PACKAGE B CONGESTION MANAGEMENT I 1 As with Package A, congestion management measures were developed based on further I? analysis and coordination with agencies, as well as more specific information about traffic I 3 congestion and other conditions associated with Package B. The tolling in the TEL constitutes 14 the primary method of congestion management with Package B. Table 2-11 summarizes congestion management measures that were selected for Package B in addition to tolling. In Additional parking information is provided in Section 2.2.3.8 Parking. • • Alternatives 2-48 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-11 Package B Congestion Management Measures Congestion Description of Application Management Strategy Local Transit Local routes would connect to BRT at the South Transit Center(Fort Collins), Harmony Service and Timberline (Fort Collins), the Harmony Transit Center, the Downtown Transfer Center(8th and 8th) in Greeley; Crossroads Boulevard (Jitterbug— Loveland); and SH 7 in Broomfield. Carpool and Carpool/vanpool lots along 1-25 would be provided at: Vanpool o SH 1 o SH 60 o SH 14 o SH 56 o Prospect Rd. o SH 66 o Harmony Rd. o SH 119 o SH 392 o SH 52 o SH 402 o SH 7 These lots would be in addition to and replace the existing carpool/vanpool lots. The lots would be paved and have lighting and security cameras. Incident Courtesy patrols—Tow trucks with fuel, coolant, air, etc. would drive up and down I-25 Management from SH 14 to SH 7 during peak-period travel times (6:15 AM to 8:45 AM and 3:15 PM to Program 6:45 PM). These vehicles would pick up debris, help stalled motorists, and assist with other incidents as needed. Signal Timing at signals at interchanges along 1-25 would be optimized as part of the • Coordination interchange design process. Queue jumps, including signal treatments, would be and included as part of the BRT design along US 34. Prioritization Ramp Metering Based on a CDOT Region 6 precedent and policy along the T-REX corridor, ramp meters must be installed along continuous sections of a freeway in order to prevent trip detouring. At such time when volumes dictate ramp metering along 1-25, they would be recommended at the following interchanges: o SH 14 o SH 402 o Prospect Rd. 0 SH 119 o Harmony Rd. o SH 52 o SH 392 0 WCR 8 o Crossroads Blvd o SH 7 o US 34 Real-Time The CDOT Region 4 intelligent transportation plan would be implemented in its entirety Transportation with additional variable message signs northbound and southbound north of SH 14. Information Station areas would be designed to provide pedestrian links to the nearest local road. A Bicycle/ 12-ft wide multi-use path and 6-ft wide tree lawn would provide connectivity between the Pedestrian bus drop-off, park-and-ride and connectivity to the closest road. All stations would be Facilities designed in accordance with the accessibility standards set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). Travel Demand During construction, proactive measures could be taken by the contractor to encourage Measures use of alternative modes. 2 Alternatives 2.49 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 2.2.3.8 PACKAGE B PARKING • 2 Parking in Package B would be provided for BRT patrons and for carpoolers. Table 2-12 3 summarized the number of parking spaces for each travel mode and the total number of spaces at 4 each location that would be included as part of this build package. 5 Table 2-12 Package B Parking Summary Parking Location BRT CarpoolNanpool Total Spaces Station/Stops Spaces Spaces SH 1 @ 1-25 NA 80 80 SH 14 @ 1-25 NA 170 170 Prospect @ 1-25 NA 140 140 South Fort Collins Transit Center 70 NA 70 Harmony Road and Timberline 40 NA 40 1-25 @ Harmony 30 320 350 Windsor 40 100 140 Crossroads Boulevard 80 NA 80 Greeley Downtown Transfer Center 0 NA 0 West Greeley 100 NA 100 US 34 and SH 257 40 NA 40 SH 402 @ 1-25 NA 360 360 Berthoud* 160 80 240 SH 56 @1-25" NA 40 40 Firestone 350 100 450 • Frederick/Dacono 210 80 290 1-25 and SH 7 280 180 460 Wagon Road 0 0 0 Downtown Denver 0 0 0 Denver International Airport 0 0 0 During the Final EIS consideration will be given to consolidating these two parking areas if Package B is chosen as the Preferred Alternative. 6 2.2.3.9 OTHER PACKAGE B FEATURES 7 Package B would also include retaining walls, water quality ponds, and drainage structures. Is Retaining Walls 9 Retaining walls were used in the conceptual design along highway general purpose lanes to 10 minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and existing commercial buildings/ II developments. 12 Water Quality 13 To conform to CDOT's MS4 permit, roadway runoff would need to be treated within urbanized 14 areas. Using land use projections from the NFRMPO, urban areas were determined and potential 15 treatment locations have been identified within Package B. These would be located along 16 highways and at transit stations, maintenance facilities, and parking lots. Suggested locations for 17 the water quality features are included in the Package B concept plans. Various methods for 18 treating stormwater runoff, such as ponds, vaults, and infiltration basins would be considered • 19 during final design. Alternatives 2.50 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. . t Floodplains and Drainage 2 Almost all of the existing drainage structures are undersized and cannot pass the 100-year storm 3 flows under 1-25. If Package B were selected, final design would include a detailed hydraulic 4 analysis for each crossing. This would include addressing allowable backwater and methods for 5 mitigating impacts to the environment. o 2.2.3.10 PACKAGE B PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES 7 The capital cost for Package B is estimated to be approximately $2.006 billion. Additionally, the x 1-25 roadway would continue to require ongoing maintenance and the new bus services would 9 have annual O&M costs associated with them. The total O&M cost is estimated to be $20 million o annually. These estimates and a 30-year annualized capital cost estimate are shown in Table I 2-13. 12 Table 2-13 Package B Cost Estimate Cost Element Cost (2005 dollars) Capital Cost Comparison BRT— Downtown Denver and DIA $119M Feeder/Local Bus $23M Tolled Express Lanes $1.864B Total $2.006B Annualized Capital • BRT—Downtown Denver and DIA $10M Feeder/Local Bus $2M Tolled Express Lanes $150M Total $162M Annual O&M BRT—Downtown Denver and DIA $8M Feeder/Local Bus $4M General Purpose Lanes $6M Tolled Express Lanes $2M Total $20M M=million; B=billion 13 2.2.4 Preliminary Opinions of Probable Cost Comparison 14 Preliminary opinions of probable costs for Packages A and B are compared in Table 2-14 Capital IS costs include construction of the alternative; purchase of transit vehicles; and, where appropriate, 10 purchase of toll collection and enforcement equipment. Annualized capital estimates are over a 17 30-year period. O&M costs include annual costs of operating transit, toll collection and ft enforcement, and maintenance of general purpose lanes. As shown in Table 2-14, the capital 19 cost of Package A is approximately 21 percent higher than Package B. Additionally, the cost to 20 operate the commuter rail service annually is nearly $30 million compared to the BRT system 21 included in Package B, which would have annual O&M costs of less than $10 million. 22 The capital cost of the commuter rail would be substantially less if the line were constructed from 02Fort Collins to Longmont only. The estimated capital for this piece would be $615 million. Annual 4 operating and maintenance for this piece would be $19.1 million. Alternatives 2-51 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Option B2, modifying Package B tolled express lanes in the metro area to two barrier-separated •2 • reversible lanes between 120th Avenue and 84th Avenue would be an additional $17 million in 3 total capital cost. Minimal additional O&M cost would be associated with this alternative. 4 Table 2-14 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs Cost Element Cost(2005 dollars*) Capital Cost Comparison No-Action Package A Package B BRT— Downtown Denver and DIA 0 0 $119M Commuter Rail 0 $1.098B 0 Commuter Bus— Downtown Denver 0 $28M 0 and DIA Feeder/Local Bus 0 $18M $23M General Purpose Lanes $57M $1.289B 0 Tolled Express Lanes 0 0 $1.864B Total: $57M $2.433B $2.006B Annualized Capital No-Action Package A Package B BRT—Downtown Denver and DIA 0 0 $10M Commuter Rail 0 $88M 0 Commuter Bus—Downtown Denver 0 $2M 0 and DIA Feeder/Local Bus 0 $2M $2M General Purpose Lanes $4M $103M 0 • Tolled Express Lanes 0 0 $150M Total: $4M $195M $162M Annual O&M No-Action Package A Package B BRT— Downtown Denver and DIA 0 0 $8M Commuter Rail 0 $28M 0 Commuter Bus— Downtown Denver 0 $5M 0 and DIA Feeder/Local Bus 0 $5M $4M General Purpose Lanes $4M $5M $6M Tolled Express Lanes 0 0 $2M Total: $4M $43M $20M *M=million; B=billion 5 2.2.5 Phasing 6 The Preferred Alternative will be identified in the Final EIS, and subsequently a ROD or RODs will 7 be developed. Total funding for the proposed action has not been identified at this time. The tt availability of funding will impact the timing and phasing of construction of the Preferred Alternative. • Alternatives 2.52 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation, transportation. Budget placeholders are included in the North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan �_ and the Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan but fall short of the estimated 3 costs for either of the packages being considered as reflected in this document.. The North 4 Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan identifies $238.0 million in 7th pot funds for 5 improvements to 1-25. It also allocates $26.3 million to "other projects" that could include r, transit on the 1-25 and US 287 corridors and another $5.3 million to "other projects" that could 7 include transit along the US 85 corridor. Transit projects could also be funded through $70.7 8 million in Enhancement and CMAQ funds. The Upper Front Range 2035 Regional o Transportation Plan identifies 1-25 and US 85 as two of five "high priority" corridors with $19.78 10 million allocated to corridors in the high priority category. It also allocates $440,000 (1% of the I I Regional Priority Program) to expanding transit service. No funding is identified in the DRCOG 12 Metro Vision Plan. 13 This shortfall has been discussed with the public and agencies at public meetings conducted 14 during preparation of this Draft EIS. In response to public comments received in these 15 meetings, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have established a process wherein phased 16 implementation of the total project will be considered to complement the funding available. This 17 process includes: s ► Disclosure in this Draft EIS that a Preferred Alternative will likely be funded and constructed 19 in phases 20 ► The Final EIS to include a greater level of detail on the actual phase sections including: 21 • Identification of the Preferred Alternative • Definition of probable phases of the Preferred Alternative and demonstration that each '3 phase has independent utility 24 • Analysis of phases of the Preferred Alternative 25 • A statement that there is an intention to build the other phases 26 ► A public hearing to be conducted after issuance of the Final EIS to allow for public review 27 and comment 28 The identification of a Preferred Alternative for the entire project in the Final EIS is consistent 29 with the USDOT's objective of analyzing and selecting transportation solutions on a broad 30 enough scale to provide meaningful analysis and avoid segmentation. Examples of 31 improvements that might be phased through use of a series of different ROD actions include 32 interchange reconstruction, addition of new lanes for segments of the highway, and/or 33 construction of new transit stations. It is the intent of CDOT, FTA, and FHWA to work toward 34 implementation of the Preferred Alternative in its entirety through this phased approach, as 35 funds become available. The selection of an initial phase and subsequent phases for 36 implementation is dependent on prioritization of corridor needs, logical phase sequencing and 37 any specific limitation of the use of funding sources. Depending on these considerations an 38 individual phase may include highway improvements only, transit improvements only or a 39 combination of both. 40 The two build packages have different phasing considerations. Some of these are listed 41 below: • Alternatives 2.53 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. I Package A 2 ► Package A widening of 1-25 would likely begin at SH 66 (where the existing 6-lane section • 3 ends) and move north to Fort Collins and Wellington. Widening 1-25 to eight lanes between 4 E-470 and SH 52 would occur subsequent to 1-25 widening in the Denver Metro area south of 5 E-470. 6 ► Individual interchanges in either of the packages could be constructed as a separate action 7 without widening 1-25 but widening 1-25 in either Package A or Package B would also entail K reconstructing the interchanges. 9 ► With the two connecting FasTracks rail lines currently identified as single track (for the 10 Northwest Rail Corridor single tracking is assumed between Boulder and Longmont and for I i the North Metro Corridor single tracking is assumed north of 128th Avenue). Package A 12 commuter rail could also potentially be constructed as a single track with passing tracks to 13 reduce impacts to sensitive environmental resources as well as both capital and operating 14 costs. This phasing option could include extension of a single tracked option from the 1st and 15 Terry Station in Longmont to Berthoud or Loveland, addition of some passing track to allow for 16 trains to pass each other, and limited service initially that could be increased as ridership 17 increases. This option could be initiated more quickly with a reduced need for both capital and 18 operating funding. It could also be expanded over time to be double tracked. 19 ► Two minimal commuter rail options were considered during the alternatives development and 20 evaluation phase. The intent of these was to provide a low cost rail solution for the entire 21 corridor that could be phased over time. Both extended a single track from the 1st and Terry station in Longmont to the South Transit Center in Fort Collins and provided three trips every 2, 60 minutes during each peak period. Option 1 would require a transfer at 1st and Terry to • 24 continue into downtown Denver. Option 2 would provide a single-seat ride from Fort Collins 25 through Longmont and Boulder into downtown Denver. Because these options would not 26 include constructing a new track adjacent to the existing freight rail track, they would result in 27 substantially less construction and thus effect to environmental resources. Less right of way 28 would be needed from parks and historic properties which would lessen the effects to historic 29 resources and reduce 4(f) impacts. At river crossings, since there would be no new track, 30 there would not be a need to construct a new bridge or culvert, therefore there would be fewer 31 permanent impacts to wetlands and waters of the US. Temporary impacts would similarly be 32 noticeably less with the single tracked options. Noise and vibration impacts from the rail would 33 be lower for the residences adjacent to the new track but about the same as Package A 34 impacts - for the residences adjacent to the freight rail track. Water quality impacts would not 35 be much different because the only impervious surface is at station areas and those would not 36 change. Wildlife habitat impacts would also be noticeably lessened with the single track 37 options because substantially less wildlife habitat would be permanently removed due to fill for 38 the new track. These minimal rail options would cost less to construct and to operate, but 39 would also result in large reductions in rail ridership. 40 ► New track would only be built for short sections to allow for passing, but these passing tracks 41 would be placed in areas without sensitive environmental resources. These reductions made 42 them uncompetitive with other transit options in this Draft EIS and for that reason, these were 43 not carried forward as applicable to the entire corridor. Single tracking was used in two 44 locations, however, to avoid direct impacts to historic resources. 45 ► Single tracking of the entire corridor was determined to be a feasible and legitimate phasing 46 opportunity, especially since it is likely that the two FasTracks corridors (Northwest Rail and • 47 North Metro) will also be single tracked at their northern termini .The complete memo 48 describing the evaluation of these two options is included in the Alternatives Development and 49 Screening Report Appendix 1 (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). Alternatives 2.54 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. ► Construction of the Package A commuter rail would likely begin at one of the two FasTracks •2 rail end of lines and be built north. 3 ► As a cost savings measure, initial commuter rail service could begin with a shorter length of 4 track (such as from 1st and Terry in Longmont to the South Transit Center in Fort Collins), limited peak hour service, fewer stops, and no new maintenance facility (assuming 6 maintenance would be contracted out to RTD). 7 ► Package A would require a transit operator to be identified prior to inception of transit operation. v ► Package A commuter rail and commuter bus could be operated independently of any 1-25 10 roadway improvements. I I ► Of the three transit services evaluated in Package A and Package B, commuter bus service I2 would be the easiest method of initiating regional transit service. 13 ► There is a lack of funding for both highway and transit components. I4 Package B 15 ► Package B widening of 1-25 would likely be phased to address the areas with the highest I n, congestion first (Fort Collins/Loveland section and the Denver Metro section) or be completed 17 in sections beginning at SH 66 (where the existing 6-lane section ends) and move north to Fort I K Collins and Wellington. 9 ► Individual interchanges in either of the packages could be constructed as a separate action 20 without widening 1-25 but widening 1-25 in either Package A or Package B would also entail •I reconstructing the interchanges. ► BRT service is dependent on construction of the tolled express lanes and tolled express lanes 3 could be constructed independent of BRT service. 24 ► Package B transit service could be initiated as a commuter bus service along 1-25 (instead of a 25 BRT service). This would not require construction of the managed lanes and would generally 26 have fewer impacts than the BRT service because median stations would not be required. 27 ► As a commuter bus or BRT, service could be initiated as limited peak period only service with 28 little or no mid-day service provided. 29 ► As demand grows, additional service frequency could be added during the peak periods and at 30 mid-day. 31 ► Once the peak period and mid-day services are established, the final phase of implementation 32 could add express (non-stop) service between major origins and destinations along the route. 33 ► Package B would require a transit operator to be identified prior to inception of transit 34 operation. Package B BRT service is dependent on the construction of the tolled express 35 lanes along 1-25. 36 ► Of the three transit services evaluated in Package A and Package B, commuter bus service 37 would be the easiest method of initiating regional transit service. 38 ► There is a lack of funding for both highway and transit components. s Alternatives 2-55 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information, cooperation. transportation. I 2.2.6 Package Components • 2 The Preferred Alternative could be a combination of pieces of Package A and pieces of Package B 3 combined to make a new build alternative. It is recogized that the packages are comprised of 4 physically and functionally distinct parts, or components. This section provides a breakdown of the 5 packages by component. Components of each package were identified in part to answer questions 6 that had been raised through this environmental process such as "how beneficial is the commuter 7 rail line connecting the Northwest Rail Corridor and the North Metro Corridor?" or "Could tolled 8 express lanes be constructed in Northern Colorado without tying into E-470?" The components do 9 not however, have independent utility or logical termini to be constructed on their own. They also do 19 not represent construction phasing. Evaluation of the components answers these questions and I I provides a better comparison of the differences between Package A and Package B improvements 12 and an understanding of the impacts associated with a potential Preferred Alternative developed 13 from components of both packages. 14 15 Examples of feasible combinations of Package improvements that meet the purpose and need 16 include: 17 ► Package A without the Longmont to North Metro Commuter Rail Component I8 ► Package B with commuter bus service instead of BRT service to DIA 19 ► Package A with commuter rail service from Longmont to Berthoud only • • Alternatives 2.56 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Package A Components v Highway Safety Improvements Component A-H1: 1-25, SH 1 to SH 14 co (1\ — This component includes horizontal and o vertical alignment improvements along 1-25 = .. \as well as reconstruction of the SH 1 and CA Fort .Oll n. " Mountain Vista interchanges. No widening N -- of 1-25 is associated with this component. - L°"GI'nG "°" 1-25 would remain four lanes. _ - - Greeley' The estimated capital cost of component j ,HI _. __I A-H1 is $154.0 million. ""-° O .....•n.ny.unr.e•. .:.- ••••••r••Tucb Rail Lin. LOngn.ont O RTO Tr.n.It Station V ..a._. as R oulARr n. 1.u-- o Add General '! u •„;,,,nom, 4 2 Purpose Lanes o �, °.rG ?6 o v Hind V) _ ,�r. = Fort C _....- a I.6 .. . W — Component A-H2: 1-25, SH 14 to SH 60 eq• u This component consists of widening 1-25 e.i �" `""" nA n - Grooloyi from four to six general purpose lanes from _ - just north of SH 14 to just south of SH 60. Q , — Widening would address vertical and _ — LEGEND horizontal alignment concerns along 1-25. —General In addition, auxiliary lanes would be ,, 0 m y t.rch.nuo°r.0o included between Harmony Road and ,_ ongrllont —r..Tr.ck.Rail Line SH 60. This component would reconstruct n 0 RT°Transit Station interchanges at SH 14, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, SH 392, Crossroads Boulevard, US 34, SH 402, LCR 16 and ou1°°r SH 60. The relatively new interchange at � . —. ♦• - Harmony Road would be widened to — provide additional capacity. The estimated capital cost of component T-1A-H2 is $874.6 million. Rr�:t/�Lv Dormer Alternatives 2.57 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 1 Component A-H3: 1-25, SH 60 to E-470 • o Add General 5 v Purpose Lanes 2 This component includes widening 1-25 from w (, f--- 3 four to six general purpose lanes from just south o ( \ 4 of SH 60 to just north of SH 66 and widening it o 5 from six to eight general purpose lanes from just Co Fort Collins 6 north of SH 52 to E-470. No widening would be co — _ -- 7 included between SH 66 and SH 52; this section is r r. — 8 to be constructed to six lanes with No-Action. The - L- Level nd il 9 widening would address vertical and horizontal = Greeley—.. 10 alignment concerns along 1-25. In addition, a I I auxiliary lanes would be included between SH 7 — -- 12 and E-470. This component would reconstruct LEGEND .- 13 interchanges at SH 56, WCR 34, and SH 7. The G 14 relatively new SH 52 structure over 1-25 would be Longmont _,nn„n cite Rail Line 5 widened to provide additional capacity along SH 3. o ETD Trnn•n Station 16 52. The interchange at SH 119 is also relatively ^' „ ,. 17 new and would require minimal upgrade to the off — 18 ramps. A new interchange at SH 66 is planned as ,. _oG'G'E �. 19 part of a separate action. � � 20 The estimated capital cost of component A-H3 is t " • %` :, i .,. ..,. 21 $205.6 million. j :�`" a co Structure Upgrades � . u: D r..J o 7 Component A-H4: 1-25, E470 to US 36 o This component includes improvements identified in v •r Fort gins . the No-Action Alternative. No capacity improvements W ` -' are included in Package A along this section of 1-25 N '^ --- u- (1-25 is currently 6 lanes in this area). No-Action \‘.. Lon! nd Greeley improvements include minor structure rehabilitation _ ._.� for Bull Canal, a pedestrian overpass north of a — 1 — 104th Avenue, Farmer's Highline Canal crossing, Thornton Parkway, 88th Avenue, and the pedestrian LEGEND G intern.nng.te r•C•o underpass south of 88th. In addition, major structural .•.T.Ec..Rail rehabilitation is included at 104th Avenue and 84th ongmont ii, 0 ETG Transit Station Avenue. a The estimated capital cost of component A-H4 is $54.7 million. ,,ad n �. ,, r Alternatives 2-58 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Package A Transit Components •'- Commuter Rail LEGEND 3 Component All: Commuter Rail Fort Collins o --Onmmut•r Rail station E 4 to Longmont _ \ II Lin. This component includes single track commuter o _ 0 O...n.It Station 6 rail along the BNSF from near Mason Street and Y IRN 7 Maple Street in downtown Fort Collins to m °o"` u" x University Avenue and Mason near CSU and c w - - o double track commuter rail using the existing °"e ntl 10 BNSF railroad track plus one new track from �n Th`:' lo' I 1 University Avenue and Mason Street near CSU to 2 - 12 1st and Terry in Longmont. This component = Potential Rail CO Maintenance I3 includes seven commuter rail stations, one cc Faintey Site 14 maintenance facility, and the feeder bus service P3 - _ - 15 described in Package A. E °"°mon. 1 16 E . _ 17 The estimated capital cost of component A-T1 is ? n, 1s $615.0 million. E es __"'� milder 19 Q \ —.. �. -,21 - 21 ''-):I'- ^,f �\.7 '' .` "rl •+^ 13 o Commuter Rail '+� LEGEND co .' co _._°tmnnut.r nail l Station 0 ` ..^ m 111 , • Cr _i..Tracks 11.11 L1na x...n I ' I r �\ t "r o RTD Transit Station r0 on \ z Component A-T2: Commuter Rail Longmont to o Fort C Dins FasTracks North Metro Corridor _ This component includes new double-track o "' —1, commuter rail from Longmont at 1st and Terry along Ca A.,..„ `o""' n° a Greeley SH 119, then southeast to CR 7, and southeast o —W-,o 1 - again to cross 1-25, and would connect to the _-� FasTracks North Metro Corridor at SH 7. ., This component would not be constructed and d ;r _ operated independently, but would be in addition to _• the commuter rail component from Fort Collins to E °"°r"°"' Longmont. This component includes two additional o n, -I'- stations,stations, one near the Sugar Mill in Longmont and j one near CR 8/CR 7 near the tri-towns. __.,gl,.*older I— Q a _., �. .._ The estimated capital cost of component A-T2 is $438.0 million. „ -.tar- \a • 4/N • i Denver ,� m Alternatives 2.59 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I Component A-T3: Commuter Bus Greeley to Denver I • 3 This component includes commuter bus service m Commuter Bus 1 4 from Greeley to downtown Denver. Queue jumps c 5 and stations along US 85 identified in the w ` . '- potential Bus 6 Package A description are associated with this0 \„ Maintenance p Facililty Site 7 component. A bus maintenance facility is also a — S associated with this component. d Fort •ollin „ D i 2 ..-_. "- y �u Level ntl I I = L1L �Cretie I l m LEGEND ,-€:- • n CL CJ K Commuter Sus/Station —o ,- ,-,- I , 14 = —FasTracks Rail Lin. _. .ss..w Ecc 0 RillTransit Station Eo _ 6 U €7 17 C. /Longmont 18 n . " I9 . Q Commuter Bus OO - ... milder • To ii LFort Cclline ,.. ce„"w.a" b u O \._ ._". " ~ " v = ...�- m �n Lovelitntl T \ .a Grq1 „ „ ' o,,s, , o L M —N reeley Z . Denver = LIDe„D -=:-� 2. .- E — asrac E a Commuter Sus/Station —".—I ...., " FTks Rail Lino —M_ .�w a Q V 0 RTD Transit Station F4 "' Component A-T4: Commuter Bus Greeley to DIA Q ongmont This component includes commuter bus service from Greeley to DIA. This component would be operated in addition to the commuter bus service -_ - to Denver and serve the same stations along e dtler "- - US 85 north of E-470. No additional stations are `'"\� 1 - associated with this service. - Together, Components A-T3 and A-T4 would have «,«„.m an estimated capital cost of m $28.2 million. ) N_. 2 0 frnqo un Te O -' Den`er ' I ® • Alternatives 2-60 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information, cooperation, transportation. • I Package A Highway Components Summary 3 Table 2-15 Summarizes key elements associated with Package A highway components summary. 4 5 Table 2-15 Package A Summary PACKAGE A COMPONENT SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT COMPONENT A-H1 A-H2 A-H3 A-H4 A-T1 A-T2 A-T3 A-T4 1-25 Segment Length (Miles) 8.4 18.2 24.6 9.8 30.2 17.5 NA NA Additional General Purpose Lanes (Miles) 0 18.2 15.7 0 0 0 0 0 Interchanges—Reconstructed (Number) 2 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 Interchanges—Modified/Rehabilitated (Number) 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 Car Pool Lots(Number) 1 6 5 0 6 2 5 * Water Quality Ponds (Number) 11 35 31 0 6 2 5 Structures— Modified/Rehabilitated (Number) 4 2 7 8 0 0 0 0 Structures—Replaced\New (Number) 10 37 18 0 18 24 0 0 Structures — Replaced (Hydraulic Deficiency) 0 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 (Number) Commuter Rail Line (Miles) 0 0 0 0 30.2 17.5 0 0 Commuter Bus Service (Miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.6 54.1 Maintenance Facilities (Number) 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 * Stations (Number) 0 0 0 0 7 2 7 * Queue Jumps (Number) 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 * 41)6 NA=Not Applicable 7 *Included in A-T3 • Alternatives 2.61 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I Package B Components • 2 Package B Highway Components 3 Component B-H1: 1-25, SH 1 to SH 14 a Highway Safety 4 This component includes horizontal and vertical x Improvement -- r r o ' 5 alignment improvements along 1-25 as well as o 6 reconstruction of the SH 1 and Mountain Vista — 7 interchanges. No widening of 1-25 is associated = Fort C Innsx with this component; 1-25 would remain four Lr — _, •--- `- 9 lanes. N fly i0 1,,,„n Level ne "- The estimated capital cost of component B-H1 x I `•e` v I'_ is $154.0 million. m -- 1 I ; ,. Lifter, 'i o tnt.......e uMrasu 15 » —• —Fa.Tr.ek.Rail Lin. . 16 ongmont 0 RTD Transit Station Is fly " — 10 ,�. •-ouider — 2I ., �. - 22 ...—... _ 1 o Add Tolled n " ~ t' up Express Lanes M -\ , ' �] i --- \ 79 . . - 0 I = Fort C Ilins ., (/) - i • - ,, , - - Component B-H2: 1-25, SH 14 to SH 60 "' m This component includes adding two buffer- . � " v ``"a' ° . Greeley, separated tolled express lanes from SH 14 to _ -- Harmony Road and four barrier-separated tolled °0 j _M — - express lanes from just north of Harmony Road to L.D.RD just south of SH 60 to the existing four general —Tolled purpose lanes. O int.ren.ng.Un rad.. engmenleve FasTr.eks Rail Lino Widening would address vertical and horizontal m -o RTDTransitEtatlon alignment concerns along 1-25. This component includes reconstruction of interchanges at SH 14, wilder 3 - Prospect Road, Harmony Road, SH 392, 1 , �, Crossroads Boulevard, US 34, SH 402, LCR 16, and —. - SH 60. The relatively new interchange bridge at •. - . . Harmony Road would be replaced to accommodate - the wider 1-25 cross section in Package B. The estimated capital cost of component B-H2 is ,.,-. .� $1.059 billion. • o Alternatives 2.62 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1, Component B-H3: 1-25, SH 60 to E-470 0 Add Tolled v Express Lanes 3 This component includes adding two buffer- w (_� r 4 separated tolled express lanes from just o ,, I 5 south of SH 60 to SH 66 and the existing four 2, , 6 general purpose lanes on 1-25. From SH 66 = Fort Collins 7 to E-470, two buffer-separated lanes would cn 2r -• h be added to the existing six-lane 1-25 cross L e, L °° 9 section. Widening would address vertical and - � Loveland I horizontal alignment concerns along 1-25. _ . m% .NGreeley --N I I In addition, auxiliary lanes would be included as - - �" ' 12 between SH 7 and E-470. This component -`°- 13 would reconstruct interchanges at SH 56, --u LEGEND 14 WCR 34, and SH 7. The relatively new SH 52 G / —Tall i s structure over 1-25 would be widened to h/Longmont -r C Intarekana•°•area•• FasTranks Rail Lln• 16 provide additional capacity along SH 52. The / 1- interchange at SH 119 is also relatively new n ° RTG It Station 1 s and would require minimal upgrade to the off — "' s. "_ 19 ramps. A new interchange at SH 66 is r '— 20 planned as part of a separate action. Guidef' _2122 The estimated capital cost of component B- "-- 3 H3 is $333.2 million. 1 W . CemMnnl .-•- ':.\ " N.n"Ynro \ r, A' Maw Add Tolled / `- 'f '� 9 • o) Express Lanes D W., ,.,.. VN ° o ID I m 0 ---- .. n- 1. Fort C "Ins Si w .. ."..r. .... c.1 N ID Loyal nd . ' Crinkly1 m o * Component B-H4: I-25, E-470 to US 36 _I ,. ".._. This component includes adding two buffer-separated """ LEGEND tolled express lanes to the existing six general Toll purpose lanes on 1-25. Interchanges at 104th and 84th ° l Avenues would be totally reconstructed, those at E- enament ° -B"Traeks Roll Lin° 470 and 144th, 136th, and 120th Avenues and o mG Transit Station ID Thornton Parkway would be partially rebuilt. ® ® ;r.. Improvements also include replacement of Bull Canal ', Guider ' crossing, a pedestrian overpass north of 104th ® !• g,,• Avenue, Farmer's Highline Canal crossing, and the 88th Avenue pedestrian underpass. ` "' a'.-M=:-. The estimated capital cost of component B-H4 is ° $317.8 million. • vv i ,i Alternatives 2.63 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 1 Package B Transit Components • , 3 Component B-T1: BRT Fort Collins/ Greeley to Denver 4 This component includes BRT service from 5 Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown a, Bus Rapid Transit Denver. Queue jumps along US 34 described c 7 in Package B are also included in this 0 potential Bus s component. This includes a bus maintenance n Maintenance O Facilitty Site 9 facility and 14 BRT stops located along ... i 0 Harmony Road, US 34/US 34 Business, and ° Fort •*Dins' tII I I 1-25. Twelve of these stations are being ai • - ....-... 12 assessed as part of this Draft EIS. The other cp v — ; 13 two stops are existing and within the RTD w Level nd 1 14 district. This component also includes the = tD m• Ir..l. I 5 feeder bus network described in Package B. U • • •-•• 6 t. I_ LL - LEGEND I- +O.BRT/Station 0 -,_ Feeder 1 9 CO - .. Bus Longmont 10 ` 0.. —R D Trans Rall Linn 17x 0 RTD TranaN gtatlo Q Bus Rapid Transit m 2r.gia e • .. / O 0 c —'_ 9 eulder •• i. VFort allin. „ ••,• •n•••1i1 f.'h. ,.. F �. Level nd •- 1 l ce v • Greeley' V ,o iNlim 25, „_� N—nb Denier 'T 05 v LEGEND -m aRT l Station Longmont Faarrack.Ran Lln• ". 0 RTBTranaItStation Component B-T2: BRT Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA —•— This component includes BRT service from -- _ Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA. This component would not „I milder — be operated independently but would be in addition to "--. BRT service to Denver. No additional stations are associated with this service. ,. ar are- �—. F ' Together Components B-T1 and B-T2 would have an � .- estimated capital cost of$141.7 million. •vvo Al Alternatives 2.64 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. doh i Package B Component Summary 3 Table 2-16 summarizes key elements associated with each Package B component. 4 5 Table 2-16 Package B Summary PACKAGE B COMPONENT SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT COMPONENT B-H1 B-H2 B-H3 B-H4 B-T1 B-T2 1-25 Segment Length 8.4 18.2 24.6 9.8 NA NA Tolled Express Lanes (Miles) 0 18.2 15.7 0 0 0 Interchanges—Reconstructed (Number) 2 8 4 0 0 0 Interchanges— Modified/Rehabilitated (Number) 0 1 2 3 0 0 BRT/Car Pool Lots (Number) 1 6 5 0 2 Water Quality Ponds 11 35 31 0 1 * Structures— Modified/Rehabilitated (Number) 4 2 7 8* NTS NTS Structures—Replaced/New (Number) 10 37 18 0 NTS NTS Structures— Replaced (Hydraulic Deficiency)(Number) 0 11 8 0 NTS NTS Bus Rapid Transit Service (Miles) 0 0 0 0 76.5 78.6 • Maintenance Facilities (Number) 0 0 0 0 1 * * Stations/Stops (Number) 0 0 0 0 14 Queue Jumps(Number) 0 0 0 0 12 * 'NTS=Not Tabulated Separately. Included in corresponding highway components. NA=Not Applicable *Included in B-T1 • Alternatives 2-65 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information, cooperation. transportation. 2.3 SCREENING OF PRIMARY ELEMENTS S 2 This section describes the development of the primary transportation improvements in Packages 3 A and B through the evaluation and screening process. The development and screening are 4 described in detail in Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). 5 However, to simplify presentation of the process and its outcomes, results of the development and r; screening process are summarized below in a series of four primary questions and responses: 7 ► Where should alternatives begin and end? 8 ► What alignments should be used? y ► What highway facility type and transit mode should be selected? 10 ► How do the transit and highway alternatives fit together? II 2.3.1 Question 1: Where should alternatives begin and end? 2 Various northern and southern endpoints were analyzed for both the transit and highway I3 components to determine the project's "logical termini." The main considerations were the 14 alternatives' accessibility to and from major population centers in the regional study area (shown 15 in Figure 2-36), and the alternatives' potential connections to other facilities and services, as I0 discussed in Section 2.1.4 Regional Planning Context. Major population centers on the northern 17 end included Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley, as shown. By contrast, there are several I8 southern population centers, and the trip patterns destined to them from areas north of SH 66 are I 0 very diverse. Therefore, selecting the southern terminus depended less on population • 20 concentrations and more on connecting transportation facilities and services. 21 2.3.1.1 HIGHWAY TERMINI 22 The following logical termini were established based on the project's purpose and need and a 23 review of travel patterns, roadway volumes, travel time, land use, population growth, 24 employment growth, and travel modes: 25 ► While traffic volumes drop off noticeably north of SH 14, a northern highway terminus of 20 Wellington (SH 1) was selected to address existing safety concerns between SH 14 and SH '7 1. Improvements north of SH 14 would address the existing safety concerns but would not add capacity to this stretch of 1-25. In addition, a 2002 household survey by the North Front > Range MPO indicated that only a small portion of trips have destinations north of Wellington. 30 ► Two different southern termini were established based on the different lane types being 31 considered. For highway improvements focused on high-occupancy vehicles, such as HOT 32 or HOV lanes, a southern terminus of US 36 was found to provide the best continuity of 33 travel by providing a direct connection to the existing HOT reversible facility in the Denver 34 Metro Area that currently has a northern terminus near US 36/84th Avenue. Terminating the 35 lanes north of the exiting HOT facility would require users to exit the manage lanes and travel 30 on the general purpose lanes on the section of 1-25 with the slowest travel speeds. This 37 would result in reducing the overall demand and possible revenue to proposed HOV and 38 HOT lanes. For traditional toll and general purpose lane improvements, a southern terminus 30 of E-470 (and the Northwest Parkway) was identified. This terminus would address the 40 northern Colorado auto travel patterns that distribute throughout the Denver Metro area with • 41 a limited volume actually continuing on to downtown Denver. In addition, it provides 42 independent utility, and it would not preclude consideration of other reasonably foreseeable 43 transportation improvements along the corridor. Alternatives 2.66 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. Figure 2-36 Origins and Destinations from North Front Range to South of SH 66 Year 2001 I— In 2001, trip origins were concentrated around the cities of FORtC= ;4` Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley. The destinations were widely dispersed, but with some ;? -". .4f ei:EY concentration in Longmont, LOVE along SH 119 to Boulder and along the 1-25 corridor to � .. .: .... . .... i . . . downtown Denver. LONGIPI ce�.: Legend ,t' d Origin Traffic Analysis Zone Y - . .. ..... _..- •1 dot=15 Trip Origins BO. • • • R Fi.. : ' . Destination Traffic Analysis Zone i- •1 dot 15 Trip Ends Eros " — Year 2030 — ermmr o 1 _ wniaom Coma m • • f r• • wu • FORT iri {- . ' ELEY LOVE I 'in' r p• As i ,.• : "wk. In 2030, trip origins will still be concentrated around the cities .. ",:' . :.:x$ y;. of Fort Collins, Greeley, and B, • R a w m Loveland. Destinations will be even more widely dispersed, e:•; but with similar concentration in Longmont, along SH 119 tot. Boulder, and along the I-25 E ~• c•-.1t corridor to downtown Denver. :4.•:' — ; .:- `, • • rr Source North 1-25 EIS Travel model Alternatives 2.67 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. I 2.3.1.2 TRANSIT TERMINI • 2 Various forms of both bus and rail technologies were considered for the North 1-25 EIS, which 3 influenced how the end-of-line locations were selected. 4 ► Northern Terminus. The logical northern terminus would need to demonstrate accessibility by 5 the projects' main population centers: Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland. Communities 6 decrease substantially in size north of these communities. In addition, Fort Collins, Greeley, 7 and Loveland have local transit services and facilities that new transit services could connect to, where multi-modal ends of line would provide greater accessibility for passengers. A 9 northern transit terminus of SH 14 was found to adequately address multi-modal transportation to opportunities in northern Colorado. I I ► Southern Terminus. Denver's RTD has committed funding for two commuter rail lines that 12 extend into the regional study area through the FasTracks program, a referendum that funded 13 the extensive passenger rail expansion program that will include service to Longmont and 14 Thornton, among other corridors. Consequently, the North 1-25 project focused on providing 15 service to points with maximum transit connectivity without duplicating or competing for 16 service, and all rail alternatives were designed to either end or begin coordinating with RTD 17 service at the FasTracks corridors' ends-of-line, which terminate at Denver Union Station. 18 Because the FasTracks rail corridors end in downtown Denver, bus alternatives also were 19 designed to end in downtown Denver, in order to provide comparable end-of-line services and 20 amenities to the rail alternatives. Terminating bus service north of downtown Denver would 21 result in longer travel time for bus riders and a transfer which would result in a substantial 22 reduction in bus ridership. ?3 OUTCOME OF QUESTION 1:WHERE SHOULD ALTERNATIVES BEGIN AND END? • 24 The need to address mobility needs, replace aging infrastructure and address safety concerns 25 necessitated that capacity improvements extend north to Fort Collins and safety improvements on 26 1-25 extend north to SH 1. 27 The need to provide accessibility screened out transit options that did not connect northern 2x Colorado communities to the Denver Metro Area, such as the North Front Range Rail Loop. 29 The effect of the termini on the project had the following outcomes: 30 ► General purpose lanes and toll lane alternatives need to connect to E-470 as a southern I terminus to distribute northern Colorado auto travelers throughout the Denver metro area 32 ► HOV and HOT alternatives need to connect to the HOT facility at US 36 as a southern 33 terminus to be a competitive travel mode and provide a facility for BRT improvements ,4 ► Highway widening needs to extend north to SH 14 as a northern terminus 35 ► Highway safety improvements need to extend to SH 1 to address current safety concerns 36 ► Transit alternatives need to connect to existing and planned transit services to provide service 37 to downtown Denver as a southern terminus a major transit destination 38 ► Transit alternatives need to connect to the northern population centers of Fort Collins and 39 Greeley to attract ridership 40 Additional details about the screening results are included in Table 2-18. • Alternatives 2-68 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 2.3.2 Question 2: What alignment(s) should be used? 2 Various north/south alignments along existing transportation corridors were considered. This 3 question was analyzed separately for highway and transit improvements. 4 2.3.2.1 HIGHWAY ALIGNMENT 5 Alignments included widening 1-25 with additional lanes; upgrading existing parallel facilities such as r, US 85, US 287 or arterials parallel to 1-25; and building a new highway along existing county roads. The alignments considered are depicted in Figure 2-37. 8 Evaluation of the initial range of alignments found that improvements that paralleled 1-25, such as 9 upgrading US 85 or US 287 or a new highway or parallel arterial, did not divert sufficient traffic from 1-25 to relieve anticipated congestion. This includes the proposed Prairie Falcon Parkway, a multi- 11 modal toll facility approximately 25 miles east of 1-25, connecting Larimer and Pueblo counties. 12 While some interstate travel may divert to this new facility, the majority of residents in the regional 1 3 study area would experience lengthy out-of-direction travel to connect to the Denver Metro Area if 14 they used this facility. Without other improvements, the proposed parkway alone would not have the 15 ability to address the mobility needs of northern Colorado residents traveling to the Denver Metro 16 Area. Potential environmental impacts were also taken into consideration. New roadway alignments 17 and upgrading roads through communities had more potential to impact environmental resources. I K The alignment evaluation found that improvements located on 1-25 (general purpose lanes or 19 managed lanes) best addressed the anticipated congestion on 1-25. In addition, these improvements .o had the most potential to also address safety concerns along 1-25 and replace the aging 21 infrastructure on 1-25. These improvements also had a lower potential to impact the natural and 22 human environment when compared to new highway and roadway alternatives. • Alternatives 2.69 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. i Figure 2-37 Highway Alignments Considered I __ G\ O l"' InNtan `-, It 25 US 287 Alignment (187 Would not attract sufficient traffic from 1-25. Has high f 14 potential for environmental I " impact to communities. Fort °ollin , oath Eeve►anea l-- i 5 - 1 L� J 1-25 Alignment 287` WindsorT Would provide adequate y l capacity to address mobility, LOV it is d _ replace aging structures, and 3a, `s4 Greeley address safety on 1-25. - - I% - �I Garden City c J elite -prjj, Evans CR 50 La Sall, Ill I. ela 36 MNNkas ,.±.C-- - d New Parallel Arterials and New Highways US 85 Alignment Would not divert sufficient R34 traffic from 1-25 to address Would not divert sufficient1 mobility needs. `' matt A:11- traffic from 1-25 to address mobility needs. Longmont S6 Li Prairie Falcon Pkwy. BOULDER t e Would not address mobility needs on 1-25.Air t , Bould r r_hin 119 L, ir_ . �" -IIIaright on a I t.i....-fr et G) _ 0 36 LoWnUl. - _fupd i- - C_t. - 1 J • 72 rl 1 low� *� E470 Denver ik mint _ Internutlonal - I Airport - — .I. / Or`"r 2 1i � J 121)' , JEFFERSON 2h ;c; ri . PI! Union Station 9- -- oir . - r -7" 1 7� : I - /\ 6_ 6� Denver 0 2 4 6 8 10 } I \ I i gores North _ 1 Alternatives 2-70 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. •1 2.3.2.2 RAIL ALIGNMENTS 2 The potential rail transit alignments considered are pictured in Figure 2-38. Both active and 3 abandoned railroad right-of-way were considered as well as new alignments along other existing 4 transportation corridors. Alignments were evaluated based on the following: ► Concentration of employment and population centers served 6 ► Ability to connect to other existing transit systems 7 ► Travel time 8 ► Anticipated trip patterns served 9 ► Cost effectiveness 10 ► Potential to adversely impact natural and built environmental resources I I Detailed documentation of the evaluation of rail alignments considered is provided in the 2 Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). 13 The western side alignment was more favorable than the central or eastern alignment alternatives 14 for the following reasons: Is ► Alternatives on the western side of the corridor would provide greater access to population 16 and employment concentrations. 17 • The initial alignment analysis found that an estimated 14,975 future work trips occur •r between western communities and the Denver area. Similarly, an estimated 9,075 future 9 work trips occur between eastern communities and the Denver area. However, this 2u analysis was inconclusive with respect to the travel patterns along the central area of the 21 study area. ?? • A more detailed analysis of the central and western alignments was subsequently 23 undertaken. The quantity of existing population and employment within four miles of the 24 preliminary station sites along each alignment was calculated. The preliminary station 25 sites included the following: 26 Central rail alignment Western rail alignment 1-25 at Harmony Road - Fort Collins BNSF north of downtown — Fort Collins 2x 1-25 at SH 392 - Windsor BNSF at SH 14 — Fort Collins 29 1-25 at Crossroads - Loveland BNSF at Harmony Road — Fort Collins 30 1-25 at US 34 - Loveland BNSF at US 34 - Loveland 31 1-25 at SH 56 - Berthoud BNSF at SH 402 - Loveland 32 1-25 at SH 119 - Longmont BNSF at SH 56 - Berthoud 33 1-25 at SH 52 - Frederick BNSF south of SH 66 - Longmont 34 1st and Terry - Longmont 35 The evaluation showed that the western alignment currently has more than double the 36 population and employment surrounding stations than the central alignment. This 7 difference in the concentration of population and employment is projected to continue into 3M the future, but at less pronounced levels. In 2030, there will be about 30% more 39 population and employment along the west corridor compared to the central corridor. • Alternatives 2.71 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ► Western and central rail lines would attract a similar amount of ridership. However, the • western rail lines would cost approximately 35% less than a comparable length of central rail 3 line because the western line would utilize the existing BNSF rail line while the central line 4 would require construction of new track. 5 ► Commuter rail service down the UPRR line on the eastern side of the corridor was 6 considered less feasible than service on either the western or central alignments due to the 7 higher number of grade crossings which are a safety concern, the number of active trains x running daily along that line which would restrict the availability of the line for commuter 9 traffic, and the restricted capacity available at the Sand Creek Junction used to connect that I o line to Denver Union Station. All of these factors would degrade safety and reliability. I I Despite more potential to impact the communities along US 287, the BNSF alignment is I2 compatible with the land use plans for cities such as Fort Collins, Berthoud, Loveland, and I ; Longmont. Their land use plans include rail to strengthen their downtown areas through 14 redevelopment opportunities and improved travel choices. 15 There are numerous existing freight rail corridors in the regional study area. Any of these could 16 be used in the future for inter-regional transit purposes. 17 Rail spurs to cross-corridor communities were also considered if they could provide more direct 18 service from the North Front Range to the Denver area. A spur between Longmont and Thornton 19 and a spur to DIA were considered. 20 A spur from Longmont to Thornton was developed to retain connections to two FasTracks 21 corridors (the FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor, terminating in Longmont, and the FasTracks • 22 North Metro Corridor, terminating in Thornton) and providing faster service to downtown Denver. 23 Its exact placement considered specific environmental analysis that determined the tradeoffs in 24 locating the new alignment to the west or east of CR 7. The western alignment was considered 25 more favorable because of impacts to 4 prairie dog towns, 0.36 acres of wetlands, and impacts 26 to 66 properties, of which 22 are identified as low income associated with the alignment east of 27 CR 7. 28 The rail spur connection to DIA was eliminated because it would be redundant service to RTD's 29 East Corridor rail from downtown Denver to DIA. • Alternatives 2.72 Draft EIS NORTH 1 Z� EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 40 Figure 2-38 Transit Alignments Considered LEGEND Mode Alignment Considered BNSF to RTD Rail Northwest Rail _t.1 BNSF to RTD Rail wotllnylon North Metro t4 -- x '� tamswit UPRR and 1-25 to Rail `M11 RTD Northwest Rail N �, Ault UPRR and 1-25 to Rail , 1. - -� �� RTD North Metro J F . 'll ,,� -- as I-25 to RTD Rail I C 1 „ -- -- — — — - North Metro T ' n It _ swonneo Eaton \- /I L 1-25 Bus or Rail _Iii G / Lucerne\r, G ° Dent Line to RTD 8rl - Windsor GitRr - North Metro Bus or Rail 1. I. GWR and UPRR Love nd � Rail sa a 1 Greet - to Denver = — _? Gordon oa c_ US 85 to Denver Bus Only 0 \ �sr ■r � - � and DIA so , CR 50 •- La s c I hnstewn� US 287 to FasTracks Bus Only -r — , ��"Mlle Northwest Rail Corridor o• ';i acre • . a U. 0. mllCR34 W j lattsrlll Longmont',' ors 7 c• :- —SOMME, . ;_ I I Weston 11 ' >> [ . ~� l `'" n )2(____ _ I . .r Boulder ;t E"' - zs z ;: 3 I Loalsrlll ! Sri on J 11 I 'I ' J 1•` Broomfield . — - — 4.:_:l� Northwest marsh; l Rail Corridor hrtor s.. North E470 o•r^'or Metro International � t L Airport _ `P , Corridor 2i irks_ JEFFERSON 2 ` 76 L . r if fr.---- 70 '0 k Station - 17N O 40' 70 ID 0 2 4 6 8 10 /\ s ` Denver '6th Ave.L solider. North 225 2 Alternatives 2-73 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I 2.3.2.3 Bus ALIGNMENTS • 2 The potential bus alignments considered are also pictured in Figure 2-37. Based on travel-time 3 analysis, and the location of population centers, 1-25 and US 85 alignments were considered to be 4 the most promising. Bus alternatives traveling along 1-25 would begin in Fort Collins and Greeley 5 in order to provide similar service to both sides of the corridor. (Fort Collins, rather than Loveland, 6 was chosen as the northern terminus for BRT due to the connection to more transit services and 7 facilities, such as the South Transit Center at the southern end of the Mason Street corridor). Bus 5 alignments traveling along US 85 would begin in Greeley to connect with their local bus service. 9 The dent line was not advanced because it did not serve population and employment centers as to well as other potential alignments. The US 287 alignment was not advanced because travel times I 1 along this facility were not competitive for regional service and therefore ridership was low. 12 A bus connection to DIA also was included, prompted by stakeholder interest, and after analysis 13 showed that service to DIA could increase the line's ridership. 14 OUTCOME OF QUESTION 2: WHAT ALIGNMENT(S) SHOULD BE USED? 15 The need to replace aging infrastructure on 1-25 and address safety and mobility concerns in the I6 project area screened out highway alignments off 1-25, such as Prairie Falcon Parkway, as well as 17 the upgrading of US 85 or US 287. It was found that these alignments diverted less than 20% of IS the necessary 55,000 vehicles per day from 1-25 to address the mobility concerns along the 1-25 19 corridor. Therefore, 1-25 would continue to operate at LOS E or lower even with improvements to 20 those alignments. 21 The need to provide accessibility to population and employment centers and be practicable • 22 screened out eastern and central transit alignments along the UPRR and Dent lines. A western 23 rail line along the BNSF corridor would serve about twice as many residents and jobs as a central 24 rail line. In addition, the 2030 model results indicated that about 65% more Denver destined work 25 trips occur between the western communities compared to the eastern communities in the 26 regional study area. Eastern and central rail alignments as well as those that connect east/west 27 movement would still be available for inter-regional transit purposes. 25 Therefore, it was determined that: 29 ► Highway improvements would be on the 1-25 alignment 30 ► Rail improvements would be on the BNSF corridor between Fort Collins and Longmont 31 ► Bus improvements would be on 1-25 or US 85, but not both 32 33 Additional details about the screening results are included in Table 2-18. • Alternatives 2.74 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • i 2.3.3 Question 3: What facility type and transit mode should be 2 evaluated? 3 A wide variety of highway modes and configurations including buffer and barrier-separated toll 4 lanes, freeway lanes, HOV lanes, and arterial upgrades were evaluated to determine which had the 5 potential to address project needs and were practical. Similarly, all type of transit modes were o evaluated to determine if they would improve accessibility and if they were cost-effective. 7 Figure 2-39 describes all of the highway facility types and transit modes that were considered in the 8 screening process. These descriptions are helpful when comparing the travel modes considered in 9 the following section. For example, understanding the differences between the various tolled I0 express lane/managed lane concepts is important: Toll lanes toll all vehicles using the facility, HOT i I lanes toll single-occupant vehicles and allow HOVs to the use the lanes for free, HOV lanes allow 12 only high occupant vehicles to travel in the lane. Each of these three concepts falls under the tolled 13 express lane/managed lane category but result in different traffic operations along the corridor. 14 Early stages of screening eliminated many of these initial options. The more promising highway is facility types and transit modes were evaluated with more detail as described below. 10 2.3.3.1 HIGHWAY FACILITY TYPES I' Preliminary estimates indicate that north/south travel demand would exceed capacity by 18 approximately 55,000 vehicles per day in 2030. Therefore the selected improvements would need to 19 accommodate this anticipated capacity deficiency. Figure 2-40 illustrates the typical daily capacity wIt achieved with key roadway expansion projects. As shown, upgrading the classification of an existing 2I arterial facility to an expressway would result in the smallest capacity increase while adding lanes to 22 a freeway would result in the largest capacity increase. As shown, four additional HOT lanes, toll 23 lanes, or four new freeway lanes could accommodate this demand. 24 Limited access lanes would provide a similar capacity to four new freeway lanes. However, these 25 lanes would cost slightly more and have more potential for environmental impacts, due to their wider 20 cross section. The wider cross section and need for limited access infrastructure also limited the 27 flexibility of the cross-section capacity (i.e., the ability to re-stripe or re-designate the lanes in the 2� future). • Alternatives 2-75 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 2-39 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process II Bus Rapid Transit is a flexible rubber-tired transit service that typically operates in exclusive or semi-exclusive managed lanes for all or part of the route. There is no specific guidance on how much of a route must be in a managed lane but to qualify for FTA New Starts or Small Starts funding 50% of the route tr' - - s. must be in a fixed-guideway. However, FTA's Very Small Starts ___ -P: �` program does not have this particular restriction . For the purpose - —cres of this evaluation BRT is defined as traveling in a semi exclusive or exclusive travel lane for 50% or more of the route. Bus options with less than 50% of the route in a managed lane would be considered commuter bus . Express/regional/commuter bus service is regional transit service with limited stops in order to operate faster than other regional bus services. This type of transit service usually operates . • 4L flL n :, ; on roads designated as arterials or higher and has park-and-ride facilities located at its stops. NINE(1) ; Local bus is regularly scheduled fixed-route bus service with �\`` '„ _.•: �� frequent stops in local communities. Demand response service operates in response to calls from I Z E.... , qualified passengers, who are then provided door-to-door service. 0_ . , Jitneys provide service based on market driven demand without fixed schedules or stops. < , f.-. Commuter rail typically operates within freight rail right-of-way a'_f' and services long distance trips. It may use locomotives with . _ passenger cars or self-propelled passenger cars, known as diesel t multiple units. Commuter rail trains could be diesel-powered (most .tee common) or electrically-powered. I i I Personal rapid transit is service using small cars that carry one I i-. I YL to four people on a fixed guideway. • 1- =~'' Heavy rail is commonly referred to as metros or subways. Heavy _ rail usually provides high capacity, medium-speed service in . densely populated urban areas on steel tracks in an exclusive ,�,' right-of-way. Power is provided by a third rail along the tracks or r% by overhead electric cables. . _ 1 Alternatives 2-76 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. . I Figure 2-39 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process (cont'd) -� '` �°' Rail transport cars would transport drivers in their private autos r �t ,\ r ttz on a rail car. This service would be similar to a ferry. I i��; . ',. 1h scan,tb r• .Fil iiiiiiiesiFeA 1 • . ,, ;�• , e " Light rail typically provides medium capacity, medium speed • i �'"` a' service in urban areas. Light rail can operate in exclusive rights- • . -�• ; r : :. : =1 ►w of-way or share city streets. Power is generally provided by 0 F. overhead electric cables. ea i --vs Automated guideway transit describes a fully automated and i driverless transit system that operates in an exclusive right-of- - - - 4 `-O way guideway. These systems are generally found in major -� . `". • airports, activity centers, and downtown areas. Automated -: jam'' , 1, .�� - guideway transit systems can be self-propelled or powered by �`� overhead electrical cables. This category includes monorail which 410 EC \ � can be fully automated or driver-operated. - , . ., ! f¢ - 1 __ High speed rail typically provides intercity service, operating on is: .4e.: ` an exclusive guideway system of steel tracks, which can be .... located at-grade (usually existing rail lines) , elevated, or below jig. ground. Power is usually provided by overhead electrical cables. d — _ — 4 i a---a -. r Lot— - ti Additional lanes are the most common method of adding travel T ._:J � • i3. ;, capacity along a corridor. Lanes could be added to any existing " 6a* - t{• road in the corridor. •,a.. , N Tolled Express Lanes/Managed Lanes are lanes whose demand is managed to maintain reliable, fast operation even during peak c\0 4ii. _ = e periods. HOV lanes can be used by high occupancy vehicles _'�.: __, . `. only. HOT lanes can be used by high-occupant vehicles for free ; and single-occupant vehicles for a toll. Toll lanes can be used : • :71/4'':,:1* ‘i k. by drivers willing to pay a toll. The lanes are separated from - , general purpose lanes by a striped buffer or a raised median 0 barrier. Alternatives 2-77 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation- I Figure 2-39 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process (cont'd) II Congestion management includes travel demand management measures, intelligent transportation systems, and transportation systems management measures that are geared towards improving the efficiency of travel without major construction. These include carpool programs, telecommuting, dynamic message signing, ramp metering, and incident management strategies. - 'I _ - \ Interchange replacement/upgrade would include improving or . . , AN. , reconstructing existing interchanges that currently operate , i ‘s%l r fi '� inefficiently or are expected to have operating deficiencies in the >°' ;- • � future. 1' 49 • S .• At Intersection Sight o,,ta Horizontal and vertical alignment improvements address specific stretches of a road that have been identified as having 'ix'. _". . 1---_ -J. inadequate or unsafe geometric configurations. These include ' e : ..1 but are not limited to sight distance considerations and superelevation. III I , sal . 1 .i j Intersection upgrades address lane configurations and safety .1 IIN issues at existing intersections. These include but are not limited > -- _ to adding turn lanes or signalizing an intersection that is currently ris stop-sign controlled.0 ii0.1_ . y -i Frontage road revisions address the need to improve the capacity I - ' \., and layout of the frontage roads along 1-25. 1 � _ MPI ., New highway, parallel arterial or local road includes construction . - 4 of a new road facility on an alignment somewhere within the .44 regional study area. .. 111 S . . . Alternatives 2-78 NORTH I-25 . Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. ei Figure 2-39 Highway and Transit Modes Considered in Screening Process (cont'd) New interchanges are grade-separated access and egress points r between a highway and a local street or between two highways. s - _ �-� Limited access lanes are grade-separated lanes that carry _+� fir• r ,- x �- -:; ` 1i motorists through an intersection or interchange without providing '�-f ` ` = the ability to get on or off at that location. -/ . - A .-x- � r < lipirra:-. -. , Climbing lanes are added for the upgrade direction of a road where high traffic volumes and heavy truck traffic combine to „..-- cause delays and platooning along the facility. • T �, t ' Truck lanes are exclusive lanes that carry trucks only. They may 1 . — •... LTr _,� w — r t be separated from, or adjacent to, general purpose lanes and ` may provide only limited access to local intersections or -0,., `0 interchanges. f 41 ..r .w. Double deck 1-25 would increase capacity by building elevated lanes over existing 1-25 lanes.44r.t, -' .-.. - ' -...2-12' LANES Trmc Median Trave • rSz Lane width reconfiguration would restripe I-25 to provide additional lanes within the existing cross section. This iTravc.3-10'1 lc , LANES j improvement would create narrower lanes and shoulders. I 4I.3 ane, I 1La1dh1i a L..iSa r Alternatives 2-79 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 240 Typical Capacity of Facility Types Considered 80 - -Q70 c 60 55,000 Vehicle Capacity Needed CO 50 - a� U4-4 c40 o 30 z 20 a) ≥ 10 0 Upgrade Upgrade 2 New New 4 New 4 2 New 2 New 4 New 4 New Arterial to Expressway Expressway Lane Lane Freeway HOV HOT Lanes/ Freeway Expressway to Lanes Arterial Highway Lanes Lanes Toll Lanes Freeway Facility Types Considered 11 12 Figure 2-41 compares the costs per mile of the different variations of these lane types on 1-25 . 13 As shown , adding four new HOT/toll lanes would cost the most per mile . Two new freeway lanes 14 would cost the least but would also not quite provide enough capacity to fully accommodate the 15 anticipated 55 . 000 vehicle demand . 16 Figure 2-41 Capital Cost of 1-25 Lane Options Considered I 40 ? 30 au rcs + � 20 - 0 Lf) O O V O aDN 10 m Co a� Q 0 HOV Toll HOT Limited 2 New 4 New Access Lanes Freeway Lanes* Freeway Lanes** 1-25 Improvements Considered 17 18 * Cost of two new freeway lanes is based on widening north of SH 66 only. resulting in a six-lane cross section on 1-25. 19 ** Cost of four new freeway lanes is based on adding four lanes north of SH 66 and two lanes south of SH 66. resulting in an eight- 20 lane cross section north of SH 7. 21 Evaluation of the three management methods for express lanes (HOV, HOT, and toll ) included 22 consideration of both buffer- and barrier-separated cross sections . Buffer-separated sections 23 consisted of a single managed lane in each direction separated from the general purpose lanes 24 with a 4-foot painted strip (the buffer). Barrier-separated sections consisted of two lanes in each 25 direction that would be separated from the general purpose lanes with a raised concrete barrier. 26 Single-lane barrier separated sections were not considered for incident management and 27 emergency response reasons . Like limited access lanes, four barrier-separated lanes would cost Alternatives 2-80 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS CIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. more and have more potential for environmental impacts due to their wider cross section . le Because of this, barrier-separated cross sections with four additional lanes were only considered practical when traffic demand would warrant four additional lanes . Figure 2-42 Miles of Congestion in I-25 5 General Purpose Lanes 7 Figure 2-42 depicts congestion for the 9 three management methods for express c a 14 — 11 lanes and illustrates how congestion c a 12 — 13 would differ if HOV lanes were chosen . ° 10 4-- scp 15 As shown , HOV lanes would result in a) N _ 17 substantial congestion in the general c n 8 19 purpose lanes because fewer drivers o 6 — 21 would be diverted from the general 4570 4 -- 23 purpose lanes in to HOV lanes than HOT a 2 25 or Toll lanes . HOVs would therefore not 27 address the project's need to improve 0 29 mobility along 1-25. This is the primary HOV HOT Toll 31 reason HOVs were eliminated . Managed Lane Type 2030 PM Southbound (SH 14 to E-470) 33 HOT lanes, which would toll single- 34 occupant vehicles and allow HOV's to use the lane free of charge , were found to provide the most 35 congestion reduction in the general purpose lanes, and would have the highest utilization along the W6 corridor. This is because they would attract both HOV drivers and drivers willing to pay a toll into 7 the new lanes . Toll lanes resulted in somewhat more congestion than HOT lanes but far less the 38 HOV lanes . 39 To understand more clearly the fiscal implications of the two remaining alternatives ( HOT and Toll 40 lanes), this Draft EIS alternatives include tolled express lanes that could be managed in a variety of 41 ways, including : toll all vehicles (Toll ); toll single-occupant vehicles and allow HOVs to the use the 42 lanes for free (HOT); or toll single occupant vehicles and allow HOVs to use the lanes at a discount 43 (Toll and HOT hybrid ) to maximize the operations and available capacity of the additional lanes . 44 These various management alternatives within the tolled express lane category could result in small 45 differences in travel time and congestion , but would all have the same physical impact. 46 2.3.3.2 TRANSIT MODES 47 Along the BNSF corridor, commuter rail was found to be the most appropriate technology, as high- 48 speed and super high-speed rail would not be able to operate along the curves present in the 49 alignment. Light rail , monorail . and heavy rail are ill-equipped for long-distance travel and would take 50 more time with fewer car amenities to suit potential regional passengers . In addition , high speed rail , 51 super high speed rail and light rail (in addition to other technologies such as heavy rail , magnetic 52 levitation , and automated guideway transit) are more costly per mile. as shown in Figure 2-43 . 53 The evaluation and screening process identified the possibility of providing HOT or Toll lanes along 54 1-25 . The presence of these lanes would provide reliable and fast travel time conducive to 55 implementation of BRT service . Commuter bus service could operate along 1-25 or US 85 in $6 general purpose lanes . 57 Alternatives 2-81 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. i Figure 2-43 Comparing Transit Alternatives by Cost and Ridership 1 Capital Cost per Mile 25 - O _ 20 .4_ 7, 15 - op chin 10 - C o .00 5 - - 0 i I Commuter Bus Rapid Commuter Light High Speed Bus Transit Rail Rail Rail Transit Modes Ridership Cost/User 3500 - 7O - Includes: 3000 - 60 - Capital Costs cn 2500 - a) 50 - Operating Costs w N 73 2000 - 3 40 Maintenance Costs 1500 - ≥n 30 — cz 1000 - 20 - 500 — I[ p 10 - 0 0 I Commuter Bus Rapid Commuter Commuter Bus Rapid Commuter on 1-25 Bus Transit Rail on 1-25 Bus Transit Rail Transit Modes Transit Modes 3 OUTCOME OF QUESTION 3: WHAT FACILITY TYPE AND TRANSIT MODE SHOULD BE 4 EVALUATED? 5 The need to address safety and mobility concerns as well as provide a practical , cost-effective 6 alternative screened out modes such as double decking 1-25 and lane-width reconfiguration . In 7 addition , non-traditional highway modes. such as congestion management measures and bike 8 and pedestrian alternatives, alone would not adequately address mobility needs but were retained 9 to be used in conjunction with other improvements that would . 10 The need to address the desire for multi-modal transportation options that are practical and cost- 11 effective screened out some transit modes such as light rail , super high speed rail , and automated guideway transit systems . These systems were found to be excessively expensive or impractical 13 for a corridor of this length (more details on cost are found in Section 2.5 ) 14 After considering questions one through three. the reasonable highway and transit alternatives 15 remaining included : 16 ► General purpose lanes on 1-25 17 ► Tolled express lanes on 1-25 18 ► Commuter rail on the BNSF alignment 19 ► BRT on 1-25 in tolled express lanes 20 ► Commuter bus on US 85 I 21 Additional details about the screening results are included in Table 2-21 . Alternatives 2-82 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • I 2.3.4 Question 4: How do the highway and transit alternatives fit together? 3 Packaging alternatives together began by ensuring that highway capacity needs would be met. 4 Any combination of transit services was found to not reduce 1-25 volumes enough to meet 2030 5 demand without additional highway improvements. Similarly, highway improvements alone would n not address the multi-modal purpose and need. As depicted in Figure 2-44, to determine the most 7 effective packages of highway and transit alternatives, various combinations were tested according 8 to: 9 ► The use and optimization of available operating environments for transit Io ► Potential competition between transit services I I Based on the mode and alignment findings discussed in previous sections, commuter rail service 12 along the BNSF rail line performed well and was paired with general purpose highway 13 improvements. For equity throughout the regional study area, commuter bus service along US 85 4 with end points of both downtown Denver and DIA was added to this package of improvements. I5 When additional transit elements were tested in combination with these elements, such as 16 additional transit on 1-25, a decrease in riders was observed on each component, though it would 17 increase ridership overall. It was determined that to maintain maximum ridership on any one I8 transit line, service might be offered on 1-25 only or on the BNSF and US 85. Therefore, because 19 more proximate services would decrease the cost-effectiveness of each line, commuter rail on 20 the BNSF was paired with commuter bus service on US 85, with general purpose lanes (and no I transit service) along 1-25. This combination of improvements is Package A. 22 BRT and the tolled express lanes on 1-25 were combined, due to the potential to use the semi- 23 exclusive (less congested and more reliable) environment of the tolled express lanes for more 24 rapid and reliable BRT service along 1-25. In order to directly serve the communities which are 25 offset from the interstate, BRT service on mixed-use lanes to Fort Collins and Greeley was 26 provided. BRT destinations include both DIA and downtown Denver. This combination of 27 improvements is Package B. 25 A third combination could include pairing commuter rail service along the BNSF with tolled 29 express lanes along 1-25. While this combination is possible it does not take advantage of the 30 ability to cost effectively implement BRT as a result of the presence of the tolled express lanes. 31 This pairing can be further evaluated through the component analysis contained in this document 32 but because this is an unlikely and less cost effective pairing, it has not been identified as a 33 separate improvement package. 34 These two packages along with the No-Action Alternative package represent the reasonable 35 alternatives to be fully evaluated in this EIS. 36 OUTCOME OF QUESTION 4: HOW DO THE HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 37 FIT TOGETHER? 38 The need to provide a practical, multi-modal transportation solution led to the development of two 39 packages for detailed evaluation in this Draft EIS: aI0 ► Package A: General purpose lanes on 1-25 with the western alignment commuter rail and mor41 commuter bus service along US 85 42 ► Package B: Tolled express lanes on 1-25 with BRT Alternatives 2-83 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 244 Modes Considered for Combining into Packages I Modes Considered Ar /4ti., .. � . ! as a•.. r, �wi'.�' , r. rp - ¢tea. Li A• _./ - � r _''eta _ �i \ Commuter Bus Rapid Commuter 6-8 General Tolled Express Rail (CR) Transit (BRT) Bus (CB) Purpose Lanes (GPL) Lanes (TEL) Package A Consider Consider Consider Start : Adding BRT: Adding CR: Adding: CB _ - 4�;apa; ,,,,..-- l• -tt m--; Alt rA- _ — . fin. 6-8 GPL GPL do not provide CR provides CB provides transit service semi-exclusive lanes transit service to eastern communities, for BRT to western when combined communities with CR �. v e team`� + a' 2 I + Ibin en Ins 6-8 GPL CR CB Package B Consider Consider Consider ,_, Iii t Adding BRT: Adding CR : Adding CB : 4.44r .:„,, 154 . A r. m , L b, — - --1 . .,, ______,....... . ..... ______ ..."°..e.- 4 .. „„_,_,› g-, ---1,1)._ �.... TEL CR competes CB competes TEL provide for ridership for ridership semi-exclusive lanes for BRT h la _ - . 4, AL TEL BRT I Alternatives 2-84 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 2.4 SCREENING OF SECONDARY ELEMENTS 2 With the primary mode, facility type, and alignment of the packages determined, details about 3 interchange design, lane configuration, transit station locations, and maintenance facility locations 4 were determined. The next section describes the processes used to determine these secondary 5 elements of the packages. 0 2.4.1 Interchange Configurations 7 To complete the interchange screening, seven interchange small groups were established to 8 invite public participation in the interchange alternatives development and analysis process. Initial 9 interchange alternatives were developed based on the initial traffic analysis, initial public input at I0 the first series of small group meetings, as well as environmental and design related factors I i specific to each of the existing interchange locations. Alternatives considered in the initial 2 analysis included grade changes, access modifications (i.e. half-diamond to full-diamond), 13 configuration types and local access considerations. I4 The initial interchange alternatives were presented at the interchange small group meetings with a I5 discussion of the merits and impacts of each alternative. Public comments on the alternatives 10 were recorded for each of the small group meetings. Based on the public comments as well as the 1 7 merits and impacts of each alternative, a revised, refined preferred interchange configuration was I r established through subsequent meetings with each of the small groups. 19 The time requirement and complexity of this process varied for each of the interchanges in this 20 Draft EIS. In some cases, only two or three alternatives were analyzed before a preferred •I interchange configuration was established in a matter of three months. In some cases six or more 22 alternatives were developed and evaluated, and the process of establishing a preferred 23 interchange configuration took up to 12 months. The process was adjusted according to the 24 complexity, concerns and interests for each of the interchanges. 25 Most 1-25 interchanges in the corridor were built in the late 1950s and early 1960s; these are 26 generally considered functionally obsolete and do not meet current design standards. 27 Interchanges identified as functionally obsolete were initially evaluated with a standard diamond _r configuration because this configuration typically provides the most capacity at the lowest cost 29 with the most compact footprint to minimize impacts to environmental resources. Interchanges 30 that have recently been rebuilt were evaluated using their current configuration to determine if 31 they would continue to operate acceptably with 2030 traffic volumes or if they too would require 32 modifications. 33 If LOS D operation was unachievable or impacts to environmental resources were identified, 34 configurations that would provide more capacity or would cost more such as single-point urban, 35 tight diamond, partial cloverleaf, and direct connects were considered. Only in cases where 30 modifying an existing interchange did not result in operation at LOS D or better was a new 3 interchange location considered. Appendix E of the Alternatives Development and Screening 3$ Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a) details the interchange planning methodology. 39 Example interchange designs considered are pictured in Figure 2-45. The cloverleaf 40 configuration was not considered the optimal configuration at any location along the corridor 41 because of well-documented concerns with capacity, weaving and safety. For example, design 012 standards necessary to address these issues would create a cloverleaf much larger than the 43 current US 34 interchange and would result in significant impacts to right-of-way and to local 44 businesses located adjacent to 1-25. The partial cloverleaf configuration was still considered a Alternatives 2.85 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. I viable option. Detailed traffic analyses of each interchange location are included in the 2 Transportation Analysis Technical Reports, (FHU, 2008c). • 3 On a case-by-case basis, consideration also was given to closing an existing interchange. 4 However, in all locations, the existing interchanges were considered necessary to maintain 5 accessibility to the communities in northern Colorado and maintain the economic viability of the 6 businesses located adjacent to the interchanges. There are new interchanges (such as Sheridan 7 Parkway) that are being considered by others. This project does not preclude their eventual 8 construction at some point in the future. 9 Preliminary travel demand forecasting indicated that in most locations interchange traffic could be accommodated by replacing the existing interchanges with a diamond interchange designed to II meet current standards. The evaluation of interchange configurations was an iterative process of I? evaluating various interchange enhancements such as the number of approach lanes and the 13 signal timing to achieve LOS D or better. Input from stakeholders was provided though highway 14 small group meetings held throughout the interchange evaluation process. Table 2-17 presents a 15 summary of interchange screening. This evaluation was conducted using NEPA screening and 16 USAGE practicability criteria consistent with those used during project alternative screening. I? ► NEPA Screening: Responsiveness to criteria that determine how reasonable it is. The 18 definition of reasonable includes whether or not it is practical or feasible from a technical and 19 economic standpoint, whether or not it meets purpose and need, and whether or not it has 2u environmental impacts that are acceptable. 21 ► USACE Practicability: Responsiveness to criteria determining practicability as determined by 22 Clean Water Act Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines. The definition of practicability used was '_3 whether or not it meets the project's purpose and need and whether or not it is practicable, 24 based on cost or logistics. This column also identifies whether or not an alternative has greater 25 impacts to the aquatic environment. • Alternatives 2-86 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 0 . Figure 2-45 Interchange Configurations Considered i / \ Diamond 1 Direct Connect \, . ` Ram s Css . ?ion:: roes oa i Vi iii\ 'S ' / \ 91 i 1\ 1 1 I ' 'gti 1 si ) (71 :" \ L Road ‘. \\, Cross Road // • N -,, \*\ 7 l ) .,\ S• d 1, :\,-----'411 / Partial - Single Point , p' Cloverleaf Urban � ( ParClo) Interchange 7 (SPU I ) 4. _/ \, /Fr--` , ---4\R\�7((Cross Road /7 �`_ \ 7( Full .� , \ :))/ ) 2 Cloverleaf • Alternatives 2-87 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-17 Interchange Screening • Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location SH 1 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would because it would operate at or below operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Effectively would accommodate anticipated demand, Effectively would accommodate address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. Mountain No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Vista Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would because it would operate at or below operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Effectively would accommodate anticipated demand, Effectively would accommodate address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. SH 14 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would because it would operate at or below operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. New Diamond with Northbound to Westbound Screened. Not Practicable. Flyover—Screened. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would because it would impede local access impede local access thereby reducing accessibility thereby reducing accessibility and not • and not addressing economic growth demands. addressing economic growth demands. New Diamond with Local Access Improvements— Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate Would effectively accommodate anticipated demand, anticipated demand, accessibility accessibility address safety concerns, and replace address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. aging structure. Prospect No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would because it would operate at or below operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Effectively would accommodate anticipated demand, Effectively would accommodate address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. Harmony No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Road Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would because it would operate at or below operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. No-Action Configuration Enhanced— Retained. Retained. Would enable interchange to operate at an acceptable Would enable interchange to operate at level of service with potential to retain the relatively an acceptable level of service with new structure. potential to retain the relatively new structure. No-Action Configuration with Northbound to Screened. Not Practicable. Westbound Flyover—Screened. Not Reasonable. Would cost 50 to 100% more than other Would cost 50 to 100% more than other comparable comparable alternatives and would • alternatives and would result in similar operation. result in similar operation. Alternatives 2-88 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-17 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location SH 392 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would because it would operate at or below operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange—Screened. Not Screened. Impacts to Aquatic Reasonable. Environmental constraints (wetlands and Resources. bald eagle roosting activity) in the northwest quadrant Environmental constraints (wetlands preclude the ability to provide a standard ramp and and bald eagle roosting activity) in the intersection spacing at this location. northwest quadrant preclude the ability to provide a standard ramp and intersection spacing at this location. Single-Point Urban Interchange—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Not reasonable because it would cost Impracticable because it would cost twice as much as a tight diamond configuration with twice as much as a tight diamond the same area of impact and 10% greater average configuration with the same area of delay per vehicle. impact and 10% greater average delay per vehicle. New Tight Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Would improve accessibility, accommodate anticipated Would improve accessibility, demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging accommodate anticipated demand, structure. This configuration would avoid impacting address safety concerns, and replace the bald eagle roosting sites and minimize impacts to aging structure. This configuration would the wetlands. avoid impacting the bald eagle roosting sites and minimize impacts to the wetlands. Crossroads No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Blvd. Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it would because it would operate at or below operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Effectively would accommodate anticipated demand, Effectively would accommodate address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. anticipated demand, address safety concerns, and replace aging structure. • Alternatives 2-89 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 2-17 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary • Location US 34 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it because it would operate at or below would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. Partial Cloverleaf Interchange—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it because it would operate at or below would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Would not meet purpose and need Would not meet purpose and need because it because it would operate at or below would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. Direct Connect US 34/1-25 -Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. While this configuration could While this configuration could accommodate projected demand, it would not accommodate projected demand, it meet purpose and need because it would would not meet purpose and need impede local access to economic activity because it would impede local access centers. This would reduce accessibility and thereby reducing accessibility and not not address economic growth demands. addressing economic growth demands. Direct Connect US 34/1-25 with Diamond— Retained. Retained. Would provide adequate capacity to Would provide adequate capacity to meet meet demand, retain access to adjacent demand, retain access to adjacent intersections, and replace the aging intersections, and replace the aging structure. structure. SH 402 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. • Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because it because it would operate at or below would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate demand, address safety concerns, and anticipated demand, address safety replace the aging structure. concerns, and replace the aging structure. CR 16 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because it because it would not address the need would not address the need for accessibility. for accessibility. New Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate demand, address safety concerns, and anticipated demand, address safety replace the aging structure. concerns, and replace the aging structure. • Alternatives 2-90 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-17 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location SH 60 Current Configuration—Screened. Not Screened. Not Practicable. Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate Would effectively accommodate anticipated anticipated demand, address safety demand, address safety concerns, and concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. SH 56 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate Would effectively accommodate anticipated anticipated demand, address safety demand, address safety concerns, and concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. CR 34 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. • New Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate Would effectively accommodate anticipated anticipated demand, address safety demand, address safety concerns, and concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. SH 66 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. No-Action Configuration with Retained. Enhancements—Retained. Would effectively accommodate anticipated Would effectively accommodate demand, address safety concerns, and anticipated demand, address safety replace the aging structure. concerns, and replace the aging structure. SH 119 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. No-Action Configuration with Retained. Enhancements—Retained. Would enable interchange to operate at an Would enable interchange to operate at an acceptable level of service and retain acceptable level of service and retain relatively new I-25 structures over SH 119. relatively new I-25 structures over SH 119. Alternatives 2-91 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 2-17 Interchange Screening (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary • Location SH 52 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. No-Action Configuration with Retained. Enhancements— Retained. Would Would enable interchange to operate at an enable interchange to operate at an acceptable level of service while retaining acceptable level of service while retaining the relatively new structure. the relatively new structure. WCR 8 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. No-Action Configuration with Minor Retained. Enhancements -Retained. Would enable interchange to operate at an Would enable interchange to operate at an acceptable level of service and retain acceptable level of service and retain relatively new structure. relatively new structure. SH 7 No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. it would operate at or below LOS E in 2030. • New Diamond Interchange— Retained. Retained. Would effectively accommodate Would effectively accommodate anticipated anticipated demand, address safety demand, address safety concerns, and concerns, and replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. 144th No-Action Configuration—Retained. Retained. Avenue Would provide acceptable future levels of Would provide acceptable future levels of service. service. 136th No-Action Configuration—Retained. Retained. Avenue Would provide acceptable future levels of Would provide acceptable future levels of service. service. 120th No-Action Configuration—Retained. Retained. Avenue Would provide acceptable future levels of Would provide acceptable future levels of service. service. 104th No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Avenue Not Reasonable. Would not Would not accommodate wider cross accommodate wider cross section on I-25, section on I-25, would not address safety would not address safety concerns or concerns, or replace the aging structure. replace the aging structure. New Diamond Interchange—Retained. Retained. Would replace the aging structure to Would replace the aging structure to accommodate 1-25 widening and address accommodate I-25 widening and address safety concerns with improved ramp safety concerns with improved ramp geometry. geometry. • Alternatives 2-92 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-17 Interchange Screening (coned) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Location Thornton No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Parkway Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would not accommodate wider cross it would not accommodate wider cross section on 1-25, would not address safety section on 1-25, would not address safety concerns or replace the aging structure. concerns or replace the aging structure. No-Action Configuration with Minor Retained. Enhancements -Retained. Would maintain existing structure and Would maintain existing structure and improve ramp terminals at I-25. improve ramp terminals at 1-25. 84th Avenue No-Action Configuration—Screened. Screened. Not Practicable. Not Reasonable. Does not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and need because it would not address safety concerns at it would not address safety concerns at ramp terminal. ramp terminal. New Diamond Interchange - Retained. Retained. Would replace the aging structure to Would replace the aging structure to accommodate 1-25 widening and address accommodate 1-25 widening and address safety concerns with improved ramp safety concerns with improved ramp geometry. geometry. 2 2.4.2 Bus and Rail Transit Station Locations •3 Station locations were developed using a set of criteria that evaluated: 4 ► Appropriate station spacing 5 ► Future population and activity centers 6 ► East/west (north/south) connectivity 7 ► Existing infrastructure, land use, and environmental constraints x ► Public, TAC, and RCC input 9 After determining the general vicinity of station locations, a more detailed evaluation was 10 conducted for each station location. A range of two to ten sites were evaluated for each station I I location with the exception of the Fort Collins South Transit Center where one site was evaluated 12 because the City of Fort Collins has an approved plan that identifies this location for a transit 13 center. The South Transit Center is proposed to serve as the end of line for the Mason Street 14 BRT system. In order to maximize ridership and access for the community it is important that the i; North 1-25 BRT station connect to the proposed Mason Street BRT system. Twenty-two criteria I r, were evaluated for each proposed station location. The primary criteria evaluated were: 17 ► minimal neighborhood and environmental impacts 18 ► impacts to parks 19 ► environmental justice 20 ► historic property 21 ► hazardous materials ► accessibility to vehicles ► pedestrian and bicycle connectivity 24 ► opportunity for joint development and compatibility with adjacent land use and zoning Alternatives 2.93 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. I ► compatibility with local plans and ability to provide an opportunity for joint development. • 2 Impacts to wetlands and threatened and endangered species were considered to be fatal flaws. 3 In addition, if a new development was planned or under construction or if the station could not 4 meet the engineering requirements this would be considered a fatal flaw. Each criteria was rated 5 with either a +, - or 0. These ratings were provided a numerical value and tallied up at the end. 6 The site with the highest total number was recommended to move forward. In some cases a 7 lower ranking station site was moved forward due to recommendations by the local municipality. 8 During the station screening process the station site analysis was presented at the third transit 0 working group meeting. The group provided input that was incorporated into the evaluation 10 process. A full description of the station screening process is found in the Alternatives I I Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). 12 Tables 2-18 summarizes the station screening process for commuter rail along US 287. Typically, 13 a single station site was carried forward; exceptions include the following locations, where more 14 than one site is being evaluated: 15 Package A Commuter Rail station sites with multiple locations being evaluated: 10 ► Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center. Two sites were identified for the Fort Collins 7 Downtown Transit Center. These sites were under consideration because they would provide 18 shared parking opportunities and would be in close proximity to the existing transit center. One 19 site is municipally owned and the other site is under negotiation with the city and a local 2u developer. 21 ► I-25 / CR 8. The communities of Frederick and Firestone have requested an additional station • east of 1-25 that would provide more convenient access for their residents to a rail station. 23 There are two sites with similar benefits under consideration, but one is opposed by the Town 24 of Erie. • Alternatives 2-94 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-18 Package A- Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail on US 287 Station/Stop Name and Location I NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center BNSF and Maple Ave CR-A East of Retained. Retained. Mason Street between Maple Ave and Cherry Street BNSF and Maple Ave CR-B East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Mason Street, north of Cherry Street Impacts parks and hazardous Impacts parks and hazardous materials. materials. BNSF and Maple Ave CR-C West of Retained. Retained. Mason Street between Maple Ave. and Laporte Ave Fort Collins Colorado State Universit Transit Center US 287 and A Street- CR-A On the Retained. Retained. BNSF corridor between University Ave. and W. Pitkin St South Fort Collins South Transit Center BNSF and Harmony CR-A Off of US Retained. Retained. 287 and W. Fairway Lane North Loveland-29th and BNSF 29th and BNSF CR-A On the east side Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of the BNSF and north of 29th Street Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. 29th and BNSF CR-B On the east side Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of the BNSF and north of 29th Street Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. 29th and BNSF CR-C On the east side Retained. Retained. of the BNSF and south of 29th Street Downtown Loveland-US 34 and BNSF BNSF and US 34 CR-A On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF north of US 34 Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. BNSF and US 34 CR-B On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF south of US 34 Site would require the purchase Site would require the purchase of of 10+ parcels. 10+ parcels. BNSF and US 34 CR-C On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF south of US 34 Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. BNSF and US 34 CR-D On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF between 8th St and Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. 7th St BNSF and US 34 CR-E On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF between 7th Street Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. and 6th Street BNSF and US 34 CR-F On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF between 7th Street Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. and 6th Street platform would not be located adjacent to parking. BNSF and US 34 CR-G On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF between 6th Street Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. and 5th Street platform would not be located adjacent to parking. BNSF and US 34 CR-H On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF between 4th Street Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. and 6th Street platform would not be located • adjacent to parking. Alternatives 2-95 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-18 Package A- Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail on US 287 (cont'd) • Station/Stop Name and Location I NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary Downtown Loveland-US 34 and BNSF (cont'd) BNSF and US 34 CR-I On the west Retained. Retained. side of the BNSF between 4th Street City of Loveland recommended City of Loveland recommended and and 6th Street and owns land. Platform is owns land. Platform is designed to designed to be immediately be immediately adjacent to the adjacent to the depot. Platform is depot. Platform is designed to be designed to be 345' (400' is 345' (400' is typical) in order to not typical)in order to not impact impact historic building. Platform can historic building. Platform can still accommodate a four car train, still accommodate a four car but will require passengers to exit train, but will require passengers and enter using the front door of the to exit and enter using the front fourth train. No wetland or waters of door of the fourth train. the U.S. impacts. Berthoud-SH 56 and BNSF BNSF and SH 56 CR-A On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF north of SH 56 Site impacts historic property Site impacts historic property and and would require the purchase would require the purchase of 10+ of 10+ parcels. parcels. BNSF and SH 56 CR-B On the east Retained. Retained. side of the BNSF north of SH 56 BNSF and SH 56 CR-C On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF south of SH 56 Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. BNSF and SH 56 CR-D On the east Screened. Not Practicable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF south of SH 56 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. platform would not be located • adjacent to parking. North Longmont-SH 66 and BNSF BNSF and SH 66 CR-A On the east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. side of the BNSF and north of SH 66 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. BNSF and SH 66 CR-B On the east Retained. Retained. side of the BNSF and north of SH 66 Longmont at Sugar Mill Sugar Mill CR-A On the BNSF and Retained. Retained. near Ken Pratt Boulevard Sugar Mill CR-B On the BNSF and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. near Ken Pratt Boulevard Site would impact Sugar Mill Site would impact Sugar Mill Buildings. Buildings. Sugar Mill CR-C On the BNSF and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. near Ken Pratt Boulevard Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. Sugar Mill CR-D North of SH 119 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. east of County Line Rd Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because a combination of because a combination of factors factors including: access to bus including: access to bus routes, routes, adjacent land use does adjacent land use does not not compliment a station and compliment a station and impacts to impacts to wetlands. wetlands. Sugar Mill CR-E North of SH 119 and Retained. Retained. east of County Line Rd Sugar Mill CR-F North of SH 119 east Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of County Line Rd Site has hazardous materials. Site has hazardous materials. Sugar Mill CR-G South of Rodgers and Retained. Retained. • near Ken Pratt Boulevard Alternatives 2-96 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 2-18 Package A- Station Site Evaluation Commuter Rail on US 287 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location I NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary 1-25 and CR 8 1-25 and CR 8 CR-A North of County Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Road 8 and west of CR 7 Site would require the purchase Site would require the purchase of of 10+ parcels. 10+ parcels. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-B North of County Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Road 8 and east of CR 7 Site is opposed by Erie, not Site is opposed by Erie, not compatible with Erie's plans. compatible with Erie's plans. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-C South of County Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Rd 10 and east of CR 7 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. platform would not be located adjacent to parking. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-D South of County Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Rd 10 and west of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. platform would not be located adjacent to parking. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-E South of County Retained. Retained. Road 10 and west of 1-25 1-25 and CR 8 CR-F South of County Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Road 10 and east of 1-1-25 Not technically feasible because Not technically feasible because platform location too close to platform location too close to 1-25 1-25 requiring an elevated requiring an elevated platform. platform. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-G North of County Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Road 8 and east of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Not technically feasible because site • site has no tangent track for the has no tangent track for the platform. platform. 1-25 and CR 8 CR-H South of County Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Road 8 and east of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Not technically feasible because distance between CR 8 and CR distance between CR 8 and CR 11 11 does not allow for a platform. does not allow for a platform. 1-25 and CR 8-I North of County Road Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 7 and east of 1-25 Site not compatible with local Site not compatible with local plan. plan. 1-25 and CR 8-J South of County Road Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 7 and east of 1-25 Site does not meet zoning. Site does not meet zoning. 2 Table 2-19 summarizes the station screening for commuter bus along US 85. A single station site 3 was carried forward for each of the general locations identified. • Alternatives 2.97 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2-19 Package A- Station Site Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 • Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Greeley 8th Avenue and D CB-A On the west Retained. Retained. of US 85 and north of D St 8th Avenue and D CB-B East of US 85 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and West of 6th Ave Does not meet purpose and need Site does not rate as high as other because a combination of factors station site. including: adjacent land use does not compliment a station and impacts to wetlands. South Greeley US 85 and 19th St CB-A West of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 85 between 18th St and 19th St Site impacts historic property. Site impacts historic property. US 85 and 19th St CB-B West of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 85 between 19th St and 20th St Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because there is no parking because there is no parking allowed. allowed. Site does not allow parking. US 85 and 19th St CB-C East of US 85 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and between 18th St and 19th St Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because there is no parking because there is no parking allowed. allowed. US 85 and 19th St CB-D East of US 85 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. between 19th St and 20th St Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because there is no parking because there is no parking • allowed. allowed. US 85 and 19th St CB-E East of US 85 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. between 20th St 21st St Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because there is no parking because there is no parking allowed. allowed. US 85 and 19th St CB-F East of US 85 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. between 21 St and 22nd St Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because there is no parking because there is no parking allowed. allowed. US 85 and 19th St CB-G West of US Retained. Retained. 85 and 24th St Evans US 85 and 37th Street CB-A West of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and south of 31st Street Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. US 85 and 37th Street CB-B West of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and south of 37th Street Site impacts parks. Site impacts parks. US 85 and 37th Street CB-C West of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and north of 42nd Street Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because it has no bus access. because it has no bus access. US 85 and 37th Street CB-D East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and south of 31st Street Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because it has no bus access. because it has no bus access. US 85 and 37th Street CB-E East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and north of 37th Street Not feasible because no Logistical problems. expansion potential. US 85 and 37th Street CB-F East of Retained. Retained. US 85 and south of 42nd Street • Alternatives 2-98 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-19 Package A- Station Site Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary Platteville US 85 and Grand Ave CB-A West of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and north of Grand Ave. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because a combination of factors because a combination of factors including: bus access and including: bus access and compatibility with adjacent land compatibility with adjacent land use. use. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-B West of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and north of Grand Ave. Site would require the purchase Site would require the purchase of of 10+ parcels. 10+ parcels. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-C West of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and south of Grand Ave. Site would require the purchase Site would require the purchase of of 10+ parcels. 10+ parcels. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-D East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and north of Grand Ave. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because a combination of factors because a combination of factors including: bus access and including: bus access and compatibility with adjacent land compatibility with adjacent land use. use. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-E East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and RR and north of Grand Not feasible because site does Logistical problems. Ave. not have good access. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-F East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and RR and north of Grand Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need Ave. because a combination of factors because a combination of factors • including: bus access and traffic including: bus access and traffic impacts. impacts. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-G East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and RR and south of Grand Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need Ave. because a combination of factors because a combination of factors including: bus access and traffic including: bus access and traffic impacts. impacts. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-H East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and RR and south of Grand Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need Ave. because a combination of factors because a combination of factors including: bus access and traffic including: bus access and traffic impacts. impacts. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-I West of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and north of Grand Ave. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because a combination of factors because a combination of factors including: bus access and traffic including: bus access and traffic impacts. impacts. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-J West of Retained. Retained. US 85 and north of SH 66 US 85 and Grand Ave CB-K West of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and south of SH 66 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because it is too small to serve because it is too small to serve its its purpose. purpose. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-L East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and RR and north of SH 66 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. US 85 and Grand Ave CB-M East of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 85 and RR and south of SH 66 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. • Alternatives 2.99 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 2-19 Package A - Station Site Evaluation Commuter Bus on US 85 (cont'd) • Station/Stop Name and Location J NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary Fort Lupton Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-B West of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 85 and north of CR 14.5 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-C West of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 85 and south of CR 14.5 Site has a visual impact. Site has a visual impact. US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-D East of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 85 and north of CR 14.5 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it is too small to because it is too small to serve its serve its purpose. purpose. US 85 and CR 14.5 CB-E East of US Retained. Retained. 85 and south of CR 14.5 2 Table 2-20 summarizes the station site evaluation process for BRT stations along 1-25. 4 Package B BRT transit station sites with multiple locations being evaluated: 5 ► SH 56 / 60. Two sites, which provide similar benefits, are under evaluation. The site favored by 6 Berthoud and Johnstown has the potential for greater impact to wetlands. 7 ► SH 7. Two sites are under analysis to show the tradeoffs involved in serving the Broomfield 8 transit-oriented development site via a longer walk distance or by not serving the site but 9 providing less walk distance for the station users. • 10 With the exception of the station at CSU, all of the stations assumed parking, walk, and bus 11 access for multi-modal accessibility. The stations were sized to reflect multi-modal access and the 1:2 probable parking turnover during the day. A detailed report on station location development and 3 evaluation is available in the Alternatives Development and Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, I4 2008a). 15 Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 Station/Stop Name and Location J NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary South Fort Collins Transit Center US 287 and Harmony Rd BRT-A West Retained. Retained. of US 287 and south of Harmony Road Harmony Road and Timberline Harmony Road and Timberline Rd CB- Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. A North of Harmony Road and west of Site would require the purchase of Site would require the purchase Timberline Road 10+ parcels. of 10+ parcels. Harmony Road and Timberline CB-B Retained. Retained. South of Harmony Road and west of Timberline Road Harmony Road and Timberline CB-C Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. North of Harmony Road and east of Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and Timberline Road because site location would require need because site location would out of direction local bus movement. require out of direction local bus movement. Harmony Road and Timberline CB-D Screened. Not Reasonable. Does Screened. Not Practicable. South of Harmony Road and east of not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and Timberline Road site location would require out of need because site location would • direction local bus movement. require out of direction local bus movement. Alternatives 2-100 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary Harmony Road and Timberline (cont'd) Harmony Road and Timberline CB-E Retained. Retained. South of Harmony Road and west of Timberline Road I-25 and Harmony Road 1-25 and Harmony Rd BRT-A North of Retained. Retained. Harmony Road and west of 1-25 1-25 and Harmony Rd BRT-B North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Site has Screened. Not Practicable. Harmony Road and west of 1-25 hazardous materials impacts. Site has hazardous materials impacts. I-25 and Harmony Rd BRT-C North of Retained. Retained. Harmony Road and west of I-25 1-25 and Harmony Rd BRT-D North of Retained. Retained. Harmony Road and west of I-25 Windsor 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-A North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 Site has threatened and endangered Site has threatened and species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-B North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 Site has threatened and endangered Site has threatened and species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-C North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 Site has threatened and endangered Site has threatened and species. endangered species. • 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-D North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 Site has threatened and endangered Site has threatened and species. endangered species. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-E South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 Site has threatened and endangered Site has threatened and species and impacts wetlands. endangered species and impacts wetlands. I-25 and SH 392 BRT-F South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 Site does not meet engineering Site is not logistically possible. requirements so is not feasible. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-G South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. platform would not be located adjacent to parking. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-H North of Screened. Not Reasonable because Screened. Not Practicable due to SH 392 and west of I-25 of unacceptable site access logistical problems. problems. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-I North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of I-25 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. platform would not be located adjacent to parking. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-J North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. platform would not be located adjacent to parking. • Alternatives 2-101 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location I NEPA Screening Summary I USACE Practicability Summary • Windsor(cont'd) 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-K South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of I-25 Would require building relocations. Would require building relocations. I-25 and SH 392 BRT-L South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of I-25 Site does not meet engineering Not logistically possible requirements so is not feasible. 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-M South of Retained. Retained. SH 392 and west of 1-25 1-25 and SH 392 BRT-N South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Not Screened. Not Practicable. SH 392 and west of 1-25 technically feasible because platform Not logistically possible would not be located adjacent to parking. Crossroads Boulevard 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-A North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of Crossroads Blvd. and west of I-25 Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and because a combination of factors need because a combination of including: access to bus routes, not factors including: access to bus compatible with plans and visual routes, not compatible with plans impacts. and visual impacts. I-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-A I-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Does Screened. Not Practicable. Crossroads Blvd BRT-B North of not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and Crossroads Blvd. and west of 1-25 a combination of factors including: need because a combination of access to bus routes, not compatible factors including: access to bus • with plans and visual impacts. routes, not compatible with plans and visual impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-C Screened. Not Reasonable. Does Screened. Not Practicable. North of Crossroads Blvd. and west of not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and 1-25 a combination of factors including: need because a combination of access to bus routes, not compatible factors including: access to bus with plans and visual impacts. routes, not compatible with plans and visual impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-D Screened. Not Reasonable. Does Screened. Not Practicable. North of Crossroads Blvd. and west of not meet purpose and need because Does not meet purpose and I-25 a combination of factors including: need because a combination of access to bus routes, not compatible factors including: access to bus with plans and visual impacts. routes, not compatible with plans and visual impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-E North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of Crossroads Blvd. and west of 1-25 Site has hazardous materials Site has hazardous materials impacts. impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-F Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. South of Crossroads Blvd. and west of Site has hazardous materials Site has hazardous materials I-25 impacts. impacts. I-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-G Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. South of Crossroads Blvd. and west of Site does not meet engineering Site is not 'logistically possible. 1-25 requirements since it exceeds 2% grade. • Alternatives 2-102 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (coned) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Crossroads Boulevard (cont'd) 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-H Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. South of Crossroads Blvd. and west of Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need I-25 need because a combination of because a combination of factors factors including: access to bus including: access to bus routes, not routes, not compatible with plans compatible with plans and visual and visual impacts. impacts. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-1 North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of Crossroads Blvd. and east of 1-25 Site would require acquisition of Would require acquisition of a a commercial building. commercial building. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-J South Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of Crossroads Blvd. and east of 1-25 Site does not meet engineering Site is not logistically possible. requirements since it exceeds 2% grade. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-K Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. South of Crossroads Blvd. and east of Site does not meet engineering Site is not logistically possible. 1-25 requirements since it exceeds 2% grade. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-L South Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of Crossroads Blvd. and east of I-25 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because a combination of because a combination of factors factors including: not compatible including: not compatible with plans, with plans, traffic impacts and traffic impacts and visual impacts. visual impacts. • 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-M Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. South of Crossroads Blvd. and west of Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. 1-25 platform would not be located adjacent to parking. 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-N Retained. Retained. South of Crossroads Blvd. and west of 1-25 1-25 and Crossroads Blvd BRT-O Retained. Retained. North of Crossroads Blvd. and east of 1-25 Berthoud 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-A South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and west of 1-25 Site has visual impact. Site has visual impact. _ 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-B South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and west of 1-25 Not technically feasible because Not logistically possible. platform would not be located adjacent to parking. I-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-C South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and west of 1-25 Site does not meet engineering Not logistically feasible. requirements-site exceeds 2% grade. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-D South of US Screened. Screened. 60 and west of 1-25 Site has traffic impacts. Site has traffic impacts. I-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-E South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and west of 1-25 Site pedestrian access exceeds Site pedestrian access exceeds 2%. 2%. Not logistically feasible. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-F South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. • 60 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-G South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. Alternatives 2-103 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. I Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) • Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Berthoud (cont'd) 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-H South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and east of 1-25 Site does not meet engineering Not logistically possible. requirements it exceeds 2% grade. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-I South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-J South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-K South of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 60 and west of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-L North of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 56 and west of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-M North of US Retained. Retained. 56 and west of 1-25 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-N North of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 56 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-O North of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 56 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. 1-25 and SH 56/60 BRT-P North of US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 56 and east of 1-25 Site impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. Firestone 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-A West of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and north of US 119 Site impacts hazardous materials Site impacts hazardous materials sites. sites. • 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-B West of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and south of US 119 Site impacts hazardous materials Site impacts hazardous materials sites. sites. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-C West of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and south of US 119 Site impacts hazardous materials Site impacts hazardous materials sites. sites. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-D West of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and south of US 119 Site does not have good access Site does not have good access and would have traffic impacts. and would have traffic impacts. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-E East of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and north of US 119 Site too close to intersection so Site too close to intersection so not feasible. logistically not possible. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-F East of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and north of US 119 Site too close to intersection so Site too close to intersection so not feasible. logistically not possible. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-G East of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and north of US 119 Site has hazardous materials Site has hazardous materials impacts. impacts. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-H East of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and south of US 119 Interchange improvements do Interchange improvements do not not allow a station at this site. allow a station at this site: not logistically possible. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-I East of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. and south of US 119 Would require acquisition of Would require acquisition of major major commercial building. commercial building. 1-25 and SH 119 BRT-J East of 1-25 Retained. Retained. • and south of US 119 Alternatives 2.104 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Frederick/Dacono I-25 and SH 52 BRT-A West of 1-25 and Retained. Retained. north of SH 52 I-25 and SH 52 BRT-B West of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 52 Would require acquisition of new Would require acquisition of new buildings. buildings. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-C West of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 52 Would require rebuilding SH 52 Would require rebuilding SH 52 which is an unreasonable cost. which is an unreasonable cost. I-25 and SH 52 BRT-D West of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 52 Would require rebuilding SH 52 Would require rebuilding SH 52 is which is an unreasonable cost. an unreasonable cost. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-E West of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. south of SH 52 Would require rebuilding SH 52 Would require rebuilding SH 52 is is an unreasonable cost. an unreasonable cost. I-25 and SH 52 BRT-F West of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. South of SH 52 Site does not have good site Site does not have good site access and would have traffic access and would have traffic impacts. impacts. I-25 and SH 52 BRT-G West of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. south of SH 52 Site does not have good site Site does not have good site access and would have traffic access and would have traffic impacts. impacts. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-H East of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. • north of SH 52 Site does not have good site Site does not have good site access so is not feasible. access so logistically is not possible. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-I East of I-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 52 Site does not meet engineering Site does not meet engineering requirements so is not feasible. requirements so logistically is not possible. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-J East of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 52 Site does not meet engineering Site does not meet engineering requirements so is not feasible. requirements so logistically is not possible. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-K East of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 52 Site would require rebuilding Site would require rebuilding SH 52 SH 52 which is an unreasonable which is an unreasonable cost. cost. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-L East of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. south of SH 52 Site would require rebuilding Site would require rebuilding SH 52 SH 52 which is an unreasonable which is an unreasonable cost. cost. 1-25 and SH 52 BRT-M East of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. south of SH 52 Site impacts threatened and Site impacts threatened and endangered species. endangered species. I-25 and SH 52 BRT-N East of 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. south of SH 52 Site impacts threatened and Site impacts threatened and endangered species. endangered species. I-25 and State Highway 7 • I-25 and SH 7 BRT-A West of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 7 Site has conflict with ditch. Site has conflict with ditch. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-B West of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 7 Site has conflict with ditch. Site has conflict with ditch. 1 Alternatives 2.105 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) • Station/Stop Name and Location NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary I-25 and State Highway 7 (cont'd) I-25 and SH 7 BRT-C West of 1-25 and Retained. Retained. south of SH 7 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-D West of I-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. south of SH 7 Site does not meet engineering Site does not meet engineering requirements so it is not feasible. requirements so it is not logistically possible. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-E East of 1-25 and Retained. Retained. north of SH 7 I-25 and SH 7 BRT-F East of 1-25 and Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. north of SH 7 Site has conflict with ditch and Site has conflict with ditch and would would require reconstruction of require reconstruction of interchange. interchange. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-G South of SH 7 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. between 1-25 and Washington St. Would require acquisition of new Would require acquisition of new buildings. buildings. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-H South of SH 7 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. between I-25 and Washington St. Would require acquisition of new Would require acquisition of new buildings. buildings. I-25 and SH 7 BRT-I South of SH 7 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. between I-25 and Washington St. Would require acquisition of new Would require acquisition of new buildings. buildings. 1-25 and SH 7 BRT-J South of SH 7 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. between 1-25 and Washington St. Site conflicts with E-470 so is not Not logistically feasible. • technically feasible. West Greeley US 34 and 83rd Ave BRT-A North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US Business 34 and west of 83rd Ave. Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because a combination of because a combination of factors factors including: zoning and including: zoning and adjacent land adjacent land use is industrial use is industrial and sit is not in and sit is not in close proximity to close proximity to residential. residential. US 34 and 83rd Ave BRT-B South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Site Screened. Not Practicable. US Business 34 and west of 83rd Ave. impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. US 34 and 83rd Ave BRT-C North of Screened. Not Reasonable. Site Screened. Not Practicable. US Business 34 and east of 83rd Ave. impacts wetlands. Site impacts wetlands. US 34 and 83rd Ave BRT-D South of Retained. Retained. US Business 34 and east of 83rd Ave. US 34 and SH 257 US 34 and SH 257 BRT-A South of Retained. Retained. US 34 and west of SH 257 US 34 and SH 257 BRT-B South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 34 and east of SH 257 Utilizing existing park and ride. Utilizing existing park and ride. US 34 and SH 257 BRT-C South of Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. US 34 and east of SH 257 Utilizing existing park and ride. Utilizing existing park and ride. • Alternatives 2.106 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-20 Package B - Station Site Evaluation Bus Rapid Transit on I-25 (cont'd) Station/Stop Name and Location I NEPA Screening Summary I USAGE Practicability Summary Greeley Downtown Transfer Center 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-A North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 7th Street and west of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-B North Retained. Retained. of 8th Street and west of US 85 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-C North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 9th Street and west of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-D North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 10th Street and west of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-E North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 7th Street and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-F North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 8th Street and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need • need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-G North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 9th Street and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-H North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 9th Street and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-I North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 9th Street and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-J North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 10th Street and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. 8th Avenue and 8th Street CB-K North Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. of 10th Street and east of US 85 Does not meet purpose and Does not meet purpose and need need because it does not because it does not connect to the • connect to the Greeley Greeley Downtown Transfer Center. Downtown Transfer Center. Alternatives 2-107 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. I 2.4.3 Maintenance Facility Sites • 2 Maintenance facility locations for both bus and rail were developed according to the following criteria: ► Location (proximity to service area) 4 ► Size (acres) 5 ► Configuration (shape) 6 ► Topography 7 ► Zoning / use s ► Access 9 ► Availability of utilities 10 ► Environmental constraints II After some candidate sites were evaluated, additional screening was conducted to evaluate: 12 ► Does the site limit non-revenue service? 13 ► How well does the site minimize the number of property acquisitions? 14 ► Is there committee and stakeholder support? 15 Detailed information on the maintenance facility location development and screening is in the • 16 Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2008a). As a result of the I7 screening, two rail maintenance facility sites (Vine and Timberline in Fort Collins, US 287 and CR 46 in Berthoud) and two bus facility sites (Portner Road and Trilby in Fort Collins, 31st Street and 19 1st Avenue in Greeley) were selected for further analysis. Figure 2-46 depicts potential 20 maintenance facility locations that are being evaluated in this Draft EIS. • Alternatives 2.108 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Figure 246 Maintenance Facility Locations Being Evaluated LEGEND I 1 1 eon & ® Potential MaintenanceBus FacilityOprati Locations Potential Commuter Rail Operation &• :� -� vvB ton • ri \ 85 Maintenance Facility Locations A, Study Corridors -_% i '. /`/ Highways i,\--% Pierce , "/ Arterial Roadsf Fart CnII , ea \ Regional Study Area - ,� lll---/ Ault i 14 1 of City Boundaries ` 0 Cities & Towns . `.) • . o I at�n' j ii '‘ _ 392 1 34 —\-- ,`_ \ - lovehnlI N---- .: — I 34 , 4 EVarR l / la Salle . ' r i C;vriplcn O hnstnh 85 �! Bet 0 Milliken._ 5b , • ca ,/ � Mead / ' , t F7Bnowlle . -. I I for vy;l"Iont ' Ione ' r - - \.� /� -1 . Firestone 1 Niwot. J •cieridt - _ , l , A Or = ---,ii-i • tro Fort lepton 52 i' v' '0 Grmbmrel o Valmont i ?a'' ' 7 Wancnbe;g I Boulder Nu I lafayClle ' - &gltton l 7 0 Superior bl. I\.' u..: I �7 T N 93 ,, - 36H i • 287 �, is . / 4 � , l � w a I , ! i--11 i 0 2 4 6 8 10 ,-.. ' I ' Miles Northlit7 {{ - • 'Alp DetuPrwN.ClB ,E1 oom ..mf l 2222.67 Alternatives 2-109 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 2.5 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING SUMMARY 2 For reference and for more detailed information, Table 2-21 includes all highway, transit, and 3 congestion management alternatives considered during the process and lists why they were either 4 screened out or retained. Information is provided in the two columns about the screening of each 5 alternative based on: 6 Table 2-21 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USAGE Practicability Summary Description No-Action Alternative Retained. Retained. As required by CEQ. As required by CEQ. HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES TAFS recommended Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. highway elements: In conjunction with other improvements In conjunction with other these improvements could address the improvements these improvements Managed lane/bus lane: mobility and multimodal needs in the could address the mobility and SH 66 to E-470 corridor. multimodal needs in the corridor. Managed lane/bus lane: E-470 to US 36 Highway Alternatives not along 1-25 Improve US 287 or US Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. 85 with additional lanes Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need or higher roadway because these alternatives diverted because these alternatives diverted • classification less than 20% of the needed 55,000 less than 20% of the needed 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 and they would not daily trips from I-25 and they would improve safety on 1-25. not improve safety on I-25. New highway or parallel Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. arterial Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because these alternatives diverted because it does not replace aging less than 20% of the needed 55,000 infrastructure on 1-25 and it does not daily trips from I-25 and they would not address safety on 1-25. improve safety on I-25. Prairie Falcon Parkway Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Reasonable. Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because these alternatives diverted because these alternatives diverted less than 20% of the needed 55,000 less than 20% of the needed 55,000 daily trips from I-25 and would not daily trips from I-25 and would not improve safety on 1-25. improve safety on I-25. Highway Alternatives along 1-25 Lane width Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. reconfiguration along Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need I-25 because it would substantially because it would substantially compromise safety on 1-25 by creating compromise safety on 1-25 by a substandard geometric configuration. creating a substandard geometric configuration. Double deck 1-25 Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. This alternative was infeasible for This alternative was not practicable implementation because it would cost because it would cost four times the four times the cost of other feasible cost of other feasible highway highway alternatives. alternatives. Alternatives 2-110 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. I Table 2-21 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Description Highway Alternatives along 1-25(cont'd) Express lanes on 1-25: Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. HOV, HOT or toll with a Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need northern terminus near because alternatives would not provide because alternatives would not US 34 connectivity to northern communities or provide connectivity to northern replace aging infrastructure north of communities or replace aging US 34. infrastructure north of US 34. Express lanes on I-25: Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. HOV or toll with a Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need northern terminus of because HOV or Toll alternatives alone because these alternatives diverted SH 14 diverted less than 20% of the needed less than 20% of the needed 55,000 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 into the new daily trips from I-25 into the new facility. facility. Express lanes on 1-25: Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. HOT with a northern Would divert sufficient traffic from I- Would divert sufficient traffic from terminus of SH 14 25 general purpose lanes to be I-25 general purpose lanes to be considered for further evaluation. considered for further evaluation. Limited access lanes Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Created more environmental impact Created more environmental impact while providing essentially the same while providing essentially the same mobility characteristics as an eight-lane mobility characteristics as an eight- facility. Wider cross section would lane facility. Wider cross section create a lane balance issue at the would create a lane balance issue at • southern project limit that would result the southern project limit that would in operation at or below LOS E. The result in operation at or below LOS cost would be nearly two times more E. The cost would be nearly two than adding two general purpose lanes times more than adding two general to I-25. purpose lanes to 1-25. Aquatic resource impacts were estimated to be double those anticipated with other I-25 widening options. Interchanges at new Screened. Not Reasonable Screened. Not Practicable. locations Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because new interchanges reduce because new interchanges reduce effective capacity and safety by effective capacity and safety by introducing additional weaving introducing additional weaving areas. This could be considered as areas. This could be considered as part part of a separate action. of a separate action. 1 • Alternatives 2.111 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 2-21 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered (cont'd) • Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USAGE Practicability Summary Description Highway Alternatives along 1-25(cont'd) Additional lanes— Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. 6 lanes and 8 lanes on Six-and eight-lane general purpose Six-and eight-lane general purpose 1-25 from E-470 to cross sections were retained to achieve cross sections were retained to SH 14 a level-of-service (LOS) D or better achieve a level-of-service (LOS) D or along the corridor. better along the corridor. Interchange Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. replacement/upgrade Included with any alternative that Included with any alternative that widens 1-25 to address capacity needs, widens 1-25 to address capacity safety concerns, and replace aging needs, safety concerns, and replace infrastructure. aging infrastructure. Horizontal and vertical Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. alignment Included with any alternative that Included with any alternative that improvements widens 1-25 to address capacity needs, widens I-25 to address capacity safety concerns, and replace aging needs, safety concerns, and replace infrastructure. aging infrastructure. Frontage road Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. revisions Included with any alternative that Included with any alternative that widens I-25 to address capacity needs, widens 1-25 to address capacity safety concerns, and replace aging needs, safety concerns, and replace infrastructure. aging infrastructure. Climbing lanes Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need • because this alternative diverted less because this alternative diverted less than 45% of the needed 55,000 daily than 45% of the needed 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 into the climbing lanes. trips from I-25 into the climbing lanes. Truck lanes Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need because this alternative diverted less because this alternative diverted less than 45% of the needed 55,000 daily than 45% of the needed 55,000 daily trips from 1-25 into the truck lanes. trips from 1-25 into the truck lanes. Transit Alternatives TAFS recommended Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. rail transit elements The rail portion was infeasible due to The rail portion was not practicable multiple alignments that would more due to more than double the cost than double the cost compared to rail compared to rail on BNSF alignment. on BNSF alignment. Automated guideway Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. transit (including This alternative was considered This alternative was considered monorail) in existing infeasible for implementation because infeasible for implementation because highway corridors, its reliability has not been proven in a its reliability has not been proven in a freight rail corridors, corridor of this length, and it would cost corridor of this length, and it would and/or a new up to 10 times more compared to cost up to 10 times more compared to alignment commuter rail. commuter rail. Personal rapid transit Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. along existing highway Implementation is infeasible because Implementation is impracticable corridors, freight this type of technology has not been because this type of technology has corridors and/or a new proven in revenue service. not been proven in revenue service. alignment • Alternatives 2.112 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • I Table 2-21 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered (cont'd) Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USAGE Practicability Summary Description Rail Transit Alternatives Rail transport cars in Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. existing freight Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need corridors because this type of technology has not because this type of technology has been proven to carry sufficient vehicles not been proven to carry sufficient to reduce congestion in other corridors. vehicles to reduce congestion in other corridors. Light rail in existing Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. highway corridors, Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need freight rail corridors, because travel time is double and cost because travel time is double and and/or a new alignment would be up to 4 times more compared cost would be up to 4 times more to commuter rail. compared to commuter rail. Heavy rail below grade, Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. elevated, along existing Implementation is infeasible because Implementation is infeasible because highway corridors, in the cost that would be up to 17 times the cost that would be up to 17 times freight rail corridors greater compared to commuter rail, and greater compared to commuter rail, and/or in a new land availability does not warrant a fully and land availability does not alignment grade separated alignment. warrant a fully grade separated alignment. Super high-speed rail Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. (>125 mph) in freight Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need rail corridors, a new because limited stations and greater because limited stations and greater alignment, and/or station spacing necessary to sustain station spacing necessary to sustain • existing highway speed would not allow connectivity to speed would not allow connectivity corridors many northern communities. to many northern communities. High-speed rail Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. (79-125 mph) in Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need existing highway because limited stations and greater because limited stations and greater corridors, freight rail station spacing necessary to sustain station spacing necessary to sustain corridors, and/or along speed would not allow connectivity to speed would not allow connectivity a new alignment many northern communities. to many northern communities. North Front Range Rail Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Loop Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because it does not serve travel because it does not serve travel between northern communities and between northern communities and metropolitan Denver. metropolitan Denver. Front Range Rail Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Does not meet purpose and need Does not meet purpose and need because planned station spacing would because planned station spacing not allow connectivity to many northern would not allow connectivity to many communities. northern communities. Commuter rail — Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. Western along BNSF This alignment would serve about twice This alignment would serve about as many people and jobs compared to twice as many people and jobs central rail alignments and cost the compared to central rail alignments least of the rail alignments considered. and cost the least of the rail alignments considered. Commuter rail— Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Eastern along UPRR Eastern alignments caused out-of- Eastern alignments did not meet direction travel, had higher potential for purpose and need because of out of • environmental impact to natural direction travel and had higher resources, and would cost more due to potential for environmental impact to 50% more at-grade crossings. natural resources, including aquatic resources, and would cost more due to 50% more at-grade crossings Alternatives 2-113 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2-21 Screening Summary of All Alternatives Considered (cont'd) • Alternative NEPA Screening Summary USACE Practicability Summary Description Commuter rail — Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. Central alignments Infeasible because central alignments Central alignments would cost up to would cost up to four times more than four times more than alignments alignments along an existing track. along an existing track and had higher potential for environmental impact to natural resources, including aquatic resources. Rail Transit Alternatives Commuter rail in a new Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. alignment (entire Infeasible because new alignments New rail alignments would cost up to corridor) would cost up to four times more than four times more than alignments alignments along an existing track. along an existing track and had higher potential for environmental Segments of commuter rail in a new rail impact to natural resources, alignment that could be used in including aquatic resources. conjunction with an improvement in an existing rail corridor were retained for Segments of commuter rail in a new additional evaluation. rail alignment that could be used in conjunction with an improvement in an existing rail corridor were retained for additional evaluation. Bus Alternatives Bus rapid transit in bus- Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. only exclusive lanes Was not considered reasonable Was not considered reasonable because ridership projections did not because ridership projections did not • warrant bus service that would be warrant bus service that would be frequent enough to merit exclusive frequent enough to merit exclusive lanes. lanes. Bus rapid transit in Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. semi-exclusive lanes Semi-exclusive lanes would provide Semi-exclusive lanes would provide along I-25 sufficient capacity for bus and enable sufficient capacity for bus and fast, reliable travel time to address enable fast, reliable travel time to regional multimodal needs. address regional multimodal needs. Demand responsive Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. bus on existing Did not meet purpose and need Did not meet purpose and need highways because service is not designed to because service is not designed to meet a regional travel need. meet a regional travel need. Commuter bus Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. In conjunction with highway In conjunction with highway improvements could address regional improvements could address multimodal needs. regional multimodal needs. Other Transit Alternatives Jitney service along Screened. Not Reasonable. Screened. Not Practicable. existing highway This technology is infeasible for This technology is impracticable corridors implementation because it has not been because it has not been proven in proven in revenue service. revenue service. Congestion Management Alternatives Bike and pedestrian Retained. Reasonable. Retained. Practicable. improvements Congestion management alternatives Congestion management Travel demand alone are not sufficient to meet purpose alternatives alone are not sufficient management and need. However, these alternatives to meet purpose and need. Intelligent are retained to supplement the primary However these alternatives are • transportation systems improvements. retained to supplement the primary Transportation system improvements. management Alternatives 2-114 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2 This chapter describes the affected environment and potential environmental consequences to 3 resources in the North 1-25 regional study area 4 from the three alternatives (No-Action, What's in Chapter 3? 5 Package A, and Package B) under 6 consideration as part of this Draft EIS. Within Chapter 3 -Environmental Consequences 7 each resource section, there is first a 3.1 Land Use&Zoning 8 description of existing conditions within the 3.2 Social is ions P 3.3 Economic Conditions 9 affected environment, then a description of 3.4 Right-of-Way 10 environmental consequences associated with 3.5 Air Quality 11 the three alternative packages, which are 3.6 Noise&Vibration 12 broken down by the components of each 3.7 Water Resources 13 package as described in Chapter 2, 3.8 Wetlands 3.9 Floodplains 14 Section 2.2.6. 3.10 Vegetation 3.11 Noxious Weeds 3.122 Wildlife The alternatives were described in detail in 16 Chapter 2 as follows: 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species 17 ► Section 2.2.1 describes the No-Action 3.14 Visual Quality 18 Alternative 3.15 Historic Preservation 3.16 Paleontological Resources 19 ► Section 2.2.2 describes Package A 3.17 Hazardous Materials 3.18 Parks and Recreation Resources • 20 ► Section 2.2.3 describes Package B 3.19 Section 6(f) 3.20 Farmlands 21 Environmental consequences are presented in 3.21 Energy 22 this document as they are anticipated to occur 3.22 Public Safety and Security 23 in the Year 2030. While each resource is 3.23 Construction 24 assessed for impacts related to all 3.24 Local Short-Term Uses of the 25 improvements within an alternative (e.g. Environment and Long-Term 26 interchanges, structural improvements, safety Productivity carpool lots, feeder bus, 3.25 Irreversible and Irretrievable 27 upgrades, P Commitment of Resources 28 maintenance facilities), only those areas where 3.26 Cumulative Impacts 29 impacts would occur are discussed. As a 3.27 Permits Required 30 result, not every element of an alternative is 3.28 Summary of Direct and 31 discussed for each resource. Mitigation Indirect Impacts 32 measures are also described. 3.29 Mitigation Summary 33 Environmental consequences are broken into the following categories: 34 ► Direct effects (or impacts) are defined as those impacts that are immediately experienced 35 by implementing a federal action. 36 ► Indirect effects (or impacts) are caused by the action but occur later in time or farther 37 removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth- 38 inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of population 39 density or growth rate, and related effects on air, water, and other natural systems, including 40 ecosystems. • Environmental Consequences 3-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 ► Cumulative effects (or impacts) result from the incremental impact of the action when • 2 added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 3 agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts 4 can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period 5 or time. Based on input from scoping meetings, agency meetings, and the analysis of 6 resources, cumulative effects were evaluated for the following resources: 7 • Land use and induced growth 8 • Wildlife habitat 9 • Wetlands 10 • Water quality 11 • Air quality 12 Two different geographic areas were used to collect and describe existing conditions and 13 environmental consequences: 14 Regional Study Area - Shown on Figure 1-1 (Chapter 1), the regional study area covers a 15 wide area that includes 38 municipalities and seven counties. The regional study area was used 16 to collect information about existing and future land use, social and economic demographics and 17 indicators, air quality, traffic and transportation, and cumulative impacts. 18 Project Area - This is the area that may be directly affected by project transportation • 19 improvements. It generally includes an area approximately 0.25 mile from the edge of any 20 planned linear facility (i.e., roadway/railway) construction and approximately 0.50 mile, or an 21 acceptable walking distance, from a transit station. Information for the linear facility components 22 of the project area was collected on existing conditions and environmental consequences to 23 right-of-way, noise and vibration, water resources, biological resources, visual quality, historic 24 resources, hazardous materials, and parks and recreation resources. Information collected for 25 the transit station components of the project area includes socioeconomic demographics, land 26 use and zoning, development and redevelopment, and pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. 27 Supplemental resource information on the following topics is presented in Appendix C of this 28 document: 29 ► Land Use 30 ► Environmental Justice 31 ► Noise 32 ► Wildlife 33 ► Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • Environmental Consequences 3-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 The following technical reports for selected resources provide detail to supplement the information 2 presented in this chapter. These reports are not included in this Draft EIS, but are available upon 3 request at the CDOT Region 4 Offices in Greeley, Colorado. 4 5 ► Traffic Noise and Vibration Technical Report 6 ► Rail Transit Noise and Vibration Technical Report 7 ► Historic Resources Survey Report 8 ► Paleontological Resources Technical Report 9 ► Air Quality Technical Report 10 ► Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 11 ► Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report 12 ► Wetlands Technical Report • • Environmental Consequences 3-3 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • NORTH I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 1 Land Use • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.1 LAND USE This section provides an abbreviated description of land use conditions and impacts. For a detailed explanation, the Land Use Technical Memorandum (Jacobs, 2008a) included in Appendix C What's in Section 3.1? should be reviewed. 3.1 Land Use It is important to note that development and conversion of 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3.1.1.1 Land Use Planning agricultural lands to employment, commercial, and residential uses have already occurred and is occurring 3.1.1.3 Existing Land Use 3.1.1.3 Zoning rapidly in the regional study area, particularly along the 3.1.1.4 Future Land Use 1-25 corridor. Therefore, descriptions contained in this 3.1.2 Environmental section should be considered in a general context as Consequences specific land uses may have changed. 3.1.2.1 No-Action Alternative 3.1.2.2 Package A 3.1.2.3 Package B 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures 3.1.1.1 LAND USE PLANNING Land use planning in the regional study area is primarily undertaken by local municipal and county governments. In addition, three regional transportation planning agencies are responsible for transportation planning in the regional study area. • Local Government Planning The regional study area covers an approximately 61-mile stretch of the 1-25 corridor north of Denver and includes the parallel corridors along US 85 and the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor. There are 45 local jurisdictions (counties and incorporated cities and towns) in the regional study area responsible for local land use planning (see Figure 3.1-1). The regional study area includes rural unincorporated county lands as well as urban municipal lands. Land use planning for unincorporated lands in the regional study area is the responsibility of seven counties: Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld. Both Broomfield and Denver are combined city/county governments. Existing and future development patterns in Jefferson County were not analyzed since only a portion of the county is located within the project area. There are 38 municipalities within the regional study area where improvements are being considered. From north to south, municipalities along the US 85 corridor include Greeley, Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, Fort Lupton, Brighton, and Commerce City. Municipalities along the 1-25 corridor from north to south include Wellington, Fort Collins, Timnath, Windsor, Johnstown, Mead, Firestone, Frederick, Dacono, Erie, Broomfield (city/county), Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn, and Denver (city/county). The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor includes Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, Longmont, Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono. In some cases, annexation of interchange locations or other desirable development properties has resulted in municipal boundaries extending some distance from • core urban areas and the resulting planning area crossing two of the North 1-25 transportation corridors. For example, Berthoud and Fort Collins have annexed land along 1-25, but their core urban areas are along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor. Land Use 3.1.1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1-1 North I-25 Regional Study Area Municipal and County Boundaries 41 g (as of May 2005) , i r • LEGEND ; Al Study Corridors /%/ Highways �- Wallington( /r/ Arterial Roads .•` , i Regional Study Area .ran ---er"4113 : r `\. J. c le City Boundaries - J Pierce ; f a Cities & Towns ! Ina . Ilins ,\ �! _ r- r a �' . _ ' --� r r County Boundaries •—_ null •' Source: COOT 2035 Planning Dataset 257, , I , 1 LARIMER ► Timmer;_ in,-- vseve,in. taro' 1 287 ' Lucerne • . 34 . ' Loveland � IWELD • trans I S I , . i Grnpron ^w..r— ,nn<co;.c' 60 �� 85 i. . • Berthoud r O ''•r'I '"'='' % • 56 r I ' „:„.„.. j i ,,,3, , % r ,, ... ., me.i, 66 — — , , _ . I',ire% 1.0 I joiii::it I Itnc ' T • to- - t Vullrn;r 0 t ii ii 1 Tatum I BOULDER I µwo, ' Fredrick I • 1 I Dec % + Fort Lupton — 52 J 0 GunDeitele I , 4 , I Ii so Ene i•?• i Valmwn , I L....) 1 0 /. I _sib . • Wallenberg sIt . , Uterilac - - r,4 - I it N . ec- �'_ • 1 • a 0:17". tien.JT,,`ti. - - �.C\1 .40264•-••,...1 • i i -.), O 'Irnt,,, r r ADAMS GILPIN r \ � i r- - \ 7 a - u . — JEFFERSON - •• - - - „ , _ . , 1 .,:,=I n1�. -, ,_ 1 .. !: A .. L, ..:.._- i- ,�. _r t [7"N r1 mil 1�. T _ 0 2 4 6 8 10 !//� ' S . .DENVER , , , J-s 1 ' - l� Miles North ~j--- J-'' AR PAHOE I arm Doti g!.G8 fEJ,yrres_Sornyttins nod, 2624007 Land Use 3.1-2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • The influx of people and businesses moving into the regional study area has caused municipal boundaries to expand rapidly into unincorporated county lands. For example, municipalities such as Erie, Frederick, and Firestone in southwest Weld County along the 1-25 corridor have annexed a substantial amount of land into their towns in just the last five years, whereas in the previous 50 years, very little annexation occurred. Municipalities that have development constraints, such as floodplains, foothills, or closely neighboring municipalities, or require voter approval for annexations, typically annex at slower rates. Also, rural municipalities farther from primary transportation corridors or urban centers (e.g., Gilcrest and Platteville) generally annex at slower rates. With the exception of a few smaller rural municipalities, most of these jurisdictions have full- time planning staff to address local land use and zoning issues. Additionally, most every jurisdiction has adopted a comprehensive plan or land use plan for its planning area (see Table 3.1-1). Review of the plans reveal that nearly every municipality has established or desires some type of growth management boundary. Most define growth boundaries where urban-level services are planned. Others also include an expanded growth management area where the community desires to have a role in land use planning to coordinate compatible adjacent land uses, open space, or rural land uses that act as community buffers. Regional Planning Regional land use planning in the regional study area primarily consists of incorporating land use projections into long-range regional and statewide transportation plans. The North 1-25 • regional study area bisects parts of three transportation planning regions including North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), the Upper Front Range planning area, and Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Every four years, each region prepares a regional transportation plan based on the region's needs and priorities. The transportation planning regions incorporate land use projections obtained from local governments into the plans, such as the location and timing of residential and commercial (employment) development. Land Use 3.1-3 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14 Summary of Comprehensive/Land Use Plans* • Jurisdiction Plan Year County Plans Adams County Comprehensive Plan 2004 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan 1978, as amended Broomfield City and County Comprehensive Plan 2005 Denver City and County Blue Print Denver 2000 Larimer County Master Plan 1997 Weld County Comprehensive Plan 1999, as amended (update in progress) US 85 Corridor Municipal Plans Greeley 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2000 Evans Comprehensive Plan 2002 Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan 2003 Platteville Comprehensive Plan 2000 Fort Lupton Land Use Plan 1997 Brighton Comprehensive Plan 2003 Commerce City Comprehensive Plan and New 1985, as amended, and Lands Plan 1992, respectively 1-25 Corridor Municipal Plans Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan 2003 Timnath Comprehensive Plan 2002 • Windsor Comprehensive Plan 2002 Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan 2001 (update in progress) Mead Comprehensive Plan 2004 Firestone Master Plan 2006 Frederick Comprehensive Plan 2004 Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2005 Erie Comprehensive Plan 2005 Thornton Comprehensive Plan 1997 (update in progress) Northglenn Comprehensive Plan and 1988 Associated District Plans Westminster Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2004 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Municipal Plans Fort Collins City Plan and Associated 2004 Subarea Plans Loveland Comprehensive Master 2003 Plan/Land Use Plan Berthoud Comprehensive Plan and Land 1992 and 2001, respectively Use Plan (update in progress) Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan 2003 as amended Includes municipalities and counties along primary transportation corridors.This list does not include all municipalities and counties in the regional study area. • Land Use 3.1-4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.1.1.2 EXISTING LAND USE This section describes existing generalized land use for the US 85, I-25, and BNSF/Longmont Table 3.1-2 Existing Land Use North Metro Connection corridors (as of May Categories and Acreage 2005). For simplification, land uses have been Land Use Category Approximate generally categorized into agricultural, residential, Acres commercial (including retail, industrial, office, etc.), Agricultural 446,400 and open space/parks. Figure 3.1-2 depicts these Residential 143,000 generalized existing land uses. Commercial 75,100 Table 3.1-2 summarizes the estimated existing Open Space/Parks 65,300 acreages in each land use category for the Surface Water Areas 39,900 regional study area. Vacant/Unknown 6,400 Total 776,100 Note:Acres are approximate based on geographic information US 85 Corridor system(GIS)estimates from Figure 3.1-2. The US 85 corridor runs from the Town of Pierce in the north to downtown Denver in the south. There are two major linear features that parallel US 85 through this corridor that influenced how land has been developed: the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) that closely parallels US 85 to the east and the South Platte River along the west side. As a result of the UPRR, heavier industries and commercial uses tend to be concentrated on the east side of US 85, adjacent to the UPRR tracks. Conversely, the downtown areas of rural municipalities such as Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, and Platteville are concentrated to the west of US 85 closer to the • South Platte River. Fort Lupton, Brighton, and Commerce City are the exceptions and have their downtowns to the east of US 85 and bisected by the UPRR corridor. Another major feature that influences land use along the US 85 corridor is the presence of large tracts of agricultural land. In the north end of the corridor, long stretches of agricultural lands act as community buffers between the towns of La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, and Fort Lupton, giving the area a distinctly rural character. South of Fort Lupton, there are fewer agricultural land uses separating the cities of Brighton, Commerce City, and Denver, leading to a more urban character associated with the growing Denver Metro Area. Within the towns and cities along US 85, land uses follow a typical pattern of a commercial core area associated with downtowns, surrounded by residential uses. Primary transportation corridors are also usually lined with commercial and industrial uses, as well as some residential uses. 1-25 Corridor The 1-25 corridor begins in the north at the town of Wellington and goes south to downtown Denver. The 1-25 corridor can be generally defined as encompassing the interstate, as well as the interchanges and frontage roads serving the interstate. Land uses are rapidly changing along the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of Harmony Road where agricultural lands are rapidly being converted to commercial and residential uses. Land use changes typically are driven by interchange locations where commercial uses are centered, and stretches between interchanges where agricultural and residential uses are more likely to be accessed by frontage roads. • Land Use 3.1.5 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1-2 North I-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Existing Land Use II (as of 2000) LEGEND L. Al Study Corridors —• /\/ Highways i ` ellington W N /\/ Arterial Roads ' 85 i J Regional Study Area 2637 / �, 0 Cities & Towns i \ EilNf•rrt, .\; I/ Existing Land Use in 2000 j - ,� FOlt Collins Residential I `.... a._-_. . ---1 14 Ault + Employment Area I= :1 I Open Space/Parks *' 1 annatn i 0 Sacerava ['Mil ' Agriculture11. eJ . Surface Water ifs l _> .. avntsot ., -1_ a lucerne ,392. Vacant or Unknown alt' _ .. ` t _ 14 i 263i F 34 1 , _; f !r • r Garden Cm • Loveland y 'g 34 IL -• • bans % ;_ rV to Sane . / I ' Campion = Jule au-Nn 60 85 ktnthuud • 0 Milliken i / / • G itcresr ec. /. . i : wir I'I.,' , L. 66_ I oligillort ; /• _ • i 1 j fintone ./ . *It:: s Vollmer 0 1, / W7 'I I'eSt9nU ! — MJaot '7i O I wienrk I. 1 i...- 0 Damn Full Lupton .F .,.. I Valmont. rr a i i F, 1 Wanenbet�a i .._ :.ulde}. . ' '( — ' T '4 r _ lzitayu+rI . ` a bev, supetitn e . •` i i ca Y t • g I r,: r ,r�,.� / \, o lco' o f J I 172 ``�1'` - j al , l ,-1 7 . ,''_ I I771 , 0 2 4 6 8 10 - I 1 ' ` I Miles North ,-`_f t- C 1 Lin T4IThOI-jtnvU.CU 'Lanett.r4sf Gwo-_es Ina, 424.;000 Land Use 3.1-6 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • At the north end of the regional study area near Wellington, land uses along 1-25 are primarily agricultural with a few residential enclaves and commercial properties. Commercial uses increase near the highway interchanges serving Fort Collins. In between the interchanges, there are mostly agricultural and low-density residential uses. Large-scale development of the US 34 interchange area has converted large tracts of agricultural lands into commercial and residential uses. Farther south of SH 119, agricultural and residential land uses incorporate oil and gas development, which include access roads, pipelines, wells, or other related facilities. From this area south to Denver, the towns of Firestone, Frederick, Dacono, and Erie are developing quickly with residential and commercial uses adjacent to 1-25. This area is becoming an extension of the Denver metropolitan urbanized area. BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor begins north of downtown Fort Collins, goes south to Longmont, east toward Firestone, and southeast toward Thornton. In the north, the BNSF corridor is closer to the Front Range foothills than either of the other transportation corridors considered in this study. Development constraints are more prevalent in this area with an increased number of streams, open space and parks, and established residential and urban centers. The northern part of the corridor from Fort Collins to Longmont is also more developed than either of the 1-25 and US 85 corridors. Land use is characterized by the urban centers of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. These centers are surrounded by lower density residential and agricultural land uses separating towns and cities. Within the towns and cities along the corridor, land uses follow a typical pattern of a commercial core area associated with • downtowns, surrounded by residential uses. Primary transportation corridors are also usually lined with commercial and industrial uses, as well as some residential uses. East and south from Longmont, the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor follows SH 119, then south along CR 7 and across 1-25 to connect with the UPRR corridor. This area is developed with a patchwork of commercial, low density residential, and agricultural uses. 3.1.1.3 ZONING Because zoning varies by incorporated municipal or county jurisdiction and there are 45 jurisdictions, there are more than 100 distinct zoning classifications within the regional study area. Most of these categories are similar in nature and can be grouped into common categories. For example, Residential One (R1) in Evans and Residential Low (RL) in Fort Collins; both represent a low-density residential zoning classification. For the purposes of this analysis, both are grouped into the low-density residential classification. A summary of these generalized zoning classifications in the North 1-25 regional study area is provided in Table 3.1-3. Zoning classifications for the three transportation corridors vary. In general, all corridors have large stretches of land in between the municipalities that is zoned by the counties as agriculture, low density residential, or open space. The US 85 corridor has the largest stretches of land zoned agriculture, followed by the 1-25 corridor and then the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor. The majority of county zoning is agriculture and low-density residential, although there are enclaves of land zoned medium-density residential spread throughout the regional study area. Within the municipalities, there is a mix of parks and open space, industrial, • commercial, and higher density residential zoning. Commercial zoning is usually adjacent to transportation corridors or urban centers and surrounded by residential zoning. Land Use 3.1.7 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.1-3 Generalized Zoning Classifications . Zoning Classification Description Rural Residential Generally includes residential areas developed at a density and character compatible with agricultural uses. Low-Density Residential Generally includes large lot residential uses. Often protects rural character and uses. Single-Family Residential Generally allows for small-lot, suburban, one-family residential developments. Medium-Density Generally provides for a mixture of medium-density/multi-family housing types Residential including, but not limited to triplexes, fourplexes, and attached wall townhomes. High-Density Residential Generally includes a mixture of high-density housing types including, but not limited to condominiums, stacked flats, garden apartments, and apartments. Generally intended to allow for developments where spaces are either sold or Mobile Home Residential rented for the placement of a manufactured home in a park-like setting, where the homes are used as seasonal or permanent residences. Mixed Use Generally designed to accommodate a variety of land uses including, but not limited to residential, commercial, office, and open space. Business/Office Generally designed to accommodate professional or financial services, research and development, or corporate offices. • Commercial Generally refers to areas for the development of commercial, business, retail, and/or service uses. Industrial Generally includes areas for the development of research, light or heavy industrial, warehouse, and/or distribution centers. Generally a versatile zoning mechanism allowing for land development of any Planned Unit Development nature (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) either as a single use or in combination, through total integrated project planning. Agricultural Generally includes farming, ranching, and other agricultural related uses. Residential development where compatible is often allowed. Open Space/ Generally established as a conservation district to preserve the environment Conservation and natural character of the landscape within the district. Land within the district may be used for trails and passive, active, and developed recreation. Public Generally recognizes all publicly owned lands in a jurisdiction (federal, state, or local government). Specialized Generally covers other special districts such as economic or business, residential enclaves, or conservation. • Land Use 3.1-8 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.1.1.4 FUTURE (YEAR 2030) LAND USE This section summarizes the future land use for the US 85, 1-25, and the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridors based on municipal and county comprehensive plans and other planning documents. For simplification, land uses have been generally categorized into agricultural, Table 3.1-4 Future Land Use residential, commercial (including retail, industrial, Categories and Acreage office, etc), and open space/parks. Figure 3.1-3 Land Use Category Approximate depicts the North 1-25 regional study area Acres generalized future land use based on this Agricultural 211,600 information. Table 3.1-4 summarizes the estimated Residential 288,200 Commercial 136,800 future acreages in each land use category for the regional study Open Space/Parks 111,300 re 9 area. Surface Water Areas 28,000 Vacant/Unknown 200 US 85 Corridor Total 776,100 Note: Acres are approximate based on GIS estimates Review of future land use designations indicates from Figure 3.1-3. that land uses along the US 85 corridor are anticipated to generally remain similar to existing uses. Some conversion of agricultural lands to commercial and residential uses should be expected, but not as much as along the 1-25 or BNSF corridors. The UPRR and South Platte River that parallel US 85 through this corridor would continue to have a major influence on how land would be developed. Heavier industries and commercial uses would continue to concentrate adjacent to the UPRR tracks, and the downtown • areas of rural municipalities such as Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, and Platteville would continue to be concentrated to the west of US 85 closer to the South Platte River. The South Platte River would generally constrain the eastward spread of these towns. Downtown Greeley would continue to be a commercial center with the addition of mixed use commercial and residential infill projects. Small towns south of Greeley along US 85, including Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, and Fort Lupton, anticipate little to moderate growth. For these communities, maintaining their small town feel and preserving large tracts of agricultural lands between each community is a priority. The smaller towns hope to encourage more commercial uses in their respective downtowns, creating unique or historical destinations for locals and tourists. It could also be anticipated that the smaller towns would add residents by allowing smaller or medium-sized subdivisions to be built on agricultural lands surrounding the core downtowns or along the outer edges of older subdivisions. Although with current county development policies, particularly in Weld County, there remains the possibility of large-scale developments being constructed on unincorporated lands adjacent to or in between the towns. As the US 85 corridor approaches Brighton and the Denver Metro Area, density of residential and commercial uses would continue to increase with infill projects and eventually there would be little unincorporated lands separating the Cities of Brighton, Commerce City, and Denver. Major commercial areas can be expected at the US 85/C-470/1-76 interchange area and south toward Denver where there is easy access to Denver International Airport (DIA) and downtown Denver. • Land Use 3.1.9 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1-3 North I-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Future Land Use I LEGEND l ^, Study Corridors \ / Highways /, v ellington ' ^ - /\/ Arterial Roads 41 •. . 85; Regional Study Area ��' a~ .\, v Cities & Towns I t, I•{ Pierre �•. New Development in 2030 ► I ' Foit Gallins 1. Employment Area ! + °F` 'ISt' •" tir . 14 Residential i 2571 'c id .. ` y 1 Open Space/Parks . \ I -r. • l ' Eaton' eveanrrc 1 Existing Land Use in 2000 ' r• - - . , r Residential I i ' t'!5 ",wlna�t„ , `.� r r , bum 392 Employment Area l I I 1 t kalif _ ' ; i �,,- - Open Space/Parks . • - .. Greeley i Agriculture 34 I�t of ,r _ ' ,i Loveland - ~t4 Garden City•� 34 Surface Water . 1 I . Jo • .. 1 g• • • r • • / r.� ttians Future residential and employment land in fi Y f t ,::::\H- �' �y %/ area requirements are based on 2030 • • Johnstown '' La Salle ; household and employment forecasts i ti► Cernp,ui •�.. / from the Denver Regional Council of lax 4 X60 n ; Goverments (DRCOG) and North Front 'Nermouri . .l ____ • . , /vQ.Milliken 85, Range Metropolitan Planning Organization t I 56 . [if I • ti • (NFRMPO), allocated to locations based j r / on municipal and county comprehensive • Gi1Crest I plan maps. ! ,r ! r r t.5.,,, . ..... r Pianevi 66 -PL-:-!. _- . ; I ; III - 6 i \ •, tonyint ,j, ..,,�. • ! j • Vollmat .t. Ii Athrestmu • ! . ----t_ •j• �kl onto * � "j Frafinlck r - 6 — 1 . *- . " - Darmo. Fort luptar �` .-.r; 52 citintiattei ps,L � • ` 3. • `t t Frig ► ii j ' .Val t ' 7 \lanenberg Boulder 9 _ 31 - latarcnt-- . Brighton '. i. :pawl o, _ T o we . 'r•I •�....� . • •' `• Fact6rkr ''�- - . m. -- . ' eNon i 1 Brormrlf .- -. - J 36 . r ,. e 0,1hiNtunt 1 Sr . / i • �!r . i 4 • . / !� ,t, f t . ' 'Denver ~' %. 1 7r-s_ —'-1 I - !VN - /•0 2 4 6 8 10 . • ' .. • I Miles North 1 !Asp Dcc..mere-CL8 IfuM.:tsur_Cfl?.•mass; }11:00! Land Use 3.1-10 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1-25 Corridor Based on future land use designations, land uses have been changing and would continue to change rapidly along the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of US 34 where agricultural lands are being converted to commercial and residential uses on a regular basis. Land uses would continue to be driven by interchange locations where commercial uses are centered, and stretches between interchanges where residential and other commercial uses are more likely to be accessed by frontage roads. Most of the communities along the 1-25 corridor would encourage commercial development along 1-25 to take advantage of the highway system, visibility, and easy access. Residential uses would be generally set back farther from 1-25, although there would likely remain stretches of residential and agricultural lands adjacent to 1-25. At the north end of the regional study area in Wellington, moderate growth is anticipated and the area would generally continue to have moderate-density commercial and residential uses adjacent to 1-25. South of Wellington at the SH 14, Prospect Road, and Harmony Road interchanges in Fort Collins, existing agricultural uses would likely be converted into commercial uses to take advantage of access. At the US 34 interchange, agricultural lands are already being converted to commercial uses and this trend is anticipated to continue. South of US 34, there are long stretches of unincorporated agricultural lands without convenient access that would likely remain mostly agricultural until such time that a system of frontage roads or east-west cross roads provide access for development. Farther south, towns along 1-25, such as Mead, Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono in the central • portion of the corridor, would eventually grow toward each other so that there are no unincorporated lands separating them. As with towns along the US 85 corridor, these towns desire to maintain agricultural lands and open space between each town, but there remains the possibility of large-scale developments being constructed on unincorporated lands adjacent to or in between the towns. From this area south into the Denver Metro Area, most all agricultural land uses adjacent to 1-25 would likely be converted to commercial and residential uses, with some land set aside for open space or recreation. BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor The BNSF corridor through Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont has more development constraints than the 1-25 and US 85 corridors because of an increased number of streams, open space and parks, and existing residential and urban centers. The corridor is also more built out than either of the 1-25 and US 85 corridors. Therefore, existing land use patterns, characterized by urban centers surrounded by suburban residential and neighborhood centers, are likely to continue into the near future. Based on future land use designations, likely future trends would include densification of the existing land uses in the urban centers and some conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses between the urban centers. Fort Collins is approaching build-out and would not likely see large-scale conversion of lands to new uses. Much of the currently undeveloped land between Fort Collins and Loveland is dedicated public lands, such as natural areas and open space, and is not likely to be converted to other uses. Some conversion of agricultural lands to commercial or residential uses along the north side of Loveland city limits can be expected, but most lands within city limits along the BNSF corridor are already developed. The largest areas of • undeveloped lands that are not protected as open space are south of Loveland, and to the north and south of Berthoud. This area is likely to see more conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses. Land Use 3.1.11 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. At the south end of the corridor through Longmont, most of the lands are already developed • and would not change much, with the exception of the Sugar Mill property along Ken Pratt Boulevard. In this former industrial property, Longmont is proposing a mix of commercial and - residential uses that can take advantage of regional transit improvements. East from the Sugar Mill property along SH 119, future land uses would likely be similar to existing, with more commercial and residential development replacing agricultural uses. South along CR 7, more residential uses can be expected interspersed among the former and current gravel mining operations and major cross streets, such as SH 52 and CR 8, where commercial uses may tend to concentrate. As the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor joins with the UPRR corridor and traverses southeast toward Thornton, much of the existing agricultural land would likely be developed into residential uses. Only at major cross streets would there be a densification of commercial uses that require access and other infrastructure. 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences The following section provides a summary of potential direct and indirect land use impacts from the No-Action Alternative and the two build packages. Direct land use impacts were evaluated by comparing the alternatives to existing land uses and considering whether or not the alternatives were compatible with existing comprehensive plans and zoning. It is important to note that, in many cases, comprehensive plans and zoning have not been updated by communities to reflect either of the two build packages since the Preferred Alternative resulting from this study has not yet been identified. Detailed information related to compatibility with a specific community's comprehensive plan is included in the • North 1-25 Land Use Technical Memorandum (Jacobs, 2008a), which is included in Appendix C of this document. The methodology was used to determine compatibility with existing land use, existing zoning, and comprehensive plans. Indirect land use impacts, in particular the potential for induced growth, were evaluated through a process using a local expert panel. The panel consisted of municipal planners from Dacono, Firestone, Fort Collins, Frederick, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Mead, and Windsor. Also on the panel were representatives from two large developers who have projects in the area, and agency representatives from NFRMPO, DRCOG, FHWA, and CDOT. The panel convened in October 2006 during which current induced growth research was described, along with the current "drivers" of growth. The panel then provided input on potential induced growth patterns for each corridor based on the three alternatives. Conclusions regarding induced growth in this analysis were primarily based on the input provided by the expert panel. 3.1.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Growth would continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the regional study area's urbanized areas in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans, pending the availability of infrastructure. However, this low-density, dispersed pattern of development could eventually become constrained by increased congestion, increased travel times, and existing access issues hampered by a lack of interchange improvements. As a result, development could decrease in quality (e.g., highway- oriented strip commercial or warehouses would likely occur at interchange locations due to access limitations rather than coordinated, master-planned developments) unless market • conditions are strong enough to warrant investment from the private sector in strategic locations to facilitate specific developments. Land Use 3.1.12 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • As major roadways such as 1-25 become more congested, development could be pushed towards outlying areas to avoid this congestion. This would hasten the conversion of agricultural land as market forces push towards the path of least resistance. This may also be the case for many of the east-west and alternate corridors (e.g., US 34, SH 7, SH 52, SH 402) in the regional study area. The more dispersed development pattern that would occur in response to the No- Action Alternative would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of leap-frog type growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting sensitive lands such as wildlife habitat. The extent of this impact would depend upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. Due in part to the limited availability of transit, development intensities are unlikely to increase substantially over those which exist today. However, more focused development could occur towards the southern end of the regional study area where transit enhancements are planned and highway improvements are likely (FasTracks/I-25 widening). Induced growth impacts for the No-Action alternative are illustrated in Figure 3.1-4. 3.1.2.2 PACKAGE A In general, proposed improvements along existing highway and railroad alignments, such as • 1-25 and BNSF, would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Much of the right-of-way for these alignments has existed for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of these alignments, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. This is particularly important when considering residential uses adjacent to existing transportation corridors, where there may be a perceived incompatibility with land uses. Entirely new transportation alignments or access points along existing alignments, such as interchanges and transit stations, are where direct land use conflicts would be more likely. Component A-HI: Safety Improvements Safety improvements along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural. Similarly, upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial- related. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 81 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. • Land Use 3.1.13 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.14 Induced Growth Impacts - No-Action I LEGEND 1 --Growth already constrained by f —• _ substandard interchanges. `- ^/ Study Corridors ,� - —Lack of interchange improvements /'s/ Highways �.! weil,,,ytp, would limit development opportunities ' and reduce quality of development. "/ Arterial Roads / --Private sector may contribute to sJ Regional Study Area /'1 ; lir i t . improvements that facilitate :\ development opportunities. 0 Cities & Towns !. , New Development in 2030 I - Foftcoliinsr . .. \; Employment Area I • d s :____A_ Residential j ' ` ' I r Open Space/Parks j . - 4 �' ' , . "Severance �''t'"; Existing Land Use in 2000 j r l i Residential I nik I -. -t�.�fIr�� Employment Area j ..,\ ' • ,e t i 1 Open Space/Parks i C �`i ,��, Greeley elPS 1 • i `� r h Agriculture 34 I� II 02/mwas- - dig 60641 Chi 1 • •jam: 34 �`- Loveland .._ ' ' Surface Water ! " em . Evan!. • . it r ' "� icy.' • I. r�utn John,lmm ' Worsening congestion on I-25 may trigger F _<u • 60 a i more development along east-west corridors , ,ot,o s /yS,Maltken 85/ where there is less resistance. -"1 56 i • ;I rGlluen • i . . i I —Current development patterns would I a likely continue (e.g., dispersed and � Me : --Development would be more less centralized.) .� : —4' !' • ilattevilll dispersed due to reduced —Development would likely be more I f . ' s service levels. market driven as opposed to :. r Longmont illis _t I --May make rural areas more municipal preferred. /�: .` = " e • 1 attractive to growth sooner. iiii--Unlikely to see substantial increase • /' - ' • I vallncr . in density of existing centers. e• . ► . r . is holm: __,--- / • . • /� „Ai,vo! ,yam. " l ftodmtd , �'' �• y • — IL ill , . pe •Ps io p o cone• fat Lupton �. _iI 52le/ 1 f '.? ,c.� -. Gun,afrt! _ e 4,'T l; ?, �a I " Jr '— • r I V . TT 1 /k .jt, -'1 '`C- Lric „ •,, J air valm. r• � ; � �� I fr „¢¢t¢yyYsssw33�' _ .IVAL e- • traa r•-y • r • ` wmtenbMfg (( tN 4.! , , `iP t. BOUlder .r • .47.1.• /� t \. - - • Cat. it::J ,/ii it f + .. 15:1 C- r•`Leutvi• ille• • ! _ .. rip. Bngbrona . - - — r .ice `• \•-` pa!ia ,t4- et 5 . - — '-'- ' 1 r- 3gro�Ilake • 9racmlreld , •:f+endmcon . L f m ITS "•'Nanrt.�Lmn / Development focus may shift toward south \36.. . - • ` '_•; ; where infrastructure and capacity along 1-25 © . .., / . has already been improved. ��, ,�r' i T- 'Th �. �. a _y 4 II : tDenver J+ j _ T 1. / H 0 2 4 6 8 10 zies li `11 Miles North fri .N,\ [--- -;H:\; i _ wo Coward•Ca IT,aa ICUM Orfnr_ae TREE 34 34007 Land Use 3.1-14 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 • information. cooperation. transportation. Component A-H2: General Purpose Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound general purpose lane on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60, plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60, would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural and commercial. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 14, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, SH 392, Crossroads Boulevard, US 34, SH 402, Weld County Road (WCR) 52, and SH 60 would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 406 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound general purpose lane on 1-25 between SH 60 and E-470 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are mostly commercial and agricultural, with a few residential enclaves. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 56, WCR 34, SH 119, SH 52, and SH 7 would generally be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related, although there are still some areas zoned agricultural (i.e., near SH 7). The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 231 acres of mostly • commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades This component includes improvements under the No-Action Alternative as described in Chapter 2. Upgrading structures on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. There would be 1 acre of additional right-of-way converted to a transportation use. Component A-Tl: Commuter Rail A double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont would be mostly compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. However, there are a number of residential developments that have encroached near the alignment that could create some incompatible uses (e.g., a residential use next to a railroad use). Table 3.1-5 depicts the compatibility of the proposed new commuter rail stations associated with this component. The locations are in core urban areas and were selected during the station alternatives process based on local government and community input and therefore, would not likely create major land use incompatibilities. Zoning in many of these areas, however, has not been updated to be consistent with the comprehensive plans, and many of these locations are not currently zoned for transportation uses. The proposed Berthoud Station was not envisioned as a transit center in the local comprehensive plan. • The Fort Collins commuter rail maintenance facility would be compatible with existing land use and the comprehensive plan, although current zoning does not include transit facilities. The Land Use 3.1.15 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Berthoud commuter rail maintenance facility would be compatible with existing land uses, but is • not included in a comprehensive plan and current zoning does not include transit facilities. 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 be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Local mass transit opportunities are desirable to communities along these routes. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 165 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Table 3.1-5 Component A-T1 Compatibility Commuter Rail Station Existing Land Use? Zoning? Comprehensive Plan? Fort Collins Downtown Transit Yes Yes Yes Center CSU Yes No Yes South Fort Collins Transit Center Yes Yes Yes North Loveland Yes No Yes Downtown Loveland Yes No Yes Berthoud Yes No No • North Longmont Yes No Yes Component A-72: Commuter Rail A new double-tracked commuter rail line, extending from Longmont parallel to SH 119 to WCR 7, then south to the existing UPRR line, and connecting to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station, would have some incompatibilities with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. From Longmont to the existing UPRR line, A-T2 is an entirely new mass transit alignment that local governments generally have not previously envisioned in their comprehensive planning or zoning. Existing land uses are mostly commercial with some residential along SH 119, and agricultural and residential uses along WCR 7. Incompatibilities would be the greatest adjacent to existing residential uses. Table 3.1-6 depicts the compatibility of Table 3.1-6 Component A-T2 Compatibility the proposed new commuter rail stations associated with this Commuter Bus Existing Zoning? Comprehensive component. The Longmont location is in a core urban area and was originally Longmont at Yes No Yes selected based on local government Sugar Mill and community input and therefore, 1-25 and WCR 8 No No No would not likely create major land use incompatibilities. The 1-25 and WCR 8 location is in a non-urban area that is mostly agricultural • and therefore, would be incompatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land Use 3.1-16 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • The feeder bus route from Firestone to Frederick to Dacono to Erie would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Local mass transit opportunities are desirable to communities along this route. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 166 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Component A-T3: Commuter Bus Commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Nearly all of the communities along the corridor envision US 85 as a multi-modal transportation corridor. Table 3.1-7 depicts the compatibility of Table 33-7 Component A-T3 Compatibility the proposed new commuter bus stations associated with this Commuter Existing Zonin ? Comprehensive component. The locations are in core Plan? urban areas and were originally Greeley Yes No Yes South Yes Yes Yes selected based on local government Greeley and community input and therefore, Evans Yes No Yes would not likely create major land use Platteville Yes No No incompatibilities. However, many of Fort Lupton Yes Yes No these locations are not currently zoned • for transportation facilities and some are not specifically referenced in comprehensive plans. The 10 commuter bus queue jumps on US 85 associated with this component would generally be compatible with existing land use, zoning, or comprehensive plans since US 85 is an existing transportation corridor. The commuter bus maintenance facility in Greeley at 31st Street and 1st Avenue would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 18 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Component A-T4: Commuter Bus Commuter bus service only along E-470 between US 85 and DIA would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans because the service would use existing travel lanes. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. Package A Indirect Effects There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the two build packages since both include highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver Metro Area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements to existing interchanges • could stimulate some growth, but not as much as if it were a completely new interchange location, which are not being proposed under either package. Land Use 3.1.17 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Under Package A, commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers • within the project area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). This shift would help municipalities realize plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase the overall density and footprint of these urban centers. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins would likely attract a somewhat larger portion of urban center growth than stations located mid-alignment. As a result, the rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the project area could be slowed because growth pressures would likely be concentrated more at the existing urban centers. This would particularly be the case along the 1-25 corridor where substantial agricultural lands, several floodplains, and a number of other resources exist. Increased densities along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor would likely have a limited impact upon natural-resource related environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. Longmont would likely become a focus within the project area due to its central location, its direct connection to the FasTracks system and the commuter rail, and its close proximity to DIA. Overall, the combination of these factors likely would increase the density and size of Longmont, strengthening its role as a major center for the north Front Range. Outside of established urban centers, commuter rail could help municipalities realize plans that otherwise would not be feasible—for example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit- oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. Without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities with a limited mix of uses. Smaller communities in the southern end of the regional study area, such as Frederick and • Erie, could see impacts that extend beyond the immediate station area. These impacts could come in the form of an increased demand in service levels as former low-intensity commercial and industrial uses are redeveloped at higher intensities. Feeder bus routes along east-west corridors designed to serve commuter rail stations could also stimulate increased levels of development as roadways become more congested. As a result, underused lands along these corridors could begin to be redeveloped as higher intensity residential uses become more desirable in close proximity to established employment centers and transit lines. Induced growth impacts for Package A are illustrated in Figure 3.1-5. 3.1.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B consists of four highway components and three transit components. Direct impacts are described by component. Indirect impacts are more regional in nature and therefore are described for the entire package at the end of this subsection. Overall, proposed improvements along the existing I-25 highway alignment would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for this alignment has existed for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of this alignment, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. • Land Use 3.1.18 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.1-5 Induced Growth Impacts - Package A LEGEND { Some increase in end-of-line development would occur. Al Study Corridors \ /\,/ Highways i�+t►it,� • w ellin• on Existing residential uses along Harmony "/ Arterial Roads /q' �, Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may 297 i 1 " -* be converted to higher intensity uses. j Regional Study Area t kt ' '` ` • I Cities & Towns i : ` ;• f'"" • la Larger Urban Areas Enhancedill tFor't'Colliri « ' Feeder bus routes may shift number of people who live by Commuter Rail '_it,;,„,,__ ti P P I ;-••• - r and work in different New Development in 2030 i communities. May also Employment Area ! •�. Jame!'Tame!' ..s,,:4,,,,,, allow for increased development _ as easUwest roadways become Residential ! r "'� r more congested. Open Space/Parks I , 1 ' . 1 Existing Land Use in 2000 I r 3;.�. `. Greelev �, t Residential I :Le 1.1.-: I t Employment Area _ . i'_``L " '`_"p 34 Levelarxl*- Agriculture - !- ,rw 1 • Open Space/Parks .x. , 1 _ . • . i ' i ,,'f'`ll bltmnarm tin�: IIIIII Surface Water --} ; • , , f yO.,MJliken ' - i�lihf11N1 r ; • Commuter rail would facilitate the intensification ! • . . L ' !� . ' r Non-urban stations would help • existing urban centers. supporting municipal i of pp g p realize plans for more urban plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft.Collins, i : r P a . development that otherwise Mason Street Corridor. 4th Street/downtown i • A cited, . . wouldn't occur (e.g.. Longmont/ Loveland, 29th Street). ! �s .. ' PI Hwy 66. Erie/Frederick.) Impact • �� - - would be broader than immediate •• Vl`otlgmuiit station area. Commuter rail connections to north and - • south (FasTracks) and connections to r - T DIA/southern communities would fel*- - a , ; . Ina, •. ' �Fire:tro, reinforce Longmont's role as a major ��: A �• ' „ _ _- - " hub for the region. An overall increase in , * ' �> : '" ct 1 - ; development would occur as a result. :a. '�• r - _ - Clatmc. fat Lupton _,i ,, 1 - Jam' 11....-44 ! ..a . INgf I �•"-net a' ''f iv Wallenberg -! 7 f r. tdld'ir.'!lp! ea�.l ' fir. 1 r • -touinille'— 1 - . Brow; 1. &cyd:eL,1 5. t 4iendernani _.._ • . 93 • , n_Nurt.hoo n a ,, _j IN, 'e ;r r I -s-......r— 9 T ,��j •' r,+ me ,V f ' - mil- l i <� Alit . . ' Dem'er �"i I . -T 0 2 4 6 8 10 I I ' Miles North ` 1 �7 I \N. • Ws,D:e ml.[.G! :ruwn:ssu,. Cfln .a Aug 1I34.03Land Use 3.1-19 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Component B-H 1: Safety Improvements • Safety improvements under this component are the same as those in Package A, Component A-H1. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 81 acres of mostly agricultural use to a transportation use. Component B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60 and another two tolled lanes from Harmony Road to SH 60 would have a similar effect on land use as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Component A- H2. Upgrades to nine existing interchanges would be the same as Package A, Component A-H2. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 477 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between SH 60 and E-470 would have a similar effect on land use as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Component A-H3. Additionally, upgrades to five existing interchanges • would be the same as Package A, Component A-H3. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 252 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component 8-114: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 could create some land use incompatibilities. Most of the corridor is lined with commercial uses and improvements would not be incompatible with this use. However, there are also residential uses adjacent to 1-25 between 128`' Avenue and US 36. In these locations, additional right-of-way needs would require converting residential uses to transportation uses. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at 144th, 136th, 120th, 104th, Thornton Parkway, and 84th would be compatible since land uses and zoning are already mostly commercial-related. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 49 acres of mostly commercial and residential land to a transportation use. Component B-T1: Bus Rapid Transit Bus rapid transit (BRT) from Fort Collins along Harmony Road and from Greeley along US 34, • south along 1-25 to downtown Denver would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. These corridors have been identified by local communities as important multi-modal transportation corridors. Land Use 3.1.20 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.1-8 depicts the compatibility of the proposed new BRT stations associated with this component. Stations along I-25 would be located in the median. Only the stations at Fort Collins and downtown Greeley are located in core urban areas. The other stations are located on or adjacent to agricultural lands where future development is proposed. Also, a number of the locations are not currently zoned for transportation uses, and in one case, not identified as a transit center in the local comprehensive plan. The Firestone site is zoned both planned unit development (PUD) and residential. Only PUD allows transit facilities. Table 3.1-8 Component B-Tl Compatibility The BRT queue jumps on US 34 Commuter Rail Existing Zoning? Comprehensive associated with this component would Station Land Use? Plan? be compatible with existing land use, South Fort Yes Yes Yes zoning, and comprehensive plans since Collins Transit the roads are existing transportation Center corridors. Harmony Road Yes Yes No and Timberline The BRT maintenance facility in Fort 1-25 and Yes No Yes Harmony Collins wouldgenerally be compatible Road Windsor Windsor Yes Yes Yes with existing land use and the Greeley Yes Yes Yes comprehensive plan. Current zoning for Downtown the site does not include transit Transfer Center facilities. The BRT maintenance facility West Greeley No No Yes in Greeley would be compatible with US 34 and Yes No Yes • existing land use, zoning, and SH 257 comprehensive plans. Crossroads Yes Yes Yes Berthoud Yes Yes Yes Firestone Yes Yes/No Yes The right-of-way for this component Frederick/ No No Yes would convert approximately 18 acres Dacono of mostly commercial and agricultural I-25 and SH 7 No No Yes land to a transportation use. Component B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit Similar to B-T1, BRT service from Fort Collins/Greeley along 1-25 and E-470 to DIA would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. Package B Indirect Effects There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the two build packages since both include highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver Metro Area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as if it were a completely new interchange location, which are not being proposed under either package. • The introduction of BRT along the 1-25 corridor would represent a less permanent form of transit improvement than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive for transit oriented development (TOD). Review of a limited number of case studies nationwide supports this thesis: BRT-related TOD is more tenuous than TOD associated with rail. As a result, under Package B, Land Use 3.1.21 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. growth would continue to be market-driven and to occur in accordance with municipal and county • comprehensive plans. Growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 corridor, which would function as a "Main Street" for the North Front Range. Communities west of 1-25 would continue to expand towards the east—spreading—rather than shifting in their concentration. Interchange improvements along the 1-25 corridor would also improve access and reinforce this pattern. As a result, downtown infill and redevelopment efforts in established urban centers (Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland) could be hampered. Some concentration of growth could occur near BRT stations along the 1-25 corridor. The more dispersed development pattern that could occur in response to Package B would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting wildlife habitat. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. The location of the BRT stations (e.g., center-running versus side-running) and the distance of the stations from any associated development would limit the likelihood that they would attract substantial new types of development. However, some increase in density and the rate of growth could occur in the surrounding station areas. Feeder bus service along the Highway 52 feeder would connect tri-town communities (Frederick, Firestone, Dacono) to the FasTracks Station at Niwot or Gunbarrel and to the BRT at 1-25, • reinforcing existing patterns of employment and housing (employment to the west and housing to the east) and limiting the ability of the these communities to shift away from being bedroom communities. As the FasTracks end-of-line, Longmont could experience some intensification in development within its urban center. Induced growth impacts for Package B are illustrated in Figure 3.1-6. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures There will be no mitigation measures required by CDOT for the build packages. While this analysis identified a number of incompatibilities between proposed transportation improvements and land use, particularly with current zoning and in some cases comprehensive plans, actions to address these incompatibilities are the responsibility of local municipal and county governments. It is important to remember that most incompatibilities are simply the result of comprehensive plans and zoning not being updated to reflect the results of this study. Once the Preferred Alternative is identified and decision documents finalized, CDOT will encourage the local governments to address the incompatibilities through their existing land use processes. Typical processes local governments use to address land use incompatibilities include public involvement and visioning, amendments to comprehensive plans, and zoning changes. • Land Use 3.1.22 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. IIIFigure 3.1-6 Induced Growth Impacts - Package B 1 LEGEND Interchange improvements remain Al Study Corridors --- -------• an important factor. -- ^/ Highways ' Wellington •�, ' ,' / Arterial Roads /' �;• ['j Regional Study Area i/ t ' a►. . - . a\ 31, r 4 , Ncrnt• ` o Cities & Towns i k� - • New Development in 2030 I - rorid;oiiins • '�� * - \lrEmployment Area I j---T' r , I ;' Residential �, fi� 257 I 1. i Open Space/Parks i . J.L ,. .. rimmoti • , �`a r„a„' f y$CVHaflL2 F Oil Existing Land Use in 2000 r 7 ' •i Residential I r Y.hndca A .' 0 ° , • t 12 Employment Area I . �' A . 41° ll _ k luc • - iz _ 3 Open Space/Parks it l � Grley_. k 1•A riculture Q `., , ; di ;.4 'tires • 4 " . . Agriculture �` "Loveland, 0 glik OarrdHw City.lt ,\_. 34 Surface Water I .� . : r -�> -.in i Frans • .. '� Johnson • • ( 0 �; Northern communities already growing Efforts to intensify existing downtown 6o i =- centers would not be supported. L .42 , towards east would result in more . 56 $ d f • dispersed development as opposed L., laib . .• to a more concentrated pattern. • Z`' i Development more focused -� on I-25 corridor which serves 4 • , as a regional "main street." ,N �_ tite<"'� ' -Feeder bus connection to 0 Platta•., FasTracks would reinforce 66 t �- tri-town area as a series of Longmont' bedroom communties. Longmont would experience Itt. eta,,,, • ,. i, /� —Employment concentration some increase in development i I i �� ; � Vo� nar • , would remain west of I-25. as FasTracks end-of-line as i• ��., � t8 �f Ifeanrv_ a well as an increase in through ,i �, • . ; a • r t 4 a I traffic triggered by station �i .� 4, • _ r ; ' - ' '-4 0 locations. / - a • $ - ,• 0 '0 p • Dam e• Fo,ttupton ,; 52 °-- -- --� ---- -- -'T . .,.• • GmilVtrrl .:' - •- > II a!O .�_r '• : , .'yaarUf• kik 0 .�' r ie. o i r Sr'�� t Se 1' ed" • ' wanenbera arc y;: _ ` Voider , P. 7 ke Co- rc , 'ti . . fa •} r—�.I' Lr •. . y i i t.,,arc ,,•I.Li i ,.� f ' l7 �.� . 3�1 1: / _••t� _ ,r+ I r/ NS. . 0+a_.mttAI Q , -•• Mender son izt �• i ! , , f --BRT stations may support °tt.. ter �, ::'Nth.°°nt, i.,,! slight increase in density. 36 . _ a 1h• , ryi* —Not likely to attract substantial \, r, , b ;;- / new types of development. all , 72 ‘; • ; —Access to stations a challenge 'r, . with more dispersed pattern i" already established to the east. Detivttrl li . / - nwe i _. : , 0 2 4 6 8 10 /\i t 4 p I Miles North ��►III Mao po:.uT.M.[la tiutun.CU.._a.•on_n.mach 143.•007 Land Use 3.1-23 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N oKm I-25 PM EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 2 Social Conditions • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 3.2 SOCIAL CONDITIONS 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3.2.1.1 POPULATION AND HOUSING STATISTICS Data from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau at the census tract level What's in Section 3.2? were used to analyze population and 3.2 Social Conditions housing characteristics of the regional 3.2.1 Affected Environment study area. Population and household 3.2.1.1 Population and Housing Statistics projections for the regional study area 3.2.1.2 Persons with Disabilities and Advanced Age were provided by the Denver Regional 3.2.1.3 Community Facilities and Services 3.2Council of Governments (DRCOG) and Environmental o.4 Neighborhoods lConsequences Environmental Consequences the Northern Front Range Metropolitan 3.2.2.1 No-Action Alternative Organization (NFRMPO). 3.2.2.2 Package A 3.2.2.3 Package B From 1990 to 2000, substantial growth 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures occurred in most regional study area 3.2.4 Environmental Justice census tracts. In 1990, the combined 3.2.4.1 Affected Environment population of all regional study area 3.2.4.2 Specialized Outreach to Minority census tracts was 708,688. By 2000, this Environmental and Low-Income Po ncs 3.2.4.3 Consequences population had increased by 421,498 to 3.2.4.4 Mitigation Measures • a total of 1,130,186. This represents a 59-percent growth rate over a 10-year period. According to the 2000 census, there are 422,366 households in the regional study area with an average household size of 2.5 persons per household. The regional study area has an estimated 438,900 housing units with owner-occupied units representing 65 percent of the total. Seven counties and 38 incorporated municipalities are located wholly or partially in the regional study area. In the majority of these communities, substantial growth is forecasted through 2030. The largest increases in population and households likely would occur in the Weld, Broomfield, and Larimer county portions of the regional study area. As Table 3.2-1 shows, population and households would nearly double in Broomfield and Larimer counties and triple in Weld County. Table 3.2-1 Population and Household Forecasts in the Weld, Broomfield, and Larimer County Portions of the Regional Study Area Population Households County 2000 2030 Change 2000 2030 Change 2000-2030 2000-2030 Weld 162,440 443,578 281,138 (173%) 59,425 165,550 106,125 (179%) Broomfield 40,122 78,350 38,228 (95%) 14,430 30,524 16,094 (112%) Larimer 220,373 415,906 195,533 (89%) 85,400 165,579 80,179 (94%) Source:NFRMPO 2030 RTP and DRCOG 2030 RTP Traffic Analysis Zone(TAZ)Data;Clarion Associates, 2004. • Social Conditions 3.2.1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. At the municipal level, substantial growth is anticipated in Loveland, Fort Collins, Greeley, and • Brighton. The distribution of future population growth by municipal area is shown in Figure 3.2-1. Growth in regional study area counties and municipalities would inevitably increase the demand for housing, community services, and strain roadways between Northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area. 3.2.1.2 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND ADVANCED AGE On February 24, 2004, Executive Order 13330—Human Service Transportation Coordination— was issued, which calls for improved coordination of federally supported transportation services for people who are transportation-disadvantaged. As defined by Executive Order 13330, persons with disabilities and persons of advanced age would be considered transportation- disadvantaged. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such an individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment." For the purposes of this analysis, persons of advanced age are defined as persons over 64 years of age. Persons with disabilities and persons of advanced age in regional study area census tracts were compared to countywide averages to identify potential concentrations of this segment of the population. In general, these populations are higher in and around urban areas (Greeley, Fort Collins, Longmont, Brighton, Denver). Concentrations of persons with disabilities are located between Denver and Northglenn along 1-25, between Dacono and Fort Lupton east of I- • 25 to US 85, along US 85 in Greeley and Evans, and along US 287 in Longmont, Niwot, Loveland, and central Fort Collins. Concentrations of persons of advanced age are located along US 36 in Boulder and Louisville; between Denver and Northglenn along 1-25; along US 85 in Brighton, Greeley, Eaton, and Ault; and along US 287 in Longmont, Loveland, and central Fort Collins. 3.2.1.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Community facilities and services located in the regional study area include schools, hospitals, recreation/community centers, libraries, museums, churches, police stations, and fire stations. Approximately 44 community facilities are immediately adjacent to major highway or rail corridors, including 15 schools, 14 churches, 8 public health and safety offices, 3 cemeteries, 3 community centers, and one library. Community facilities and services are shown by location in Figure 3.2-2. The regional study area is served by 12 different school districts. There are also three major universities and two community colleges with satellite campuses throughout the regional study area. The largest of these include the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, and Colorado State University in Fort Collins. Emergency medical response services are provided to regional study area residents by local fire departments and hospitals. In addition, numerous independent agencies provide emergency response services in the regional study area and several jurisdictions have joined together to meet their emergency response needs. • Social Conditions 3.2-2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.2-1 Future Population Growth Summarized by Municipal Area LEGEND c Wellington • 2279 Aln Nu/ Study Corridors - 4057 nn Lari County r= 381 -- . /\,/ aHighways 19034 353 42337 - • •--- •- 135 N Weld County /\/ Arterial Roads -• • a' 12716 : 33055 Regional Study Area _,•_l`�`1 w Cities & Towns ; •' . 701 in668 Municipal influence areas 4•Fort:PIllins:, Population 2000/2030 ' :' : ' t :�.• • . - A Fort Collins.. : _,.~,� : .,, r •- 926 1 •• • Numbers are forill 138638 I 877 -'� portions of jurisdictions I % ,. m S erance Eaton 228763 ' ‘1•X- 4- 47,0 Eason shown on map t r �`, i ra m r t1207 • s132,1, . 2947 , ,,. .. 3304 '410776 �L� 1 dot=20 persons in 2000 i r • <Intfsoo s Greeley-- �'• . Win or to i ' 78712 J11850 Iii ' 146910 1 dot=20 added in 2030 I29527 : :<- . - ,Greeley' - wliar r +tt:' F • a 9' , i 4 f � � :�x� ,fly; Lovelati�. . Gal:euc i.e r r i 2.. �,,. ,•L'oveland , w 7-L` . ohnst f . ' Evans • c m� 126639 k 4508 - n . Evans•13793 • -'---'I; 12996 ret • [ Wi t; ..;_a'rst°"'Mifike 28188 Berthoud. ' . • 16. 1 _" • : -951 • LaSall205e i 9925rths : marten 21742; • 2652 }' Gilcrest • ' ..* = �. - 1196 23 .— . /' 1196 Lyons I ' Platteville p ' 1601 2039 ' Platteville I . . [•_• : 'NI - I S Weld County �.ortgtttont .. rongmont - `'i .__.i I 12991 • - 72932E • '. • _, , 74564 Boulder County ' ' • • .r 92959 ; .: P'. i Firestone Irene 476fi x321,5 s' "' ' p11p tii` • , ' 26700 ,r4. 43854 '. o Frederick 3'�.°`. . " -..• •' . Nn t: o -, .1202 1 .•;, : -• 4, ;3993 • /t � !,•;:,, Fort to tcm • 52 t)8tono F I '�'" n°"b;7el 3333 '� Fort Lupton Boulder :t +i ' 14455 . ' X9820 . ' 92421 • '• 1 Erie -. valmoN ' 7875 .e 19409 113621 • aka ; :s, 46262 k Boulder . 7. IMP • y a r+• ______ _,_. _ Lafayette _' ,-,' .tea a. N Ji °! sm 24695 < p ., '"t« Lotesville .1{, 7 PP 34833 • • - 1. ,c; . Broomfield Lam' Brighton Adams County super,ar Louisville , . 3 40309 i 21541 63896 dor:t Thornton 19295' • S7 +1 �" ,S -__,,,...5,� 85448 65047 146388 23015 �. .,, r scr - 1 ✓ �. . er. 137872 �A r,';q. 7 ' Commerce Citv J-P- 93 :ter •.� y' . . piin j"25967 113491 , 32479 ■ 70152 J "" 125971 ` ir) 3827 Jefferson County ' ` 72 t °� • _ •- 4 r ; a20718 :.a . ' A• `, 31991 • . '• A{� li $744 . y ffi lir14 • -. . L_ 0 2 4 6 8 10 E` 1 '.,..,ati:� . :I•:. .r?a, , I I I I Miles North •. 71 _- / Denver 208541 333660 • 400 0.-ga, Cli tE J lanNnl Senwea s"ma? 2-22.2007 Note: Countywide population figures in Figure 3.2-1 reflect the regional study area population within the unincorporated portion of the county. Social Conditions 3.2-3 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.2-2 Community Facilities I LEGEND Fort Collins Area Study Corridors �,.� -,�- Approximate Number of Facilities �•' `��n '•., Schools - 32 /\/ Highways I i' "N, Recreation/Community Facilities - 4 /\./ Arterial Roads ---C.., , �r� Fire Stations - 10 E. • ` Hospitals - 2 I_- Regional Study Area �! Police Stations - 6 . \-„e.t , — — -_/. IF City Boundaries ! �` 1 j „,,<,__________<- >1 ��t 0 Cities & Towns I Fort Collins Greeley Area j School - �� 4 Approximate Number of Facilities Schools - 25 O Church I ~ L 7 � Recreation/Community Facilities - 1 S i 1:'' Fire Stations - 5 a Recreation/Community Center I I - Jab Tlmmtth 0 Severance \ Police Stations - 2 A Other Community Facility I '-zt_. Fire i , .-- --- Windsor —' --- I IA ,I ;3192III ' Hospital ; __ a f_ it = O Police 1 l j : Greei .._ 134 _�1 fm � 1L y ��.; l'aveland "O. '4 34 �/ bans J .1. I Loveland Area 1 /41 Approximate Number of Facilities / i La Salle , J Schools - 20 t Campion olohnstaro / / r Other Community Facilities - 1 I - 60 I jP.. 1 85 Fire Stations 3 Li Berthoud O Milliken Hospitals - 1 / Police Stations - 1 f K_ Gdne i / t J I _ 1 _„ =__ . i _ _ Rattevllle 66 b6i , I I r t -- _ . Lorgrnont Longmont Area I -,S- - rP lone , Approximate Number of Facilities -- •tb--. , Schools - 28 ,-------- ; �oum� O 1 /� IQesione I Recreation/Community Facilities - 2 r 1=' Fire Stations - 3 itti.,Y1hndorrrJt I Hospitals - 1 1 —_ — \. ii i-170 — Police Stations - 1 Nona ran Lt mp sGu tarter /� r p Vnlmad Erie i a ,, Wattentera 1 ,h;P�Ider -j. yo = �. / 1 lahrygli 77/ Lotati a _ Brighton y , 7 / _ i [t p . r t ( th�kn •• ' t._ Bruomhcld ap Hederso` •/ Boulder Area ,� " - Approximate Number of Facilities °I N, . ►t ,. �rt ;� - Denver Area �' ,,,IN niM°I9'""' / Approximate Number of Facilities Schools - 7 ` { . - . Recreation/Community Facilities • 3 \\‘';',. iho;ntan - / I Schools - 125 Fire Stations - 5 �, \ oy:_ a.H ti_ _ _ Recreation/Community Facilities - 10 Police Stations - 2 . '. L Fire Stations - 17 72 �\ • .E 7 Hospitals -I 5 \ I ' tiPolice Stations - 11 • i"' / -a'' Denver- 70 r � I/ I a ' �� I 0 2 4 6 8 10 /\ , � �---:—.'HatCommunity facility information was collected for an area approximately I ' t ' I Miles North 4Fi-, 0.25 mile from the edge of proposed developments, and was gathered II ( • from multiple sources, including Googler Maps and a field review. / , - _ r i i - - - —_7 --- V.0 Docwrwrd CAS 1CSTmunty_l.d1M. ., ay0.Y0'lad) 060..:00! Social Conditions 3.2-4 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Neighborhoods Neighborhoods in the regional study area consist of very well-defined and organized subdivisions to more informal single-family residential areas. Neighborhoods located adjacent to major highways where physical improvements are proposed are discussed below. US 85 Corridor The US 85 corridor is largely rural in character with informal residential developments spread out between rural agricultural and commercial/industrial lands. Just south of Greeley along US 85, there are a few informal single-family residential developments, apartments, and motels. The Southgate Mobile Home Park marks the beginning of Gilcrest. West of US 85, there is a small neighborhood with both an elementary and high school. Residential development in Platteville is similar to Gilcrest, with small single-family residential neighborhoods, apartments, and motels. Further south along the highway towards Brighton, there are several mobile home parks and motels, including Rocky Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park, Sylmar Manor Mobile Home Park, and Motel 85. South of SH 7, there are a few larger subdivisions intermixed with retail and commercial developments. North 1-25 Corridor The northernmost portion of the regional study area (north of SH 14) is primarily rural with industrial development. The area contains two residential developments: the Mountain View Mobile Home Park and Waterglen, a planned unit development north of Vine Drive. • There are several mobile home communities along the highway corridor. The Mountain Range Shadows subdivision (a manufactured home community with a few mobile homes) is located on the west side of 1-25, south of the SH 392/1-25 interchange. Access to the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision is currently from the southwest 1-25 frontage road, just south of the 392 interchange. Other mobile home communities include the Loveland RV Village (west of the US 34/1-25 interchange along US 34 next to a residential subdivision called the Rocky Mountain Village), Loveland Station Campgrounds (mobile home lots and camping south of the US 34/1-25 interchange), Johnson's Corner Campground (mobile home lots and camping north of the SH 60/I- 25 interchange), and River Valley Village (a mobile home community with more than 250 units south of the SH 119/1-25 interchange). Scattered suburban developments are located near Thornton and are interspersed with auto- oriented commercial centers. In general, neighborhoods east and west of the corridor vary from being well-defined and established to more informal clusters of residential development. The southern metropolitan portion of the corridor is dominated by non-residential-oriented land uses (commercial, light industry, industry) with very few scattered apartment complexes and informal neighborhoods. North of the US 36/1-25 interchange, there are numerous subdivisions, including Sherrelwood Estates, Metro View Park, Valley High, and Northview Estates. Near Northglenn, subdivisions and apartment complexes immediately adjacent to the highway corridor include Parkview, Huron Crossing, Huron Heights, Stone Mountain Apartment Homes, Meadows at Timber Lake, and Webster Lake Terrace. • Social Conditions 3.2-5 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. BNSF Rail Line/US 287 Corridor • In Fort Collins, residential subdivisions and apartment complexes are intermixed with commercial development. Neighborhoods north of Harmony Road include Troutman Park, Meadowlark, Historic Fort Collins High School, Old Town West, and Martinez Park. Between Loveland and Fort Collins, a few isolated subdivisions are interspersed with open space and undeveloped lands. In Loveland, several single-family residential subdivisions are adjacent to the BNSF rail line. There are also several mobile home communities, including Homestead, Loveland Plaza, and Lago Vista Mobile Home Parks. In Berthoud, the Blue Spruce Mobile Home Park and several single-family residential neighborhoods are immediately adjacent to the BNSF rail line. North of Longmont, the regional study area is dominated by rural and agricultural land uses with a few isolated residential units. In Longmont at the SH 119 / BNSF crossing, several neighborhoods abut the BNSF rail line, including Kensington, Clark Centennial, and Lanyon. These neighborhoods consist primarily of single-family homes. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences The evaluation of community impacts is based on information gathered in Section 3.2.1 Affected Environment. Additional site visits to the regional study area, review of aerial photography, and analysis of GIS data was also conducted. 3.2.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Given the relatively limited scope of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for Package A and Package B. However, certain adverse effects • on social conditions in the regional study area would arise as a result of transportation needs unmet by the No-Action Alternative. These would include the direct and indirect effects on communities that are typically caused by traffic congestion and impaired mobility, including an increase in air emissions and noise, longer travel times, traffic queues at key interchanges, neighborhood traffic intrusion, deteriorating safety conditions, and lengthened emergency response times. In the absence of transit or capacity improvements, future population growth would most likely continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the regional study area's urbanized areas. 3.2.2.2 PACKAGE A Component A-HI: Safety Improvements Population and Housing. The population in Wellington is expected to increase by 78 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 2,279 in 2000 to 4,057 in 2030). This growth would occur regardless of whether safety improvements are implemented or not. Four residential relocations would be required between SH 1 and SH 14 (A-H1). The affected properties are dispersed along 1-25 south of Wellington. Given the small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. The proposed improvements do not involve physical changes that would directly result in increases or decreases in population. • Social Conditions 3.2.6 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. The Waterglen neighborhood is located within a census tract that contains a higher percentage of persons of advanced age than the county. This census tract contains more than 4,000 persons, most of who live near Lemay Avenue (approximately three miles west of 1-25). The proposed improvements do not involve service or capacity changes that would increase or decrease mobility for these populations. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired between SH 1 and SH 14. The proposed improvements would provide safer access to community facilities and services within Wellington by upgrading the SH 1/1-25 interchange and signalizing SH 1. Access to the Mountain Vista Greens Golf Course (2808 NE Frontage Road) would be maintained in its existing location. Interchange improvements and bridge reconstruction at Mountain Vista Drive and LCR 52 would result in temporary construction-related noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out- of-direction travel. Emergency service providers would benefit from increased sight distance at the SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive interchanges, wider shoulders on bridges, and replacement of existing pavement and bridge structures. Neighborhoods. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods or separate neighborhoods from community facilities. The noise analysis identified impacts to 16 receivers in the northwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange (referred to as Wellington East in the noise analysis). These receivers are immediately adjacent to the highway and would also be impacted under both the No-Action Alternative and Package B. The mitigation proposed for these residences is a noise barrier which would reduce noise to below impact levels. Neighborhoods in • Wellington would benefit from interchange improvements and signalization at SH 1. In the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange, a carpool lot with 80 spaces would be constructed. This facility would be located across from a single-family neighborhood of approximately 39 homes. Although conveniently located, the traffic, noise, and activity associated with the lot could disturb adjacent residents. South of Wellington near Ronald Reagan Drive, undeveloped land has been subdivided and is planned for new housing and commercial development. This has generated concern about pedestrian traffic between new housing developments and commercial areas on the east and west sides of 1-25. As a result, Wellington's Chamber of Commerce has identified the need for a pedestrian overpass in this location and is currently examining funding opportunities for this structure. Safety concerns in this area are largely a result of development in Wellington and would not be created or exacerbated by either of the build packages. Interchange improvements at Mountain Vista Drive and improvements associated with service roads, frontage roads, and bridge replacements would affect residents of the Waterglen neighborhood. They would benefit from the upgraded interchange and signalization of Mountain Vista Road. Construction activities would result in temporary noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of-direction travel for local residents. Shared open space, pathways, and a community center give this neighborhood a sense of cohesion, and these facilities would not be affected by either of the build packages. Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes • Population and Housing. The population within 0.5 mile of the 1-25 corridor is expected to increase by almost 200 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 2,282 in 2000 to 6,818 in 2030). Growth would be most pronounced in the smaller municipalities of Berthoud, Dacono, Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Johnstown, and Windsor. This growth is a result of a large supply of Social Conditions 3.2.7 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. developable land, easy access to 1-25, and locally planned development. The need for additional • highway capacity is a response to this growth and would not in and of itself result in increases or decreases in population. Nineteen residential relocations would be required between SH 14 and E-470 (14 between SH 14 and SH 60 (A-H2), and 5 between SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3)). In general, these properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. Given the small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would occur. Improvements in mobility could influence the distribution of population. As incorporated communities adjacent to 1-25 become more accessible, they could attract residents, especially if opportunities for lower cost housing in the urban fringe continue. In these locations, the demand for new or expanded public services and facilities would increase. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Persons of advanced age and persons with disabilities were identified in two census tracts adjacent to 1-25 between SH 14 and E-470. One of these census tracts is located in the southwest quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange and the other extends along the east side of 1-25 between SH 52 and SH 7. Because there are very few residences adjacent to 1-25 in these areas, these populations are most likely to live within residential subdivisions west of the SH 14/1-25 interchange and east of 1-25 in Dacono. Persons of advanced age are also likely to live within the Sunflower subdivision, in the southwest quadrant of the SH 14/I- 25 interchange. Sunflower is an adult community of owner-occupied, single-family homes for people over 55 years of age. Transportation improvements would improve highway safety and access to regional facilities and services for these populations. Community Facilities and Services. Six community facilities are less than 0.25 mile from 1-25 • between SH 14 and E-470. These include: St. James Orthodox Christian Church (2610 Frontage Road SE), KinderCare Learning Center (4755 Royal Vista Circle), Loveland Fire Station #4 (4900 Earhart Road), Fort Collins/Loveland Airport (4900 Earhart Road), Valley Dirt Rider Complex (south and west of SH 56), and the Weld County Sheriff (at the Southwest Weld County Services Complex, northeast of SH 119). None of these facilities would be directly impacted by the proposed improvements. Access to these facilities would be maintained in their current locations. Reconstruction of the SH 392/1-25 interchange and northeast frontage road would result in temporary noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of-direction travel for the KinderCare Learning Center. This would also be true near the SH 56/1-25 interchange for patrons of the Valley Dirt Rider Complex. Interviews with Larimer and Weld county emergency service providers indicate that the proposed increase in capacity would improve emergency response and facilitate movement around other vehicles. Bridge reconstruction and safety improvements (e.g., adding shoulders to bridges) would also facilitate emergency response. Emergency service providers would experience some out-of- direction travel and traffic delays during construction. Aside from improvements to the existing interchange at SH 7, Adams, Broomfield, Boulder, and Denver counties would not be affected by Components A-H2 and A-H3. Another safety consideration in the corridor is the shortage of truck parking. The Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities, developed by Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center for FHWA in March of 2002, reported that in Colorado there is a statewide demand of approximately 3,300 to 3,700 truck parking spaces and a supply of only 2,700. The availability of parking is related to safety because parking is required for drivers to observe Hours of Service rules set by the Interstate Commerce Commission to avoid driver fatigue. When they are not observed, for lack of Social Conditions 3.2-8 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • adequate parking or for other reasons, driver fatigue has been established as a major factor in truck-related crashes. Johnson's Corner is one of the current suppliers of private truck-stop parking spaces. The proposed improvements would improve access to Johnson's Corner with the addition of on ramps at Exit 254 under either build package. Existing access from the frontage road would be replaced so that trucks would travel east on LCR 16 to the frontage road, circle around the property, and enter at the south end. This configuration would not result in the removal of any truck parking spaces. Neighborhoods. The majority of 1-25 between SH 14 and E-470 (A-H2 and A-H3) is undeveloped, with a few scattered rural subdivisions and isolated single-family residences. Residential land uses that do exist developed around the existing highway. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods, separate neighborhoods from community facilities, or affect community cohesion. To the extent that the proposed improvements would reduce congestion and improve access, property values would increase. It is also possible that property values could decrease in locations where proximity to improved transportation facilities would result in increased noise and air emissions, visual impacts, or access changes resulting in out-of-direction travel. Interchange improvements at SH 14 would result in a new access configuration for the Mountain View Mobile Home Park (in the northeast quadrant of the interchange). Existing access is provided from an unsignalized intersection along SH 14. New access would be from a re-aligned frontage road that would be signalized to provide safer and more direct access for the Mountain View community. A carpool lot with 150 spaces also would be constructed across the street from the Mountain View community. Some residents may consider the proximity of this lot a convenience. Others would find the added pavement and increase in local traffic and activity disruptive. However, • the area surrounding the interchange is highly urbanized and dominated by transportation facilities. The carpool lot would not considerably intensify this effect. Access to the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision would be maintained in its current location from the 1-25 frontage road southwest of the SH 392/1-25 interchange. To accommodate highway improvements, the frontage road would shift approximately 15 feet closer to the community and the centerline of 1-25 would be relocated approximately 30 feet farther from the community. The noise analysis identified impacts to 69 receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision (with mitigation, impacts would occur at 32 receivers). These receivers also would be impacted under both the No-Action Alternative and Package B. In March 2006, the project team met with residents of the Mountain Range Shadows community to gather input on the SH 392 interchange design and frontage road configuration. To minimize impacts to the community, the project team suggested relocating the frontage road behind the community. Residents were concerned with this approach and indicated a strong preference for maintaining the existing access configuration. Improvements to the SH 392/1-25 interchange would substantially improve mobility for residential communities east and west of 1-25 in Windsor. This interchange serves residents of Windsor and unincorporated Larimer County, providing access to employment and services in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Denver. The existing bridge consists of one lane in each direction with no turn lanes or shoulders. The proposed structure would include two 12-foot lanes, 8-foot shoulders, and a sidewalk. A turn lane also would be provided for motorists accessing the interstate. Construction activities would result in temporary noise, dust, detours, traffic delays, and out-of- direction travel for regional travelers and the local residents of the communities located between SH • 14 and E-470 (A-H2 and A-H3). Social Conditions 3.2.9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades • Structure upgrades are limited to minor bridge rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No roadway widening, bridge widening, or interchange upgrades would occur. Impacts to social conditions from E-470 to US 36 (A-H4) would be the same as those discussed for the No-Action Alternative in Section 3.2.2.1. Components A-Tl and A-T2: Commuter Rail Population and Housing. The population within 0.5 mile of the BNSF rail line is expected to increase by 39 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 18,467 in 2000 to 25,671 in 2030). Commuter rail would facilitate infill and re-development in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont, accommodating population growth within the center of these communities, which is consistent with local planning efforts. The intensity and size of Longmont would likely increase due to its central location and direct connection to the FasTracks system. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins could attract a larger portion of growth than communities located mid- alignment. An increase in population around commuter rail stations would be expected, especially in communities with plans for transit-oriented development. These changes would not represent additional population growth, but rather a shift in its distribution. In these locations the demand for new or expanded public services and facilities would increase. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 35 residences (18 for Component A-T1 and 17 for Component A-T2). All of the displacements associated with Component A-T1 occur in Longmont, immediately adjacent to the BNSF corridor. Given the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand • would be expected. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Commuter rail and feeder bus connections would provide a vital service to persons of advanced age and persons with disabilities within the regional study area. The American Public Transportation Association reports that more that 50 percent of all non-drivers age 65 and older stay at home on any given day partially because they lack transportation options. This translates into fewer trips for medical care and social, family, and religious activities. Transportation-disadvantaged populations would benefit from the regional connections that commuter rail and feeder bus service would provide. The commuter rail would connect populations near its alignment to the larger communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, Longmont, and Denver. Feeder bus service would provide a linkage to the commuter rail line and a much needed connection between the communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley. Mobility and accessibility benefits would be greatest for transportation-disadvantaged populations living within 0.25 mile of station sites. A quarter-mile distance, which equals about a five-minute walk, is considered a convenient and acceptable walking distance for most pedestrians. Community Facilities and Services. As described in Table 3.2-2 most community facilities would benefit from new transit access. The commuter rail would not result in the relocation of any community facilities. Community facilities that are within 0.25 mile of station sites would experience greater benefits than those in other locations along the alignment. Commuter rail and feeder bus service would improve regional connections between communities in the regional study area. Residents in the northern communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont would be able to use transit to attend cultural events and reach services in Denver. • Feeder bus service would connect populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, and Milliken. Social Conditions 3.2-10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.2-2 Impacts to Community Facilities Within 0.25 Mile of the Commuter Rail Alignment Facility Impacts Northside Aztlan Community Less than 0.25 mile from the proposed station at the Fort Collins Center(112 E. Willow St.) Downtown Transit Center. The community center would benefit from improved access to transit. There would be a potential for increase in visitor numbers. Fort Collins Police Department Less than 0.25 mile from the proposed station at the Fort Collins (300 La Porte Ave.) Downtown Transit Center. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. Anglican Church of the Adjacent to the proposed CSU Transit Station. Improved access to Ascension (701 Oval Dr.) transit could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. Colorado State University Adjacent to the proposed CSU Transit Station. Improved access to transit would facilitate community participation in campus events and activities. Beattie Elementary School (3000 Approximately 0.25 mile from the proposed alignment and 2 miles Meadowlark Ave.) from both the proposed stations at CSU and south Fort Collins. Although buffered by a residential neighborhood, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel for students east of the BNSF. Foothills Assembly of God Adjacent to the proposed alignment and approximately 2 miles from (305 W. Swallow Rd.) both the proposed stations at CSU and south Fort Collins. An increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel for • church members. Loveland Burial Park Cemetery Adjacent to the proposed alignment and approximately 0.5 mile from (500 E. 3rd St.) the North Loveland Transit Station. The greater distance to a station would result in modest improvements in access. Pedestrians willing to walk 0.5 mile would benefit. Although currently in an urbanized area, noise and vibration would increase. Bill Reed Elementary School Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit (370 W. 4th St.) Station. New access to transit would benefit school-aged children. Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Truscott Elementary School (410 Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit E. 5th St. ) Station. New access to transit would benefit school-aged children. Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Loveland Fire Station#1 (211 W. Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit 6th St. ) Station. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of- direction travel. Abiding Love Lutheran Church Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit (950 Cleveland Ave.) Station. Improved access to transit could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. • Social Conditions 3.2.11 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.2-2 Impacts to Community Facilities Within 0.25 Mile of the Commuter Rail Alignment (cont'd) Facility Impacts First Congregational Church (800 Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Lincoln Ave.) Station. Improved access to transit could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Trinity United Methodist Church Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit (801 Cleveland Ave.) Station. Improved access to transit could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. First United Methodist Church Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Pre-School (533 Grant Ave.) Station. New access to transit would benefit pre-school attendance. Although currently in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Message of Life Ministries Within 0.25 mile of the proposed alignment and approximately 2 miles (605 18th St. SW) south of the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. An increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel for church members. Seventh Day Adventist Church Adjacent to the commuter rail just south of SH 60. No access (300 SW 42nd St.) improvements as no stations are planned in this location. An increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Berthoud Elementary School Within 0.25 mile from the proposed Berthoud Maintenance Station. . (560 Bunyan Ave.) Operations would result in noise and vibration impacts. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. There would be visual impacts for students playing outside in the school yard. Berthoud Fire Department Within 0.25 mile of the proposed Berthoud Transit Station. Frequency (275 Mountain Ave.) of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. Berthoud Police Department (328 Within 0.25 mile of the proposed Berthoud Transit Station. Frequency Massachusetts Ave.) of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. Berthoud Public Library Within 0.25 mile of the proposed Berthoud Transit Station. Frequency (236 Welch Ave.) of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel for patrons driving to the library; however, access to the library would be improved for non-driving patrons. An increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Longmont Police Department Adjacent to the commuter rail alignment in Longmont. Frequency of (225 Kimbark St.) trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel. Columbine Elementary School Adjacent to the commuter rail alignment in Longmont. No access (111 Longs Peak Ave.) improvements would occur as no stations are planned in this location. An increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Spangler Elementary School Adjacent to the commuter rail alignment in Longmont. No access (1440 Collyer St.) improvements would occur as no stations are planned in this location. An increase in noise and vibration would be expected. Outreach United Resource Adjacent to the commuter rail alignment in Longmont. No access (OUR)Center(303 Atwood St.) improvements would occur as no stations are planned in this location. An increase in noise and vibration would be expected. • Social Conditions 3.2-12 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Community facilities would be impacted by new rail construction and noise and vibration from rail operations. Transit would ease traffic congestion and improve mobility for emergency service providers. Emergency service providers would experience some out-of-direction travel and traffic delays during construction and following construction, as a result of train frequency and at-grade crossings. Safety concerns relating to the commuter rail operations and station sites are addressed in Section 3.21 Safety and Security. Neighborhoods. The commuter rail alignment would not further split any neighborhoods or separate neighborhoods from community facilities. The BNSF rail line currently acts as a physical and perceived barrier between development on each side of the railway in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. This "barrier effect" would be exacerbated in areas south of CSU where an additional track would be placed east of the existing track. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, existing access to neighborhoods along the rail alignment would not change. In general, transit stations are located within urban areas and are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. When located within walking distance, neighborhood integrity and community cohesion are strengthened by the provision of transit. The increased frequency of trains in the corridor would create out-of-direction travel and travel time delay for residents traveling across the BNSF. Through traffic would increase in neighborhoods adjacent to stations. The increased frequency of trains in the corridor would increase noise and vibration in all neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified moderate impacts at 167 residences along the BNSF rail corridor (151 for Component A-T1 and 16 for • Component A-T2). Impacts are concentrated in Longmont (140 impacted receivers) and Dacono (14 impacted receivers). The majority of these impacts are a result of current freight operations. The increase associated with Package A is 1 to 2 dBA over existing noise levels in Longmont and about 3 dBA over existing levels in Dacono. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. The vibration analysis identified impacts at 87 residences within 65 feet of the nearest track (37 in Loveland) and (50 in Longmont). Noise and vibration may disturb sleep or normal conversation for people in affected areas. The majority of these impacts can be mitigated with noise barriers, sound insulation, quiet zones, and other methods as described in detail in Section 3.6.3.2 Package A. Research has shown that the value of residential properties near a station generally increases following the implementation of a transit system. The increase is highest for those properties located within 0.25 mile to 1 mile from a station. For residential properties between stations, there is the potential for a decrease in property valuation as a result of noise, vibration, visual impacts, or access changes resulting in out-of-direction travel (Transportation Research Board, 2004). Several neighborhoods in Fort Collins would benefit from close proximity to transit stations. These include the Martinez Park, Historic Fort Collins High School, and Troutman Park. Residents of these neighborhoods would be able to reach the transit station by foot or bicycle. Residents of the Meadowlark and Troutman Park neighborhoods would be farther from transit stations (approximately 2 miles and 0.5 mile respectively). The added track in Fort Collins would exacerbate the existing barrier between the rail corridor and the retail services provided along US 287 and the Foothills Fashion Mall to the east. This would also occur in Loveland for residents adjacent to Lake Loveland. Lakeside homes would be in walking distance to the North Loveland Transit Station. The • commuter rail, station, and associated parking would intensify transportation activity in the adjacent neighborhood. Residents between the lake and commuter rail line could potentially feel more isolated. For some residents, access to transit would strengthen their sense of community, while for others, the opposite would be true. Social Conditions 3.2-13 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The proposed maintenance facility at East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road would be adjacent) to the northern portion of the Collins Aire Park (a mobile home park). This community would likely experience an increase in activity and visual impacts as a result of the new facility. However, such land uses are consistent with the area, as industrial, rail, and airport uses are in close proximity. The proposed maintenance facility at CR 46 and US 287 would result in an increase in activity and visual impacts to the single-family residential subdivision adjacent to the BNSF rail line in the northernmost portion of Berthoud. The maintenance facility would magnify the presence of the rail and introduce an industrial component to the neighborhood. Neighborhoods in downtown Berthoud would benefit from the new commuter rail and feeder bus connections. In Longmont, the commuter rail would primarily travel through single-family residential neighborhoods. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, no neighborhoods would be further divided nor would existing access or travel patterns change. On Atwood Street between 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue street parking would be removed to accommodate the additional track for the commuter rail line. Although some access revisions would occur, all homes would retain access to their properties from their driveways and/or alleys. Some residents in this area appear to use street parking instead of the alley (i.e., alley is fenced off) or driveway (i.e., driveway is used for storage). These residents would have to begin using their driveway or access their property from the alley when street parking is no longer available. Loss of street parking in this area would not affect Collyer Park because no street parking is currently allowed in front of the park. Columbine Elementary School would lose street parking, but currently has on-site parking and street parking or drop-off areas on all other streets surrounding the school. The widened right-of-way, operational impacts, and the acquisition of 35 residences could affect community cohesion. The community of Longmont is currently divided by the BNSF rail line. As a result local residents frequently experience delays when traveling across town; these delays would become more frequent. Transit stations in north and south Longmont would improve mobility for local neighborhoods. A station at the Sugar Mill location would support the Casa Vista neighborhood (between 119 and County Line Road on Quicksilver) by connecting it to the greater Longmont community. Comments received from Longmont community leaders in September of 2006 indicated that they feel that there would be no additional community division resulting from the commuter rail. Participants also felt that if the frequency of freight trains decreased, commuter rail would strengthen community cohesion. Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus Population and Housing. The population within 0.5 mile of the US 85 corridor is expected to increase by 13 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 7,585 in 2000 to 8,606 in 2030). This growth is expected to occur with or without commuter bus service. Population and housing may increase around commuter bus stations; however, bus stations are less likely to attract significant transit- oriented development and growth than commuter rail stations. One residential relocation would be required for the construction of a bus station at US 85 and 42nd Street in Evans. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Persons of advanced age and persons with disabilities have been identified in census tracts adjacent to US 85 in Greeley, Fort Lupton, and Brighton. Commuter bus would improve mobility for these populations. Transit would give non-drivers access to communities along US 85 and DIA. Mobility and accessibility benefits would be greatest for • transportation-disadvantaged populations living within 0.25 mile of station sites or bus stops. Social Conditions 3.2.14 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired for the commuter bus stations, maintenance facilities, queue jumps, or parking lots. Community facilities would benefit from new access to transit. Eighteen community facilities are located within 0.25 mile of the feeder bus line and three are within 0.25 mile of commuter bus stations. Twelve of these are schools; therefore, transit improvements would expand transportation options for school-aged children. Commuter bus service would improve regional connections between US 85 communities. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Limiting the number of stops would benefit residents that travel between communities (for employment, school, or services) on a regular basis. Interviews with Weld County emergency service providers indicate that transit would benefit emergency response by potentially easing traffic congestion and improving mobility. Aside from these benefits, emergency service providers in Adams, Broomfield, Boulder, and Denver counties would not be affected by commuter bus service. Emergency service providers in Weld County would experience some temporary out-of-direction travel and traffic delays during construction at queue jump locations. Neighborhoods. The majority of US 85 between Greeley and Denver is undeveloped, with a few scattered rural subdivisions, isolated single-family residences, and mobile home parks. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods, separate neighborhoods from community facilities, or affect community cohesion. Impacts to neighborhoods would primarily result from the increased transportation activity at bus stations. Residents adjacent to bus stations would experience noise, air, and visual impacts. According to the noise analysis conducted for this project, noise associated with commuter bus • elements would not reach impact levels. The commuter bus station at 42nd Street and US 85 is adjacent to a small single-family residential neighborhood in Evans. The bus station is consistent with the character of the land that surrounds this neighborhood (agriculture, industry, and rail). An increase in bus traffic, noise associated with buses, and change in the visual environment would impact residents adjacent to 42nd Street. As a result, the value of properties adjacent to 42nd Street could decrease. Residents adjacent to maintenance facilities proposed at 31st Street and west of 1st Avenue in Greeley and north of Trilby and Portner Roads in Fort Collins would experience an increase in bus traffic, noise, air, and visual impacts. Noise associated with these stations would not reach impact levels. • Social Conditions 3.2-15 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Summary of Key Impacts for Package A • Adverse impacts associated with Package A would include: ► Relocation of 59 residences ► Increased noise and vibration, out-of-direction travel, and travel time delays associated with commuter rail ► Air emissions and visual impacts to residents near carpool lots, commuter rail, transit stations, bus stations, and maintenance facilities ► Exacerbated "barrier effect" in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont ► Temporary construction-related impacts such as, noise, dust, out-of-direction travel, and travel- time delays ► Potential re-distribution of population in response to highway capacity or transit improvements Beneficial impacts associated with Package A would include: ► Regional connections between communities ► Improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response ► Improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations • 3.2.2.3 PACKAGE B Component B-HI: Safety Improvements Safety improvements under this component would result in four residential relocations. One of the affected properties is located in east Wellington and the others are dispersed along 1-25 south of Wellington. Given the small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. The proposed improvements do not involve physical changes that would directly result in increases or decreases in population. Impacts to transportation-disadvantaged populations, community facilities and services, and neighborhoods are the same as those discussed for Package A, Component A-H1. Components B-HZ B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 would have a similar affect on social resources as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Components A-H2 and A-H3. Interchange improvements for these components are also the same. Because many of the direct and indirect impacts associated with tolled express lanes are similar in nature to those of general purpose lanes, the following discussion focuses on the differences or incremental changes between them. Population and Housing. Twenty residential relocations would be required between SH 14 and E- • 470 (15 between SH 14 and SH 60 (B-H2) and 5 between SH 60 and E-470 (B-H3)). Given the Social Conditions 3.2-16 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation• . small number of displacements in relation to the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Financial access to tolling is an issue that often emerges when addressing the impacts of express lanes. To use the new express lanes, tollway users would be required to pay for their travel. Limited studies have been conducted regarding the fairness of new toll facilities and their implementation remains controversial. Equity studies conducted on express lane projects implemented in California and Texas reveal that economically disadvantaged drivers use express lanes voluntarily and are not necessarily excluded, although more frequent use is often exhibited by higher-income drivers. The studies revealed that low- income drivers approved of the express toll concepts, similar to opinions of higher-income households. Most users, even those from higher-income households, choose the express lanes judiciously when they need to benefit most from reduced congestion. Free travel lanes, access points, and frontage roads would be maintained along 1-25. In addition, transit options would be available to all 1-25 commuters. Because a variety of transportation choices would be available to all income levels, the toll lanes would not adversely affect access to transportation for economically disadvantaged populations. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired between SH 14 and E-470 (B-H2 and B-H3). The increase in capacity would improve emergency response where toll lanes are buffer-separated south of SH 60 in portions of Weld, Broomfield and Adams Counties. Interviews with Larimer and Weld county emergency service providers indicated that barrier- separated lanes would restrict mobility. In these locations (between Harmony Road and SH 60), • improvements in emergency response would not be expected. Boulder and Denver counties would not be affected by Components B-H2, B-H3, or B-H4. Neighborhoods. Toll roads can result in a redistribution of traffic into local neighborhoods as drivers take alternate routes in an effort to avoid the toll. This is unlikely to occur in neighborhoods along 1-25 because most are set back from the highway, making local roadways an unreasonable detour; in addition, the current free lanes would still be available to drivers. However, traffic may increase along frontage roads adjacent to the highway. This would result in an increase in traffic and traffic-related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions) for the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, which is immediately adjacent to the frontage road west of 1-25 and south of SH 392. The noise analysis identified impacts to 69 receivers in the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision (with mitigation, impacts would occur at 32 receivers). These receivers also would be impacted under both the No-Action Alternative and Package A. Although no residences would be displaced between E-470 and US 36 (B-H4), approximately ten garages would need to be acquired from condominiums adjacent to 1-25 near 120th Avenue. Neighborhoods in this segment extend east and west of the highway and have developed around the interstate. Residences immediately adjacent to the highway would experience an increase in traffic and traffic-related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). Numerous neighborhoods and apartment complexes abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn, and Adams County also would experience an increase in traffic and traffic-related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). However, these impacts would be largely limited to first- and second-tier homes and would not result in a deterioration of the overall • neighborhood. Construction impacts would be greater than those identified for Package A. Maintaining access to cross streets would be more difficult during construction of the barrier and tolled lanes adjacent to Social Conditions 3.2-17 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. the existing lanes. This would result in some out-of-direction travel for local residents and 1-25 • commuters. Components B-TI and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Population and Housing. The introduction of BRT along the 1-25 corridor represents a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result provides less incentive for transit- oriented development and population growth. The location of BRT stations along 1-25 and US 34 (e.g., center-running versus side-running) and the distance of the stations from any associated development would limit the likelihood that they would attract new housing and population. No residential displacements would occur under Components B-T1 or B-T2. Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations. Public transportation would improve mobility and regional connections for transportation-disadvantaged populations in the regional study area. The location of BRT stations (e.g., center-running versus side-running) and the distance of the stations from these populations would result in more modest improvements in access to transit when compared to Package A, Components A-T1 and A-T2. In addition, BRT and feeder bus would not provide the direct connection between communities along US 287 and US 85 and would reach fewer communities (Johnstown, Milliken, Firestone) than would commuter rail and feeder bus as described for Package A, Components A-T1 and A-T2. However feeder bus service would provide a connection between Niwot and Fort Lupton, currently not included in Package A. Community Facilities and Services. No community facilities would be acquired for the BRT stations, queue jumps, or parking lots. Community facilities would benefit from new access to transit. Twenty-three community facilities are located within 0.25 mile of BRT and feeder bus lines • and four are within 0.25 mile of BRT stations. Fifteen of these are schools; therefore, transit improvements would expand transportation options for school-aged children. Service to Denver Union Station would improve the regional connections provided by FasTracks. Where existing stations within the RTD district would be converted to a median BRT station, pedestrians would need to walk farther from the parking lot to reach the bus at the median. Feeder bus service along Highway 52 would connect tri-town communities (Frederick, Firestone, Dacono) to FasTracks Stations at Niwot or Gunbarrel, and to BRT at 1-25. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Transit would benefit emergency response in Weld, Larimer, Broomfield, Adams, and Denver Counties by easing traffic congestion and improving mobility. Boulder County would not be affected by Components B-T1 or B-T2. Emergency service providers would experience some temporary out- ' of-direction travel and traffic delays during construction at queue jump locations. Neighborhoods. The proposed improvements would not split or isolate any neighborhoods, separate neighborhoods from community facilities, or affect community cohesion. Impacts to neighborhoods would primarily result from the intensification of transportation activity at BRT stations and maintenance facilities. Such impacts would be anticipated near five of the twelve new stations: South Fort Collins, Harmony and Timberline, Windsor, Firestone, and Downtown Greeley. Residents adjacent to stations would experience noise, air, and visual impacts. The noise analysis determined that noise would not reach impact levels in any neighborhoods as a result of the BRT (see Section 3.6.3.3 Package B). Impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed maintenance facilities at 31st Street and i west of 1st Avenue in Greeley and north of Trilby and Portner Roads in Fort Collins would be the same as those identified for Package A, Components A-T3 and A-T4. Social Conditions 3.2-18 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Summary of Key Impacts for Package B Adverse impacts associated with Package B would include: ► Relocation of 24 residences ► Increased noise, air emissions, and visual impacts to residents near frontage roads, parking lots, bus routes, transit stations, and maintenance facilities ► Temporary construction-related noise, dust, out-of-direction travel, travel-time delays, and access revisions Beneficial impacts associated with Package B would include: ► Regional connections between communities ► Overall improvements in safety, mobility, and emergency response, but no improvements in emergency response where toll lanes are barrier-separated ► Moderate improvements in mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation for impacts associated with residential and public property acquisitions are addressed in Section 3.4 Right-of-Way. • If either of the build packages is implemented, a traffic maintenance plan would be developed to minimize interference to traffic flow from construction equipment and activities. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) would provide advance notice to emergency service providers, local schools, home owners associations (Mountain Range Shadows), and the public of upcoming activities that are likely to result in traffic disruption. Such notifications would be accomplished through radio and public announcements, newspaper notices, on-site signage, and CDOT's website. Where feasible, retaining walls would be constructed along 1-25 and the BNSF to minimize impacts to residential development. If toll lanes are constructed, ways to make tolling more equitable would be sought. For example, payment options would be considered to enable the broadest opportunity for all economic groups to use toll facilities. This might entail providing alternative payment options for transponder purchases (for persons who don't own credit cards) and toll replenishment using cash or employer-based payroll deductions. Toll booths would not be installed so additional impacts related to idling vehicles (e.g., noise, air quality) would not occur. Mitigation for impacts associated with noise and vibration are addressed in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. In spite of these efforts, some community and neighborhood impacts would still occur and would not be able to be mitigated. These include operational impacts associated with commuter rail or BRT (noise, vibration, and traffic delays) as well as increased transportation activity for residences adjacent to • commuter rail, bus stations, and maintenance facilities. It is important to consider that these impacts would be highly localized. Benefits associated with access to transit, regional mobility and connectivity, as well as improvements in safety and emergency response would outweigh these impacts. Social Conditions 3.2-19 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.2.4 Environmental Justice • Environmental justice is a public policy goal of promoting the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the transportation planning and decision-making process. Satisfying this goal means ensuring that minority and low-income communities receive an equitable distribution of the benefits of transportation activities without suffering disproportionately high and adverse impacts. This section documents the presence of minority and low-income populations and minority-owned businesses in the regional study area, identifies important community resources and connections that serve these populations, and evaluates the potential for impacts to these populations and resources. Special efforts made to involve minority and low-income populations in the decision making process are also described. This analysis has been prepared in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance for addressing environmental justice, including: ► Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Federal Register, February 11, 1994). ► DOT Order 5610.2, Order To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations (Federal Register, April 15, 1997). ► FHWA Order 6640.23, Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (December 2, 1998). ► FTA Circular (FTA C 4702.1A), Title VI Guidelines for FTA Administration Recipients (May 13, • 2007). ► DOT 70 FR 74087, Policy Guidance Concerning Recipient's Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons (December 14, 2005). ► EPA's Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (April 1998). ► CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects — Rev.3 (May 27, 2005). Due to the size and complexity of the environmental justice analysis, an Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum (Jacobs, 2008b) has been prepared for this study. The technical memorandum includes a thorough summary of the regulatory background for environmental justice, detailed census data analysis, and the dates and locations of specialized outreach activities. Appendices to the technical memorandum include minutes from small group meetings, completed business surveys, and correspondence with local planning agencies. 3.2.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Minority Populations Minority populations are comprised of ethnic and/or racial minorities. As defined in FHWA Order 6640.23, a minority is a person who is Black, Hispanic, Asian American, or an American India or Alaskan Native. Year 2000 census data at the block level were used to identify minority population The percentage of minorities in each census block was compared to county averages. Any blocks with Social Conditions 3.2.20 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • a higher percentage of minorities than the respective county are evaluated for disproportionately high and adverse effects and are selected for outreach. These blocks are shown in Figure 3.2-3. As shown in Figure 3.2-3, minority populations are primarily located in and around urban areas in the regional study area, although some are scattered throughout the regional study area. Census blocks that do not contain minority populations were excluded from the analysis. This includes blocks in which a small population has the effect of exaggerating the percentage of minorities in that block. For example, there are 60 blocks with two people, one of which is a minority. In these blocks, 50 percent of the population is minority. While 50 percent appears high, one minority person out of a total population of two persons does not indicate a minority population. Low-Income Populations FHWA Order 6640.23 defines low-income as "...a household income at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines." A different threshold (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau poverty threshold or HUD Community Development Block Grant income thresholds) may be used as long as it is not selectively implemented and is inclusive of all persons at or below the HHS poverty guidelines. CDOT's recommended approach in determining low-income populations is to derive the low-income threshold from a combination of census average household size data at the block group level and low-income thresholds set annually by HUD for the distribution and allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds. The percentage of low-income households in each block group was compared to county averages. Any block group in the regional study area with a higher percentage of low-income households than that of • its respective county was evaluated for disproportionately high and adverse effects and targeted for outreach. These block groups are shown in Figure 3.2-3. As shown in Figure 3.2-3, low-income households are concentrated around US 287 and the BNSF rail line in Lafayette, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins; US 85 in Greeley, Gilcrest, and Brighton; SH 119 in Boulder; and 1-25 in the Fort Collins and Denver County portions of the regional study area. • Social Conditions 3.2-21 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.2-3 Minority and Low-Income Populations Identified Using Census and U.S. I Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Data LEGEND l ^/ Study Corridors I, /\/ Highways ..p'- `' -- — v.oington '� /\/ Arterial Roads �'•� ED i �_i Regional Study Area '° � \... iiir City Boundaries �'` I �, r;:.�,.� 0 Cities & Towns fort Gouilu._ 1, Census Identified Minority Populations -}}. = / �— —T— I • '—. T; — = Ault i11 i 14 Minority and Low-Income Populations : fi 2571 _ 1 43 Low-Income Populations Identified Using r ' j P 1rm.ndth a [at r. 1 Census and HUD Data s`•'•`"'""r' Sources U.S Census Bureau 2000 HUD. 2006 I 1 - l 1 ______ , iviniiso. "-:3 a 1 ureeley. ' 1F f37134 '�_ 1-� Y '� il i ci nCitya 1 C- -'Loveland 34 •a- r:�,t:-� - I ! i 4 / saw, . • ' Gam['on arvn,;{ .r i - i 85 L3 4 I w e Mead = I66 I fiullcville 1 -?r Longmont jIone 1 ' i Vollmat.0 . 0 firestone---. --- 1 - i I � � O hedenek I N:vrut Tl _7Th 52 _. Q (xon fatlupta. J •• t-,: CWt h➢• t. IY. O he• -•1. VW � •a . l /:; tTM watttnhmg • , .' Boulder I 7 — 1 j' ""I far, to �L' `S47 Y Bright '__ .i Superior —; ``.•� •-= I — 0 EMUaIe Hnodnrsrm / - ' Broonlield 93 \ _ birniELfthl```e_ / `4 .� �. Thorntun T / f \ u '- i :�� / / 1- -� 72.I • .,- :k. �• r r. f .. Lit r'1r 14t-via__-�`- 1- I Ah l ienv-r I . I (—'�—' . i_5 / /� 1 I 0 2 4 6 8 10 �/ it. / I ~ Miles North •� t I* r. . ---)\ L-,N..... 'An 7x-".N-C!B 1£J c6^•0.,e:m mm. zz:no• I Social Conditions 3.2-22 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Additional Data Sources Census data alone are too broad to accurately represent the social and economic make-up of the households in the regional study area. For this reason, additional efforts were made to identify minority and low-income populations and services in the regional study area. These efforts included contacting local planners, non-profit organizations, health and human services, chambers of commerce, and housing authorities. Locations of minority and low-income populations and services identified by these contacts are shown in Figure 3.2-4. Minority-Owned Businesses Minority-owned businesses were initially identified through the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office. In all, 56 minority businesses were identified through this resource. To ensure adequate identification of minority-owned businesses and gather more specific employment information, a business survey was also prepared and distributed in December 2006 to 1,297 businesses throughout the regional study area. Of these, 175 (14 percent) were returned. Surveys were distributed in both English and Spanish and were hand-delivered to large employers and targeted locations along SH 85. Results of the survey are summarized below. The complete survey is contained in the Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum (Jacobs, 2008b) in Appendix C. The analysis that can be derived from a survey is only as good as the response. Some responses were incomplete or left unanswered. This analysis uses only those responses that were answered completely. • Of the businesses surveyed, 17 percent are minority-owned. Approximately 113 businesses reported having full-time minority employees. For 35 of these businesses, more than 50 percent of their full-time staff was comprised of minorities. Approximately 87 businesses reported having part- time minority employees. For 68 of these businesses, more than 50 percent of their part-time staff is comprised of minorities. Minority-owned businesses in the regional study area provide a variety of services that range from food and clothing to automotive and insurance services. Seventeen percent of the minority-owned businesses surveyed have been in their current location for 15 years or more. Approximately 25 percent of businesses surveyed (minority- and non-minority-owned) reported transportation concerns. Many cited long commutes and heavy congestion along 1-25 and other roadways; others indicated a need for transit along roadways. Of minority-owned businesses, seventeen percent reported transportation concerns, including long commutes, high fuel prices, and the need for public transportation. When asked what mode of transportation most employees use to get to and from work, 74 percent of businesses surveyed reported that all of their employees use a vehicle. Only six businesses surveyed reported less than 50 percent of employees using a vehicle to travel to work. None of these businesses were minority-owned. • Social Conditions 3.2-23 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.24 Minority and Low-Income Populations and Services Identified through. Additional Data Sources 4. LEGEND I Al Study Corridors "/ Highways �• ,� V1M.Iplpmn '�� /\/ Arterial Roads '' •• aa , ,L.jJ., Regional Study Area ,% f \` ti 'l ' City Boundaries Plcrce. . 1 \ Community Facilities Serving Low-Income ! Fort Collins / I \ �_J 0 Cities & Towns I Ault t, 14 `-'' Planner Identified Low-Income Populations .257 1 1 e Planner Identified Minority Populations o {,.w1al[e E��• so Source: Communications with Local Planners/Agencies. 2006 j \ 287 4 T Wirkl5Ur=- - --. Lucerne ` 1.92J , Greeley • \ 34 -\--__ _ . • Loveland M 1,(11di-ri C4 II Lam ' , la Sane . , l Campion V Johnstown SS / • I85 / 1 LI Berthoud ' v Milliken C / I ' Gilcrest ® 1 ` /• MeadO / I l atl ewllie I Longmont II t d Irmi R 1 i ei O Firestone I Niwnt t�{ke 1Min1 I J L r I O p,i tt° Fon Luptoi I --- - f , 0 Gunbarrel i 7Kr O Elie i �� -/ a Valmont I 7 Watlenberg I Boulder i EataYette r+�+l "�—. .�- I Lonsllle ----.,f_� &Ightnn 7 I F,rsUate 4%. L•i .1:•,-- - ._., --: - /. Broomfield O Henderson j. 93 �'� Nathglena .. - - 36 I r"�" `— �, , ,.i a-ihmn;,.,, - / 1,` . 1 .Denver--/ AS se 0 2 4 6 8 10 .t t I I I Miles North -�- �.--- _.� 4 Lisp tbo.wnl Cie (U Pbm+n_+.,nu._.w?myth Social Conditions 3.2-24 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.2.4.2 SPECIALIZED OUTREACH TO MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS Political Context of Specialized Outreach Efforts Some of the public involvement and specialized outreach activities associated with the North 1-25 project occurred during a local and national immigration debate as well as during an electoral campaign where immigration was one of the key issues. Many members of the Hispanic/Latino community may have considered public meetings as a low-priority event or may have been hesitant to attend public meetings for fear of persecution. Declining participation in planning processes already has been noticed in Colorado. At recent planning meetings and public events for unrelated projects in Silverthorne and in Aspen, for example, there was no Hispanic/Latino participation, even though there are known Hispanic/Latino populations in these towns. Every effort was made to inform and involve the Hispanic/Latino community throughout the project: community leaders were identified to build trust and guide public involvement efforts, small group meetings were held in local communities after regularly scheduled events, informational booths were set up during cultural events and activities, local print and electronic media were used to announce meetings and provide information about the project, flyers were posted in key community locations, and project information was hand delivered to major businesses. In spite of these efforts, participation by the Hispanic/Latino community may have been hindered by the political climate. In general, participation in small group meetings was low (several meetings had less than 10 attendees). In addition, multiple attempts made to distribute information and organize small group meetings in Greeley were met with resistance by the local community. Because of this, fewer small group meetings were held in minority communities than had originally been anticipated. Specialized Outreach Activities While it was expected that minority and low-income populations would receive project information through the general public outreach discussed in Chapter 8 Comments and Coordination, additional efforts were made to ensure an increased level of awareness and participation in the project. These efforts included coordination with community leaders and liaisons, targeted distribution of project information, translation of materials into Spanish, the use of Spanish language media, attendance at cultural and community events, and use of small group meetings. The project team contacted approximately 42 Hispanic/Latino community and church leaders. Hispanic/Latino community leaders were offered information about the project and the opportunity for small group meetings. Eleven small group meetings were held in minority and low-income neighborhoods at various times throughout the process. Specialized outreach efforts also identified the potential for a Hmong population, an Asian ethnic group from southern China and southeast Asia, in the northern communities of the regional study area. Consultation with community leaders in the North Front Range revealed that the Hmong population consists of five clans with patriarchs. • Social Conditions 3.2-25 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Hmong community leaders indicated that they would be more responsive to project fact sheets and surveys than community or small group meetings. Based on this information, the project fact sheet,W business survey, and travel survey were translated into Hmong and given to community leaders for distribution to the Hmong population. Input Received through Specialized Outreach Input received through specialized outreach centered on community needs and concerns regarding the proposed improvements. Participants indicated repeatedly that transit service between Longmont, Loveland, Denver, Boulder, and southwest Weld County was needed. Congestion on l- 25 limits access to businesses and participation in cultural events in Metro Denver. Most residents from Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and Longmont would be willing to drive to access transit service to Denver. Participants expressed general concern about the cost of the build packages and how they would be funded. Participants disagreed about the impacts of tolling. Some felt that public transportation should be open to all and that tolling would exclude citizens. Others preferred tolling because it provided revenue for construction and would ease congestion. Participants indicated a need for transit options to reach important community facilities (local schools and churches), regional employment centers (DIA and the Denver Technical Center), and commuter cities (Cheyenne, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, and Denver). It was also pointed out that much of the minority community does not work typical business hours and may hold multiple jobs. For transit to be effective, it would need to be flexible, affordable, accommodate persons with disabilities and bicycles, and operate on weekends and evenings. In a meeting held in Brighton, attendees indicated that there were negative feelings toward transit because it is unreliable, provides limited service, and requires lengthy wait times. In addition, transit was not deemed feasible for those with construction jobs who are required to be in several locations throughout the day. While some suggested that bus service should be provided along US 85, most felt that more lanes are needed on US 85, SH 7, and 1-25. Other than Brighton, participants generally felt that transit would enhance employment opportunities and increase access to shopping, cultural events, and services for minority and low-income populations throughout the Front Range. Many participants also preferred transit to highway widening because they considered it a cheaper, safer, and a less stressful option. Most participants said that existing transit does not adequately serve minority and low-income communities. Some underserved locations identified by meeting participants include the Outreach United Resource (OUR) Center in Longmont, new development east of SH 119 in Longmont, Casa Vista residential subdivision (Longmont), St. John's Church (Longmont), Casa Esperanza (Longmont), Bill Reed middle school (Loveland), Centerra (Loveland), and the Holy Catholic Church (Fort Collins). Participants preferred options that included transit to these destinations. Participants also identified key community facilities, minority and low-income neighborhoods, and minority-owned businesses throughout the regional study area. These include the Pullman Center (12th and Garfield in Loveland); Wal-Mart (Loveland); Loveland Lake Park; Wynona Elementary School (Loveland); the Hispanic neighborhoods of Cherry Street, Buckingham, La Colonia, Andersonville, Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park, and Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park (Fort Collins); Hispanic businesses along US 287 north of Cherry Street in Fort Collins; and Hispanic businesses along US 34 east of US 287 in Longmont. Participants also preferred options that included transit too these destinations. Social Conditions 3.2.26 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Participants indicated that immigration policy is a concern for Hispanic/Latino populations throughout the regional study area. Hispanic or Latino populations may not use public transit if they have to show identification or are distrustful of authority. In terms of the highway options, some indicated that they avoid using 1-25 because they feel that Hispanic/Latino drivers are pulled over more frequently by the State Highway Patrol. 3.2.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The environmental justice analysis evaluated each alternative to determine whether there is a potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations when compared to populations that are not minority or not low-income in the regional study area. A disproportionate impact is defined by FHWA as one that is: Predominantly borne by a minority and/or low-income population, or Suffered by the minority and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that would be suffered by the non-minority/non-low-income population An adverse impact is defined by FHWA as the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to: ► Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death • ► Air, noise, water pollution, or soil contamination ► Destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources ► Destruction or diminution of aesthetic values ► Destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality ► Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services ► Vibration ► Adverse employment effects ► Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations ► Increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion, or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community ► The denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of FHWA programs, policies, or activities Supporting technical documentation and other analyses prepared in conjunction with this Draft Environmental Impact Statement were reviewed to determine whether the build packages overall, as well as individual modal components, would have adverse impacts on the overall population, as well as minority and low-income population groups. If no adverse impacts were expected for a resource, then no further environmental justice analysis was undertaken with regard to that particular resource. If, however, adverse effects were identified for a resource, additional Social Conditions 3.2-27 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. environmental justice analysis was performed and is described below. Note that impacts to natural resources (i.e., flora and fauna, geology and soils, wetlands) were assumed not to have any direct impacts or indirect effects on human populations. No-Action Alternative Given the relatively limited scope of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for Package A and Package B. However, certain adverse effects on minority and low-income residents in the regional study area would arise as a result of transportation needs unmet by the No-Action Alternative. These would include the direct and indirect effects on communities from traffic congestion and impaired mobility. These effects would include an increase in air emissions and noise, longer travel times, traffic queues at key interchanges, neighborhood traffic intrusion, deteriorating safety conditions, and lengthened emergency response times. These impacts would be experienced by all segments of the population. Safety improvements at SH 1 and SH 392 would benefit the minority and low-income populations in these areas. While these improvements would provide some relief, traffic congestion would continue to result in traffic queues and delays for travelers. The No-Action Alternative would not provide local communities with the accessibility benefits associated with transit services, as would Package A, and to some extent Package B. Low-income populations are often dependent on transit service and would particularly benefit from the provision of new transit services along US 287 and US 85. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 100 residential receivers between SH 14 and S SH 60. Sixty-nine of these are residences concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, a community with minority populations in the southwest quadrant of the SH 392/1-25 interchange. Noise impacts would occur at all 69 residences and would range in intensity from 66 dBA to 77 dBA, an increase of less than 2 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. These receivers also would be impacted under Package A and Package B. The 31 impacted residences not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision represent a combination of minority and non-minority residences. Many of these are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. Because of the noise impacts to the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, there are more low income and minorities that would be impacted by noise than non minority and low income. However, the increase in noise level is very small and would not be noticeable to most people. There are no plans in the No Action alternative to do any noise mitigation for these impacts. Package A Component A-H1: Safety Improvements. For this component, safety improvements have the potential to impact minority and/or low-income populations at two locations: near the SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington and north of the SH 14/1-25 interchange in Fort Collins. There are seven populated census blocks adjacent to the SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington. Of these, three are identified as having minority populations. Three households characterized as low-income are located between Wellington and north of SH 14. These households are located on rural properties and are not part of an established neighborhood. Minority populations would benefit from interchange improvements and signalization at SH 1. The S carpool lot in the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange would be located across from a single-family neighborhood of approximately 39 homes, which is approximately 37 percent minority. Social Conditions 3.2-28 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Although conveniently located, the traffic, noise, and activity associated with the lot could disturb adjacent residents. Of the four residential displacements in this section, three are located in census blocks/block groups identified as having minority or low-income populations. The affected residences are widely distributed in rural parcels south of Wellington. The noise analysis identified impacts to the residential area (16 receivers) in the northwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange (referred to as Wellington East in the noise analysis). All of the receivers are located within three adjacent census blocks that contain minority populations. The impacted receivers are immediately adjacent to the highway and also would be impacted under both the No- Action Alternative and Package B. The mitigation proposed for these residences is a noise barrier which would reduce noise to below impact levels. The noise barrier would result in a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.2-3 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-H1: Safety Improvements. Table 3.2-3 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-Hl: Safety Improvements Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; traffic One residential property displacement; traffic impacts from carpool lot impacts from carpool lot Residential area (16 receivers) in the northwest No residential areas impacted by traffic noise quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange impacted levels by traffic noise levels; proposed mitigation • reduces noise to below impact levels Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. These components have the potential to impact minority and/or low-income populations in four locations: ► SH 14/1-25 Interchange. In the northeast quadrant of the interchange, the Mountain View Mobile Home Park and adjacent single-family neighborhood are identified as having a concentration of minorities and low-income households. A small single-family neighborhood that does not contain minority or low-income populations is located in the southeast quadrant of the interchange. ► SH 392/1-25 Interchange. In the southwest quadrant of the interchange, the Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision is identified as having a concentration of minorities. A newer single-family residential subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant and does not contain a concentration of minorities. ► LCR 16/1-25 Interchange. The Johnson's Corner RV Park and a few single-family residences are identified as having a concentration of minorities. The Johnson's Corner RV Park allows short and long-term stays. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. ► SH 119/1-25 Interchange. The River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and a small single-family residential neighborhood abut a strip of commercial properties in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. These residences are located in a census block with a concentration of minorities. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. • These four locations are the only areas with concentrated populations. Between these locations, scattered residences are contained within large rural census blocks that extend outward from 1-25 (up to a mile). Social Conditions 3.2-29 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Nineteen residential displacements would occur between SH 14 and E-470 (14 between SH 14 and SH 60 (A-H2), and five between SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3)). Of these, three are located in census blocks with minority populations and 16 are located in census blocks and block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations. In general, displaced properties are dispersed along I- 25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. The social analysis identifies the potential for impacts to residents within the Mountain View Mobile Home Park in the northwest quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange. Census data indicate that this community contains minority and low-income populations. Impacts would include a new access configuration for residents of the Mountain View community. Existing access is provided from an unsignalized intersection along SH 14. New access would be from a re-aligned frontage road that would be signalized to provide safer and more direct access for the Mountain View community. A carpool lot with 150 spaces would also be constructed across the street from the community. Some residents may consider the proximity of this lot a convenience. Others might find the added pavement and increase in local traffic and activity disruptive. However, the area surrounding the interchange is highly urbanized and dominated by transportation facilities. The carpool lot would not considerably alter this setting. The Mountain Range Shadows subdivision in the southwest quadrant of the SH 392/1-25 interchange consists of three census blocks that contain minority populations. To accommodate highway improvements, the frontage road would shift approximately 15 feet closer to the community and 1-25 would be relocated approximately 30 feet farther from the community. This would result in a net reduction in traffic-related impacts when compared to the No-Action Alternative. In March 2006, the project team met with residents of the Mountain Range Shadows community to gather input on the SH 392 interchange design and frontage road configuration. To minimize impacts to thill community, the project team suggested relocating the frontage road behind the community. Residents were concerned with this approach and indicated a strong preference for the proposed configuration. As a result, the highway would be moved approximately 30 feet east of the interstate, resulting in two property displacements from a neighborhood that does not contain minority populations. At the Johnson's Corner truck stop and café, existing access would be replaced so that customers would have to travel east on LCR 16 to the frontage road, circle around the property, and enter at the south end. A consequence of this configuration would be the displacement of a single minority residence that would otherwise be isolated by the new access road. Near the Johnson's Corner RV Park, 1-25 would be widened to the east. As a result, access to the park would not change and no displacements would occur. Improvements near the SH 119/1-25 interchange would include a realignment of the northbound off- ramp. Residents of the River Valley Village Mobile Home RV Park would experience short-term, construction-related impacts including, noise, dust, detours, and traffic delays. No long-term impacts would occur. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of twelve businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (eleven between SH 14 and SH 60 (A-H2) and one between SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3)). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include equipment storage, car sales and service, warehouse, food sales, gas/convenience, and home and RV sales. These businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; • or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that these businesses have any particular connection to a minority community or provide employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. Social Conditions 3.2.30 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 93 receivers between SH 14 and SH 60 (B-H2). Sixty-nine of these receivers are concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision. Noise levels would increase at 63 of the 69 residences and would range in intensity from 67 dBA to 77 dBA, an increase of up to 3.6 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. Proposed mitigation would reduce the number of impacted receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision to 32, an improvement over the No-Action condition. Of the 24 impacted receivers not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, 21 are located in census blocks/block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations and three are located in census blocks with minority populations. Noise levels in these areas would range in intensity from 66 dBA to 82 dBA, an increase of up to 6 dBA over existing conditions. These receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. The visual analysis (Section 3.14.3.2) determined that new retaining walls 15 feet and greater in height and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions. A total of 31 retaining walls (18 for Component A-H2 and 13 for Component A-H3) would be distributed along 1-25, affecting minority and low-income populations as well as non-minority/non-low-income populations. New bridges proposed at US 34 would impact visual conditions for all segments of the population. Noise barriers constructed to mitigate noise impacts at Mountain Range Shadows would also change the visual environment for homes adjacent to the highway, affecting views to the east. However, some may find the visual barrier to the highway an improvement over the existing condition. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis (Section 4.9), impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be temporary in duration, would not be concentrated in areas with minority or low- income population groups, and would be offset by the overall benefits from added shoulders and sidewalks. Table 3.2-4 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. Table 3.24 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; access revision 16 residential property displacements No known displacement of businesses owned by minorities 12 business displacements or of special importance to minority populations 76 receivers impacted by traffic noise levels increasing 0-2 17 receivers impacted by traffic dbA(69 from the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision); noise levels increasing 0-7 dbA- after mitigation, 32 receivers impacted. receivers are scattered along North 1-25 Retaining walls would impact residential areas; retaining Retaining walls would impact walls (> 15')and new bridges would result in a high effect on residential areas; retaining walls(> visual conditions 15')and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions • Social Conditions 3.2.31 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades. Structure upgrades are limited to minor bridge rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No roadway widening, bridge widening, or interchange upgrades would occur. Impacts to minority and low-income populations south of E-470 would be the same as those discussed for the No-Action Alternative in Section 3.2.2.1. Components A-T7 and A-T2: Commuter Rail. Minority and low-income populations are distributed along the BNSF alignment with concentrations in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. One hundred and sixty populated census blocks and 50 block groups are adjacent to the BNSF rail line. Of these, 50 census blocks have higher than average populations of minorities and 21 census block groups have higher than average numbers of low-income households. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 35 residences (18 for Component A-T1 and 17 for Component A-T2). For Component A-T1, 16 of the 18 residential displacements (88 percent) would occur in census blocks or block groups containing minority or low-income populations. All of these would occur in Longmont, in minority and low-income neighborhoods adjacent to the BNSF corridor. The additional commuter rail tracks plus the displacements would exacerbate the existing barrier effect of the existing BNSF corridor, so would not result in a new impact to an established community. No residential displacements associated with Component A- T2 are located in a census block or block group with minority or low-income populations. Commuter rail would improve access to the following community facilities that were identified through specialized outreach efforts as being important to minority and low-income populations: ► Bill Reed Middle School. This school has a high concentration of Hispanic/Latino students. Existing transit to the school is limited. The school is within 0.25 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail would benefit school-aged children. Although the school is currently located in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. The commuter rail option would benefit these students by providing service to the school and alleviating a long bus ride for many students. ► Impacto De Fe. This largely Hispanic church in Loveland, with a historic presence, is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► Salud Family Health Center. This health center is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit persons along the Front Range who are uninsured or underinsured and in need of medical care. ► St. John's Church. This church is located approximately 1 mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► OUR Center. This medical center is located approximately 1 mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit families in need of medical care. ► St. Joseph's Church. This church is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► The Pullman Center. This community center is located less than 1 mile from the Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community events and activities. Social Conditions 3.2-32 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, minority and low-income neighborhoods in Berthoud, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland would not be newly divided nor would existing access or travel patterns change. Local residents frequently experience delays when traveling across the BNSF rail line. These delays would become more frequent and would be experienced by all segments of the population. Several neighborhoods in Fort Collins would benefit from close proximity to transit stations. These include Martinez Park (minority and low-income), Historic Fort Collins High School (minority), and Troutman Park (minority). Residents of these neighborhoods would be able to reach the transit station by foot or bicycle. Transit stations in north and south Longmont would improve mobility for minority and low-income neighborhoods, connecting residents to cultural events and employment in Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder, and Denver. Property values would likely increase near station sites. Over time, this could make housing less affordable for existing residents. Minority and low-income residents on Atwood Street would lose street parking between 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue. Although some access revisions would occur as a result, all homes would retain access to their properties from their driveways and/or alleys. For example, some residents in this area appear to use street parking instead of the alley (i.e., alley is fenced off) or driveway (i.e., driveway is used for storage). These residents would have to begin using their driveway or access their property from the alley when street parking is no longer available. Loss of street parking in this area would not affect OUR Center because this facility currently has alley access and on-site parking. The proposed maintenance facility at East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road would be adjacent to the northern portion of the Collins Aire Park (a mobile home park that is both minority and low- • income). This community would likely experience an increase in activity and visual impacts as a result of the new facility. However, such land uses are consistent with the area, as industrial, rail, and airport uses are in close proximity Feeder bus service would connect minority and low-income populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, and Milliken. Feeder bus service along US 34 would improve mobility for Hispanic/Latino residents in apartment complexes adjacent to the highway as well as provide access to key community facilities, such as Wal-Mart and a regional bus line that provides service to Mexico. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 16 businesses for right-of-way acquisition. Fifteen of these would occur between Fort Collins and Longmont (Component A-T1). The remaining relocation would occur between Longmont and FasTracks North Metro (Component A-T2). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include food sales, rail related, lumber, investment services, automotive, warehouse/storage, equipment/machinery, and manufacturing. None of these businesses were identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. However, due to their proximity to minority populations along the BNSF rail line, these businesses most likely provide employment for minority persons. The increased frequency of trains in the corridor would increase noise and vibration in neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified moderate • impacts at 167 residences along the commuter rail corridor (151 for component A-T1 and 16 for component A-T2). For Component A-T1, 149 of the 151 impacted receivers would occur in areas with minority or low-income populations. The majority of these (140) would occur in Longmont, in minority and low-income neighborhoods adjacent to the BNSF corridor. For Component A-T2, one Social Conditions 3.2-33 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. of the 16 impacted receivers would occur in areas with minority or low-income populations. Noise • levels would range in intensity from 59 dBA to 78 dBA, an increase of between 1 dBA and 4 dBA over existing conditions. The majority of these impacts can be mitigated with, quiet zones, wayside horns, noise barriers and/or other methods as described in detail in Section 3.6.4.4 Rail Noise and Vibration Mitigation Evaluation. The vibration analysis identified impacts at 87 residences within 65 feet of the nearest track (37 in Loveland and 50 in Longmont). The majority of these (81) are located in areas with minority or low-income populations. Noise and vibration may disturb sleep or normal conversation for people in affected areas. All of these impacts can be mitigated with ballast mats, tire derived aggregate, under-tie pads, and other methods as described in detail in Section 3.6.4.4 Rail Noise and Vibration Mitigation Evaluation. It is important to note that the noise and vibration analysis was based on the best available right-of- way information. As design continues, some of the impacted properties may be acquired for right-of- way purposes. Refer to Section 3.6.3.2 for a detailed analysis of potential noise and vibration impacts. An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Minority and/or low-income populations at five of the nine proposed station sites (Downtown Fort Collins Transit Center, Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, North Longmont, and Sugar Mill) would be affected. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project (Section 3.5.3), emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proximity of the station sites would be beneficial for the nearby populations, especially those within walking distance. • The visual analysis (Section 3.14.3.2) concluded that the introduction of retaining walls, noise barriers, and new bridges would have a high visual effect to residents adjacent to the rail corridor. Overall, retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas with concentrations of minority or low- income populations and 7 residential areas with non-minority/non-low-income populations. Retaining walls would be constructed on the east side of the rail (where new track would be laid) between Mountain View Avenue and 21st Street in minority and low-income portions of the Clark Centennial and Lanyon neighborhoods. Twelve residences immediately adjacent to the proposed track also would be displaced from these neighborhoods. Retaining walls and noise barriers would shield residences from the existing rail line, lessening the visual impacts of the railroad. As described in Section 3.6.4.4 Rail Noise and Vibration Mitigation Evaluation, noise barriers will be considered if quiet zones and/or wayside horns are not feasible and reasonable. Fourteen of the 16 potential locations for noise barriers are adjacent to minority and/or low-income populations. The majority of these (12) are in Longmont. While these would reduce noise levels for the surrounding communities, they would alter the visual landscape primarily affecting minority and low-income residences adjacent to the BNSF rail line in Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. However, these same residences would benefit the most from the noise barriers. The North Loveland, Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, and North Longmont stations would have a high visual effect on the surrounding community because they would require relocation of a business or residence and the station would impede views from the east to the mountains. Minority and/or low-income populations would be affected by three of these stations - Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, and North Longmont. Social Conditions 3.2-34 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Adverse effects would occur to two historic properties between Longmont and FasTracks North Metro (A-T2). Both of these properties would be acquired for right-of-way purposes. Adversely affected properties include the Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) and Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL.1244). Both of these buildings are in Longmont adjacent to the BNSF rail line within areas identified as having minority and/or low-income populations. The Old City Electric Building is designated by the City of Longmont as a local landmark. Loss of these buildings could negatively affect community character and cohesion for both low income and minority populations as well as non-low income and non-minority populations. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis (Section 4.9), impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be temporary in duration, would not be concentrated in areas with minority or low- income population groups, and would be offset by the overall benefits from added shoulders and sidewalks. The additional commuter rail track, operational traffic impacts, right-of-way fencing noise, vibration, and visual impacts would negatively affect minority and low-income neighborhoods and community cohesion in Longmont. These impacts could reduce property values in minority and low-income areas, except for the areas within walking distance of the two stations, where property values would likely be increased. In addition, two stations would serve the community of Longmont: SH 66 in the north and SH 119 in the south. Residents along the commuter rail alignment in Longmont would have to drive or take a local bus north or south to access the rail. Comments received at a meeting with El Comite de Longmont (a Latino community organization in Longmont) in September 2006 indicated that these residents feel that there would be no additional • community division resulting from the commuter rail. According to El Comite, minority and low- income communities in Longmont rely heavily on local bus service. Underserved areas that are important to the minority community include the OUR Center (medical clinic) and Casa Vista (a minority neighborhood between SH 119 and County Line Road on Quicksilver). A station at the Sugar Mill location would support these areas and connect the Casa Vista neighborhood to the northern part of Longmont as well as Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder and Denver. Table 3.2-5 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail. The provision of commuter bus service would benefit minority and low-income communities along US 85. Bus stations in Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville, and Fort Lupton are all located in minority and/or low-income areas and would expand employment opportunities and services to these populations. Commuter bus service would improve regional connections between US 85 communities. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Limiting the number of stops would benefit residents that travel between communities on a regular basis. Construction of queue jumps, bus stations, and maintenance facilities would require the relocation of five businesses. Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include a convenience store, welding, and professional services. Impacted businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. However, due to their proximity to minority populations along US 85, these businesses most likely provide employment for minority persons. Site visits indicated numerous businesses that appeared to be minority-owned (e.g., company name and signage was in Spanish). None of the businesses identified during site visits would be directly impacted by the commuter bus components. Employees and business owners would benefit from the improved access that would be provided by commuter bus service. Social Conditions 3.2.35 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.2-5 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-T1 and • A-T2: Commuter Rail Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations 16 residential property displacements (all in 19 residential property displacements (none in Longmont); improved access to Front Range Longmont); improved access to Front Range communities, community facilities, and services; communities, community facilities, and services; potential degradation of community cohesion in travel time delays and out-of-direction travel at at- Longmont; travel time delays at at-grade crossings grade crossings No known displacement of businesses owned by 16 business displacements minorities; displaced businesses most likely provide services and employment for minority persons 150 receivers impacted by rail noise levels, 140 17 receivers impacted by rail noise levels; from minority or low-income neighborhoods along vibration impacts at 6 residences; proposed the BNSF in Longmont; vibration impacts at 81 mitigation reduces noise and vibration to below residences; after mitigation, 1 receiver impacted by impact levels noise and none impacted by vibration Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at five proposed station sites; populations at four proposed station sites; emissions would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS Retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas; Retaining walls would impact 7 residential areas; sound walls would result in a high effect on visual sound walls would result in a high effect on visual conditions at 14 locations; commuter rail stations conditions at two locations; commuter rail stations would have a high effect on visual conditions at would have a high effect on visual conditions at three locations one location • An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Impacts would primarily affect minority and/or low-income populations at four of the five proposed station sites (Greeley, South Greeley, Platteville, and Fort Lupton). According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project, emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed NAAQS. Table 3.2-6 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus. Table 3.2-6 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations One property displacement; improved access to No property displacements; improved access communities along US 85 to communities along US 85. No known displacement of businesses owned by Five business displacements. Displaced minorities; displaced businesses most likely provide businesses provide services and employment services and employment for minority persons for all populations. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at four proposed station sites; emissions populations at one proposed station site; would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS. • Social Conditions 3.2.36 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Benefits of Package A. Package A would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems. Other benefits associated with implementing Package A would include: ► Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in Section 3.3.2.2 for more specific information) ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel ► Safety and emergency response times would improve ► Transit components would improve access to community facilities, provide broader opportunities for employment, facilitate participation in regional social and cultural events, promote interaction between communities, and stimulate business activity Minority and low-income populations are concentrated around transit improvements and would benefit from the transit-related components. Package B Component B-H1: Safety Improvements. Safety improvements under this component are similar to those associated with Package A, Component A-H1. The potential for impacts exists in the same • two locations as under Component A-H1: near the SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington and north of the SH 14/1-25 interchange in Fort Collins. Impacts would be the same as those identified in Package A for Component A-H1. Table 3.2-7 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component B-H1: Safety Improvements. Table 3.2-7 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H1: Safety Improvements Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; traffic One residential property displacement; traffic impacts from carpool lot impacts from carpool lot One residential area (16 receivers) impacted by No residential areas impacted by increased noise traffic noise levels; proposed mitigation reduces levels noise to below impact levels Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes. Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 would have a similar effect on minority and low-income populations as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Components A-H2 and A-H3. Interchange improvements for these components are also the same. Because many of the direct and indirect impacts associated with tolled express lanes are similar in nature to those of general purpose lanes, the following discussion focuses on the differences between them. Twenty residential relocations would be required between SH 14 and E-470 (15 between SH 14 and SH 60 (B-H2) and five between SH 60 and E-470 (B-H3)). Four of the 15 displacements between • SH 14 and SH 60 (B-H2 and B-H3) are located in census blocks with minority populations and eleven are located in census blocks and block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations. None of the residential displacements between SH 14 and E-470 are located in census blocks or block groups that contain minority or low-income populations. In general, displaced Social Conditions 3.2-37 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established . neighborhood. Although no residences would be displaced between E-470 and US 36 (B-H4), approximately 10 garages would need to be acquired from condominiums adjacent to 1-25 near 120th Avenue. None of these would be from areas with minority or low-income populations. Neighborhoods in this segment extend east and west of the highway and have developed around the interstate. Residences immediately adjacent to the highway would experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). This would affect all segments of the population. Numerous neighborhoods and apartment complexes abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams County would also experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). These neighborhoods consist of both minority/low- income and non-minority/non-low-income populations. Impacts would be largely limited to first- and second-tier homes and would not result in a deterioration of the overall neighborhood. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of 15 businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (13 between SH 14 and SH 60 (B-H2) and two between SH 60 and E-470 (B-H3)). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include equipment storage, car sales and service, warehouse, food sales, gas/convenience, and home and RV sales. These businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that these businesses have any particular connection to a minority community or provide employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. • Financial access to tolling is an issue that often emerges when addressing the impacts of express lanes. To use the new tolled express lanes, tollway users would be required to pay for their travel. Limited studies have been conducted regarding the fairness of new toll facilities and their implementation remains controversial. Equity studies conducted on express lane projects implemented in California and Texas reveal that economically disadvantaged drivers use express lanes voluntarily and are not necessarily excluded, although more frequent use is often exhibited by higher-income drivers. The studies revealed that low-income drivers approved of the express toll concepts, similar to opinions of higher-income households. Most users, even those from higher- income households, choose the express lanes judiciously when they need to benefit most from reduced congestion. A general discussion with minority and low-income residents at a town hall meeting at the Northside Atzlan Community Center in Fort Collins (January 2006) indicated mixed feelings toward tolled express lanes. While some supported the tolling concept, others felt that tolling would exclude citizens with lower incomes. Free travel lanes, access points, and frontage roads would be maintained along 1-25. In addition, bus rapid transit (BRT) and vanpools would be available to all 1-25 commuters. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 93 receivers between SH 14 and SH 60 (B-H2). Sixty-nine of these receivers are concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision. Noise levels would increase at 63 of the 69 residences and would range in intensity from 67 dBA to 77 dBA, an increase of up to 3.6 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. Proposed mitigation would reduce • the number of impacted receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision to 32, an improvement over the No-Action condition. Of the 24 impacted receivers not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, 21 are located in census blocks/block groups that do not contain Social Conditions 3.2-38 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • minority or low-income populations and three are located in census blocks with minority populations. Noise levels in these areas would range in intensity from 66 dBA to 82 dBA, an increase of up to 6 dBA over existing conditions. These receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. The noise analysis identified impacts to numerous neighborhoods and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn, and Adams County. These neighborhoods consist of both minority/low-income and non-minority/non-low-income households. Impacts also would be experienced under the No-Action Alternative and Package A as a result of growing traffic volumes through 2030. However, a greater number of receivers would be impacted under Package B because it would result in the most vehicles traveling on the widest 1-25 profile at the highest speeds, thus producing more traffic noise. Refer to Section 3.6.3.3 for a detailed analysis of potential noise impacts. The visual analysis (Section 3.14.3.3) determined that structural impacts associated with Components B-H2 and B-H3 would result in a high effect on visual conditions. Structural impacts include new retaining walls 15 feet and greater in height and new bridges. A total of 28 retaining walls (19 for Component B-H2 and 9 for Component B-H3)would be distributed along 1-25, affecting minority and low-income populations as well as non-minority/non-low-income populations. New bridges proposed at US 34 would impact visual conditions for all segments of the population. Noise barriers constructed to mitigate noise impacts at Mountain Range Shadows would also change the visual environment for homes adjacent to the highway affecting views to the east. However, some may find the visual barrier to the highway an improvement over the existing condition. • Noise barriers would also be constructed in several residential areas from E-470 to US 36 (B-H4) along 1-25: Thorncreek Parkway, Community Center Drive, Badding Reservoir, and Brittany Ridge. Residences adjacent to the proposed barrier at Community Center Drive are considered low-income. The visual analysis determined that sound walls would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community and would reduce the visual effect of the highway. Highway widening near the 104th Avenue/I-25 interchange would impact 0.17 acre of Grant Park's approximately 14 acres. The park, which is located in an area with minority and low-income populations, provides aesthetic benefits and recreational opportunities for surrounding residents. The affected area of the park is immediately adjacent to 1-25, which would not result in adverse effects to minority and low-income populations. Table 3.2-8 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes. • Social Conditions 3.2-39 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.2-8 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H2, • B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Four residential property displacements; access 16 residential property displacements; revision at Mountain View Mobile Home Park acquisition of 10 garages No known displacement of businesses owned by 15 business displacements minorities or of special importance to minority populations 72 receivers impacted by traffic noise levels 21 receivers impacted by traffic noise levels increasing 0-3.6 dbA between SH 14 and SH 60 between SH 14 and SH 60 increasing 0-6 dbA; (69 in the Mountain Range Shadows impacts to numerous neighborhoods and subdivision); after mitigation, 32 receivers isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, impacted; impacts to numerous neighborhoods Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in County Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn, and Adams County Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; retaining walls (> 15') and new bridges would retaining walls (> 15') and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions result in a high effect on visual conditions Acquisition of 0.17 acre of a 14-acre park within No park acquisitions from non-minority/non-low- a minority and low-income neighborhood income neighborhoods. Components B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). No residential displacements would occur under Components B-T1 or B-T2. Feeder bus service would provide benefits similar to those described under Package A for Components A-T1 and A-T2. However, BRT would improve access• to some community facilities in Longmont over the No-Action Alternative and Package A. In Longmont, the feeder bus line would run east along SH 119 and north along US 287. Frequent stops would provide more direct service than commuter rail to Casa Vista, Salud Family Health Center, St. Johns Church, the OUR Center, and Hispanic-owned businesses along US 287. Construction of the BRT station in Firestone would require the relocation of one business. This business provides services that include a home center and RV sales. This business was not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that this business has any particular connection to a minority community or provides employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Impacts would primarily affect minority and/or low-income populations at three of the 12 proposed stations sites (Harmony Road and Timberline, Firestone, and Greeley Downtown Transfer Center). There are no residential populations in the immediate vicinity of six of the proposed station sites. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project, emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed NAAQS. Impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility at 315' Street and west of 1st Avenue in Greeley would be the same as those identified for Package A, Components A-T3 and A-T4. BRT stations in Windsor (southwest of the SH 392/1-25 interchange) and Firestone (southwest of • Firestone Road) would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. The station platforms would be 20 feet wide by 300 feet long, with a pedestrian overpass, parking, bus bays, Social Conditions 3.2.40 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • kiss-and-ride, lighting, and landscaping. The station in Firestone would require one business relocation. This relocation would change the visual landscape for travelers, affecting all population segments including minority residents of River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and adjacent neighborhoods west of the Firestone Road interchange. Table 3.2-9 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit. Benefits of Package B. Package B would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems. Other benefits associated with Package B would include: ► Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in Section 3.3.2.3 for more specific information). ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. ► Safety and emergency response times would improve. ► Transit components would result in moderate improvements in mobility and would improve regional connectivity. ► Minority and low-income populations are concentrated around transit improvements and would benefit from the transit-related components. • Table 3.2-9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-Tl and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations No residential property displacements No residential property displacements No known displacement of businesses owned One business displacement by minorities or of special importance to minority populations Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at three proposed station sites; populations at three proposed station site; emissions would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS Station platforms and overpasses would result Station platforms and overpasses would result in visual impacts to the surrounding in visual impacts to the surrounding community community in two locations in two locations • Social Conditions 3.2-41 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Conclusion Safety improvements between SH 1 and SH 14 (Components A-H1 and B-H1) would result in three residential relocations from census blocks/block groups with minority and low-income populations. This is compared to one residential relocation for the general population. The affected residences are distributed along 1-25 in large census blocks/block groups that are generally not part of an established neighborhood or community. Both the minority and low-income households and the non-minority/non-low-income household could be relocated to comparable housing in the area. In addition, the safety benefits to minority and low-income populations in Wellington outweigh the impact associated with relocation. Although a concentration of noise impacts was identified within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, mitigation proposed for this community (under Components A-H2 and B-H2) improves noise levels at 37 receivers over the No-Action condition, resulting in a net benefit to the community. Minority and low-income residents in Longmont would experience impacts from the implementation of Component A-T1 (commuter rail between Fort Collins and Longmont), which would include 16 residential relocations, noise above impact levels at one receiver (after mitigation), visual impacts, traffic impacts, and the potential for exacerbating the existing barrier created by the BNSF corridor. In addition, two stations would serve the community of Longmont: SH 66 in the north and SH 119 in the south. Residents along the commuter rail alignment in Longmont would have to drive or take a local bus (323 or 324) north or south to access the commuter rail. RTD local bus service would be modified as needed to serve the two commuter rail stations in Longmont. The commuter rail would, however, improve regional connections and access to some community facilities. • A determination of whether disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and low income populations will occur will be made in the Final EIS. The following factors will be considered in this determination: ► Comparison of adverse impacts that would occur to minority and low income populations vs those that would occur to the non-low income and non-minority population ► Benefits of the transportation investment ► Mitigation that would be provided ► Opinions related to the impacts, mitigation, and benefits as obtained in the public and agency review process and from additional targeted outreach that will occur • Social Conditions 3.2-42 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. . 3.2.4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES In accordance with U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 on Environmental Justice, DOT decision makers (i.e., FHWA) will ensure that any of their programs, policies, or activities that could have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations will be carried out only if further mitigation measures or alternatives that will avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effect are not practicable. In determining whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is "practicable," decision makers will take into account the social, economic, and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects. Mitigation has already been factored in to the analysis of impacts to minority and low-income populations. For example, mitigation for noise impacts in Wellington will reduce the effects of traffic noise to below impacts levels, avoiding a disproportionate impact to this community. The mitigation will be carried out for that alternative even if there is not a finding of disproportionately high and adverse effects. Mitigation for construction related impacts to minority and low-income populations could include the provision of reduced price bus passes during construction, acceptable access modifications, and translated information on construction processes and alternate modes available during construction and pre-opening day. Right-of-way acquisition will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act). This purpose of this act is to provide • fair and equitable treatment for all persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms. Owners of property to be acquired will be compensated at fair market value for their property. If toll lanes are constructed, ways to make tolling more equitable will be sought. For example, payment options will be considered to enable the broadest opportunity for all economic groups to use toll facilities. Alternate payment options will be provided so that persons who do not have a credit card can still participate in the tolled express lanes. Toll replenishment using cash or employer-based payroll deductions could also be included in the tolling program. A context sensitive approach to project design and mitigation is encouraged to ensure that project elements enhance the community. This will include involving the public in the development of rail or bus station design treatments. Efforts will continue to be made to ensure meaningful opportunities for public participation during the development and review process. During the public review and comment period for the Draft EIS, all segments of the population (including minority and low-income populations) will have the opportunity to review the project alternatives, their associated benefits, adverse impacts, and any proposed mitigation, and can propose additional mitigation to reduce adverse effects. Additional meetings with the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision and El Comite de Longmont will be held to invite participants to comment on the analysis, identify additional concerns, and propose additional mitigation measures. • Social Conditions 3.2.43 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N oRTH I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 3 Economic Conditions • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.3 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3.3.1 Affected Environment What's in Section 3.3? 3.3.1.1 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS 3.3 Economic Conditions 3.3.1 Substantial increases in employment are Affected Environment expected in all seven regional study area 3.3.1.1 Economic Activity t Statistics andP 9 3.3.1.2 Economic and Regional counties from 2000 through 2030. Growth According to statistics provided by Denver 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences Regional Council of Government (DRCOG) 3.3.2.1 No-Action Alternative and North Front Range Metropolitan 3.3.2.2 Package A Planning Organization (NFRMPO), the 3.3.2.3 Package B largest growth in employment is expected to 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures occur in the Broomfield and Weld County portions of the regional study area (177 percent and 118 percent, respectively). This growth translates to approximately 33,000 new jobs in the City and County of Broomfield and 93,000 jobs in Weld County. Figure 3.3-1 shows the distribution of future employment by municipal area. Employment statistics at the county level reflect only the unincorporated portion of the county. Substantial growth is anticipated in Loveland, Fort Collins, Greeley, unincorporated Adams County, and • Denver. Employment growth in these areas would inevitably strain roadways between northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area. According to the 2000 census, more than half (65 percent) of the 397,000 jobs in the regional study area are service-related. By 2030, the services sector would contain the largest number of jobs overall (914,000). This is reflective of a statewide shift from an economy historically driven by agriculture and mining to one driven by services. Many employees working in service positions are employed in the major employment centers and central business districts throughout the regional study area. 3.3.1.2 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND REGIONAL GROWTH The Northern Colorado 1-25 Corridor Plan, 2001 is a resource and policy document prepared by eight northern Colorado jurisdictions (Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor, Timnath, Johnstown, Berthoud, Larimer County and Weld County) and the NFRMPO that serves as a guide for land use decisions and actions for the land along 1-25 in northern Colorado. According to this plan, 1-25 from the Berthoud exit to CR 58 just north of Fort Collins is Northern Colorado's primary economic corridor. Coupled with the strong real estate market of recent years, the high visibility of the corridor has made it extremely attractive from a business and economic development perspective. It is anticipated that the corridor would be subject to considerable development activity over the coming years. Substantial projects that are partially developed or are in the planning stages in this portion of the corridor include Centerra (3,000 acres of commercial, residential, • and office development along 4 miles of North 1-25 at the northeast quadrant of the US 34 interchange near Loveland) and Villages at Johnstown (4.5 million square feet of regional retail space, a golf course, and executive home development along 4 miles of North 1-25 at the southeast quadrant of the US 34 interchange near Johnstown). Economic Conditions 3.3.1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS MI information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.3-1 Future Employment Summarized by Municipal Area 111� I LEGEND Wellington 474 Nunn Al Study Corridors 491 Lad Cou - - 27 /s/ Highways 2900 ._- 0 27 9612 _ N We County "/ Arterial Roads ./ 2485 r 2485 ...1-1 J Regional Study Area • `' • ,\ 5185 a Cities & Towns Piers- t'` 1 • a 122 FriMunicipal influence areas I 122 ',\ Jobs 2000/2030 Pi':y , '• :✓ Ault 14 iril Numbers are for Fort Collins ` -....1 " ", ` L '''• 307 i il portions of jurisdictions 88251 I shown on map 139072 _ , ` tiIlint stance Eaton '- c- I . r `'`' -�� 177 1334 1, . 170 179 ,1671 + - 1 dot = 20 Jobs in 2000 f�- Windsor Greeleir- - 1 dot = 20 Jobs added • �•� 55673 Y +� . �.:+ ,,,;;; 3606 94104 in 2030 lag' 7173 ' .._ linfl ; L = .� ' J- Loveland s:'.?,, •`= •s: •'' ; 31617 ! . iiiiii hnsto' „cf.... NM 68225 • 410ji; Evans � _ �_= 4317 •, .I _ 41823 Milliken ay Ile 6 2 houd 60_ ' m 239 2720 �- G 339falir •` 491 4 4002 F . , _ 491 ii GA rest ® 311 311 et Lyons I —" Platteville 03 ItAea` O 365 i 365 L__., 166 ;� l. , Longmont - IS S Weld County 30417 ' ,..;•-r l 3768 ,4 ..a 17187 Boulder County a 40353 : reston 14984 /- tail e ....11002 E 14574 . 0 Fred I •-1/2 586 i �' 1 272 1.' v... Dac • 52 i — Fort Lupton Boulder?' :M. ' ) _ s 4 . _.--1 3163 ..� .k 89651 " l!*' 7. , , 68 5005 VP 106717 z. - ,�.,--- 859.E a I �t 4151- ___C s � . �a•� - f� l ' , ` ifi _ IiiAdams County 71 .. Iris u Brighton Loulsv le �: : r �t ' 8047 36610 ..138.88-` _1. T 84 :r . : �r c' 11152 76737 22683 . 4 Ii 27637 93 c� * ' y4 ,. 37096 T7 - '1! �. Jefferson County r.2 _. ,•,.. . — 14.4k�. 12179 -4, <;;y: i -.76.--1,4.4)t . 111111 19738 I" ' ;,,e ,,. feltmra 0 1 �M�•-- gal�lMt • � �• •. Weil lid} ; ", 70 _ ', ,.•♦_ 0 2 4 6 8 10 t - i ,/ Denier Aurora I Miles North 4: -• 271555 16970 372237 Al 81820 1 t.1.p Donsnord CAD .EJ PYm.r6_L'v n en mod, 2.2:-20D' Economic Conditions 3.3.2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Two developments are also planned in Windsor (80 acres of regional commercial and employment activities on the southeast corner of 1-25 and SH 392 and 70 acres of light industrial development on the southwest corner of 1-25 and SH 392). Substantial development is also occurring farther south along the 1-25 corridor. In Westminster, several commercial centers and big box retailers are currently under construction along 1-25. One of these is The Orchard at Westminster, an open air entertainment, retail, residential, and office center at 144th Avenue and 1-25. This development is expected to create more than 3,000 new permanent or part-time jobs and generate more than $150 million in sales revenues annually, producing $86.4 million in new retail sales tax, property tax, and business license taxes over a 10-year period. Throughout Weld County, particularly in the corridor along and between 1-25 and US 85, growth has been very rapid. Coupled with the presence of developable land, this growth has resulted in annexations by smaller towns reaching out to the highways to capture potential commercial and industrial users. Today, substantial amounts of land are zoned for economic development along 1-25. Commercial development within the US 85 corridor consists of small, local businesses and retail centers. Many of these occur immediately adjacent to the highway or along the frontage road. Commercial uses between Greeley and Brighton include motels, restaurants, auto body and repair shops, rail-related industry, small business centers, and agricultural operations such as corn mazes and produce stands. Many businesses in this portion of the project • corridor provide services and employment for low-income and minority populations. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line and US 287 extend through central Longmont, Berthoud, Loveland, and Fort Collins. A wide variety of retail, commercial, office, and industrial enterprises are adjacent to US 287 in these areas. Further south along US 287, at the Northwest Parkway interchange, a corporate campus, medical center, and mixed-use development are in the process of being developed. 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences This section details how each alternative would affect economic conditions within the project area. Impact analysis was based on information gathered in Section 3.3.1 Affected Environment. Additional site visits to the project area, evaluation of county assessor parcel data, review of aerial photography, and analysis of Geographic Information System (GIS) data were also conducted. To allow comparison with other regional projects, the methods used to estimate changes in employment, tax base, and revenues are consistent with those used in the US 36 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study as described below. Construction employment was estimated by taking the project construction cost and attributing a portion of it to labor costs (assuming an industry standard of 50 percent). The estimated labor cost was then divided by the average income (including benefits) for a construction worker in the Denver/Boulder Metropolitan Area, Larimer County, and Weld County (estimated at $65,300 in 2005). This produced an approximate number of employees for the project. • . Changes to the property tax base and revenues were estimated using county assessor data for each parcel to be acquired, either partially or fully. To calculate these changes, parcels with exempt status (municipally owned land) or insufficient data (no value or tax data available) Economic Conditions 3.3-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. were removed from the calculations. To avoid overstating the changes, if only partial • acquisition was required, only a portion of the total assessed value was used. For example, if 10 percent of a parcel was impacted then 10 percent of the assessed value was used. The tax base and revenues were calculated utilizing the adopted 2007 to 2008 assessment rates. Year 2005 county mill levies were applied to the taxable base to determine the tax rate. 3.3.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Given the relatively limited scope of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for Package A and Package B. The No-Action Alternative would not require relocation of any existing businesses. In addition, there would be no loss to property tax base and revenues. In the absence of the transit or capacity improvements proposed under the build packages, there would be no opportunities for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues that would result from transit-oriented development. Worsening congestion and safety concerns - would make it increasingly difficult to access businesses in the regional study area. Future economic growth would most likely concentrate along the 1-25 corridor, where regional access and large parcels of undeveloped land are available and in the southern end of the study area where transit enhancements and adequate infrastructure are already in place. 3.3.2.2 PACKAGE A Component A-HI: Safety Improvements • Employment. Employment in Wellington is expected to grow by 3.6 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 474 jobs in 2000 to 491 jobs in 2030). This growth would occur regardless of whether safety improvements are implemented or not. Construction of Components A-H1, A-H2 and A-H3 would generate 6,526 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Because construction costs are not broken down by highway segment, it is impossible to estimate the number of jobs that would be generated as a result of the implementation of Component A-H1 alone. Improvements associated with Component A-H1 are limited to safety upgrades and would generate fewer jobs than Components A-H2 and A-H3. No businesses would be displaced under Component A-H1. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $162,360 loss in the tax base and $5,630 loss of tax revenues. Access. The proposed improvements would not change access to businesses along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14. Activity associated with the proposed carpool lot in the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange could increase patronage for businesses along SH 1 west of the interchange. During construction some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. Construction-related impacts would be greatest for businesses in the vicinity of the SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive interchanges (Subway, Burger • King, Comfort Inn Wellington, First National Bank, Anheuser Busch, and Mountain Vista Greens Golf Course). These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Economic Conditions 3.3.4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Employment. Employment within 0.5 mile of the 1-25 corridor is projected to increase by 89 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 6,277 in 2000 to 11,878 in 2030). This growth would result from a large supply of developable land, easy access to 1-25, local pressure to develop land, and a pro-growth political climate. Construction of Components A-H1, A-H2 and A-H3 would generate 6,526 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of- way acquisition. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of twelve businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (eleven between SH 14 and SH 60 and one between SH 60 and E-470). Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $2,246,750 loss in the tax base ($1,943,840 for Component A-H2 and $302,910 for Component A-H3) and $71,600 loss of tax revenues ($66,190 for Component A-H2 and $5,410 for Component A-H3). In locations where access would be improved or capacity added, property values would likely increase. It is also possible that property values could decrease in locations where proximity to improved transportation facilities would result in noise impacts, increased air emissions, visual impacts, or access changes resulting in out-of-direction travel. • Access. A new access configuration would result in out-of-direction travel for patrons and employees of businesses in the southwest quadrant of the I-25/SH 14 interchange. Motorists would be required to travel east on the frontage road and then beneath SH 14 before reaching the business center. - Access to both Centerra and the Loveland Outlets would be via grade separated single point urban interchanges, in lieu of the existing signalized intersection. The US 34/1-25 interchange would be converted to a dual diamond/directional interchange. Modification of the SH 392/1-25 interchange would substantially improve access to businesses and employment centers in Windsor, Fort Collins, Loveland, and Denver for area residents and commuters that use this interchange on a regular basis. The existing bridge consists of one lane in each direction with no turn lanes or shoulders. The proposed structure would include two 12-foot lanes, 8-foot shoulders, and a sidewalk. A turn lane would also be provided for motorists accessing the interstate. Improved accessibility would better accommodate commercial development that is planned around this interchange. At the Johnson's Corner truck stop and cafe, Larimer County Road (LCR) 16 would go over 1-25 to more safely accommodate traffic. The two access points to Johnson's Corner from LCR 16 would remain in their existing location. Some out-of-direction travel would be required for patrons traveling along the frontage road. Existing access from the frontage road would be replaced so that customers would have to travel east on LCR 16 to the frontage road, circle around the property, and enter at the south end. This configuration would accommodate trucks. • Access ramps to 1-25 would be added at this interchange. Economic Conditions 3.3-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. Access to businesses in the northwest quadrant of the SH 60/1-25 interchange would remain • similar to existing. Interchange ramps would be shifted to the east to minimize impacts to these businesses. A new frontage road between 71st Street and Crossroads Boulevard in Loveland would provide additional access to businesses west of the Crossroads/I-25 interchange. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. Construction-related impacts would be greatest for businesses adjacent to interchanges where improvements are proposed. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Component A-114: Structure Upgrades Structure upgrades are limited to minor bridge rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No roadway widening, bridge widening, or interchange upgrades would occur. Impacts to economic conditions south of E-470 would be the same as those discussed for the No-Action Alternative in Section 3.3.2.1. Components A-TI and A-T2: Commuter Rail Employment. Employment within 0.5 mile of the BNSF rail line is expected to increase by 19 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 26,407 in 2000 to 31,394 in 2030). Commuter rail would facilitate infill and re-development in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont; • accommodating economic growth within the center of these communities. An increase in jobs and commercial activity around commuter rail stations would be expected, especially in communities with plans for transit-oriented development. Construction would generate 4,100 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. The commuter rail would also generate long-term employment for rail operators, security officers, and at the commuter rail maintenance facility. Approximately 90 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of- way acquisition. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 16 businesses. Fifteen of these would occur between Fort Collins and Longmont and the remaining one would occur between Longmont and SH 7. Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the existing right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $2,104,200 loss in the tax base ($823,110 from Component A-T1 and $1,281,090 from Component A-T2) and $62,920 loss of tax revenues ($27,460 from Component A-T1 and $35,460 from Component A-T2). However, this would likely be offset by the benefits of public transportation. Transit-oriented development expands business revenues, leading to new jobs and higher wages and salaries, thus increasing the tax base and revenues flowing to local and state governments. Typically, state and local governments realize a 4 percent to 16 percent gain in revenues as a result of increases in business profits and personal income generated by • public transportation (Cambridge Systematics, 1999). Economic Conditions 3.3-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Studies show that, nationwide, residential and commercial property values rise with proximity to rail transportation systems and stations (Porter, 1997). The increase in value is highest for those properties located between 0.25 and 1 mile from a station. For residential properties along segments between stations, property values may decline. For every dollar earned, the average U.S. household spends 18 cents on transportation, 98 percent of which goes towards buying, maintaining, and operating vehicles, the largest expense after home mortgages (McCann, 2000). Public transportation can save these households thousands of dollars each year in transportation expenditures. Access. Commuter rail would increase access to established businesses and major employment centers (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Broomfield, and Denver), resulting in an increase in economic activity and expanding opportunities for employment. Development around stations would strengthen existing businesses and attract new businesses. The increased frequency of trains in the corridor would create some delay for business patrons and employees traveling across the BNSF. Because commuter rail would operate primarily in an existing rail corridor, access to businesses would not otherwise be changed. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Many industries along the existing rail line depend upon the consistent operation of freight trains. Construction of an additional track south of Colorado State University (CSU) would require that existing operations be shut down for short periods of • time. This would affect the Great Western Connection in Loveland and Longmont, local industries with direct rail access between Loveland and Longmont, and industries that are served by the Barnett Spur, north and west of Longmont. Components A-73 and A-T4: Commuter Bus Employment. Employment within 0.5 mile of the US 85 corridor is expected to increase by 12 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 13,056 in 2000 to 14,555 in 2030). This growth would occur with or without commuter bus service. Construction would generate 196 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Commuter bus would also generate long-term employment for bus drivers, security officers, and at the commuter bus maintenance facility. Approximately 85 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of- way acquisition. Construction of the queue jumps, bus station, and maintenance facilities would require the relocation of five businesses. Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $566,650 loss in the tax base and $10,140 loss of tax revenues. Commercial activity may increase around commuter bus stations. However, bus stations are less likely to attract transit-oriented development and economic growth than commuter rail • stations. Economic Conditions 3.3.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Access. Commuter bus would increase access to established businesses and community • centers, resulting in an increase in economic activity and expanding opportunities for employment. During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. This would primarily affect businesses near bus stations. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Summary of Key Impacts for Package A Adverse impacts associated with Package A would include: ► Relocation of 33 businesses ► $5,079,960 loss in the tax base and $150,290 loss of tax revenues ► Temporary construction-related detours, delays, and out-of-direction travel ► Temporary impacts to existing freight operations during construction Beneficial impacts associated with Package A would include: ► Potential for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues as a result of transit oriented development ► Some access revisions; transit would improve access to businesses and expand employment opportunities ► Creation of 10,822 temporary jobs over the six-year construction period; permanent • employment created by transit operation and maintenance 3.3.2.3 PACKAGE B Component B-H I: Safety Improvements - Because impacts associated with safety improvements under this component are similar to those in Package A, Component A-H1, the following discussion focuses on the differences or incremental changes between them. Employment. Construction of Components B-H1, B-H2 and B-H3 would generate 8,702 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Because construction costs are not broken down by highway segment, it is impossible to estimate the number of jobs that would be generated as a result of the implementation of Component B-H1 alone. Improvements associated with Component B-H1 are limited to safety upgrades and would generate fewer jobs than Components B-H2 and B-H3. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $167,660 loss in the tax base and $5,820 loss of tax revenues. Access. Impacts are the same as described for Component A-H1. Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 would have a similar• effect on economic conditions as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Economic Conditions 3.3.8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Package A, Components A-H2 and A-H3. Interchange improvements for these components are also the same. Because many of the impacts associated with tolled express lanes are similar in nature to those of general purpose lanes, the following discussion focuses on the differences or incremental changes between them. To use the new express lanes, tollway users would be required to pay for their travel, potentially impacting discretionary income. However, free travel lanes would be maintained along 1-25; toll lanes would most likely be used judiciously, when users need to benefit most from reduced congestion. Therefore, impacts to discretionary income would be minimal. The impact of tolling on minority and low-income populations is discussed in Section 3.2.4 Environmental Justice. Additional capacity and reduced congestion would improve the flow of goods and services, facilitate commuter travel, and improve access to established businesses and major employment centers (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Denver). • Employment. Construction would generate 8,702 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. Employment would also be temporarily impacted by the relocation of businesses for right-of-way acquisition. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of 15 businesses (13 for Component B-H2 and 2 for Component B-H3). Affected employees would have to travel to a new location to maintain their employment or find employment elsewhere. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The proposed improvements would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $2,595,440 loss in the tax • base ($2,107,500 from Component B-H2 and $487,940 from Component B-H3) and $81,650 loss of tax revenues ($72,940 from Component B-H2 and $8,710 from Component B-H3). Access. Construction impacts would be greater than those identified for Package A. Maintaining access to cross streets would be more difficult during construction of the barrier and tolled lanes adjacent to the existing lanes. This would result in some out-of-direction travel for business patrons and employees. Components B-TI and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Employment. Construction would generate 433 temporary jobs over the estimated six-year construction period. BRT would also generate long-term employment for bus drivers, security officers, and at the BRT maintenance facility. Approximately 90 jobs would be created at the proposed maintenance facility. One business would be displaced under Component B-T1. No businesses would be displaced under Component B-T2. Property Tax Base and Revenues. The construction of Component B-T1 would require additional land not within the right-of-way. Acquisition of these parcels would result in a $ 51,120 loss in the tax base and $1,250 loss of tax revenues. Access. BRT would increase access to established businesses and employment centers, expanding opportunities for employment. • During construction, some detours, traffic delay, and out-of-direction travel would be required to reach businesses adjacent to work areas. This would primarily affect businesses near BRT stations. These businesses would potentially lose customers during construction. Economic Conditions 3.3.9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Summary of Key Impacts for Package B • • Adverse impacts associated with Package B would include: ► Relocation of 16 businesses ► $2,814,220 loss in the tax base and $88,720 loss of tax revenues ► Temporary construction-related detours, delays, and out-of-direction travel Beneficial impacts associated with Package B would include: ► Limited potential for long-term growth of property tax base and revenues as a result of transit- oriented development ► Creation of 9,135 temporary jobs over the six-year construction period; permanent employment created by transit operation and maintenance ► Some access revisions; transit would improve access to businesses and expand employment opportunities 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures Acquisition or relocation of property as a result of this project will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and other applicable relocation assistance programs. If possible, businesses that need to be acquired will be relocated near their current location. This would allow businesses to retain their general location • and client base. New access will be provided for properties where existing accesses are removed. No businesses will lose access as a result of the project. To avoid disruption of business activities during construction, the new access will be provided before the existing access is removed. A traffic control plan will be developed to minimize interference to traffic flow from construction equipment and activities. CDOT will provide advance notice to emergency service providers, local businesses, rail operators, and residents with regard to road delays, access, and special construction activities. Such notifications will be accomplished through radio and public announcements, newspaper notices, on-site signage, and CDOT's website. To minimize disruption to traffic and local businesses, construction activities will be staged and work hours varied. Throughout the construction stage, access will be preserved for each affected business. Where feasible, retaining walls will be constructed along 1-25 and the BNSF to minimize impacts to commercial development. • Economic Conditions 3.3-10 • N oRai I-2I5 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 4 Right - of-Way • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.4 RIGHT-OF-WAY This section discusses right-of-way requirements and - displacements of residences and businesses that may What's in Section 3.4? occur under each of the build packages. These right-of- way requirements and displacements are preliminary 3.4 Right-of-Way and are subject to revision during development of the 3.4.1 2 Affected Environment Consequences Environmental Consequences preferred alternative, final design, and right-of-way 3.4.2.1 Right-of-Way Impacts acquisition. 3.4.2.2 Property Impacts and Displacements 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 3.4.3.1 Acquisition The regional study area extends from Wellington, north 3.4.3.2 Relocation of Fort Collins, along the 1-25 corridor to the Denver Metro Area, and from US 287 on the west to US 85 to the east. Generally, improvements are proposed to occur along 1-25, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way and US 85. There is also an area of new right-of-way or right-of-way owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) proposed for the Longmont-North Metro connection. Table 3.4-1 provides existing 1-25 mainline right-of-way widths in the project area. This includes paved surface and CDOT-owned land beyond the pavement along the 1-25 mainline. Right-of-way widths are narrowest at the southern and northern ends of the corridor and widest • from SH 7 to SH 66. The widths expand considerably at existing interchanges, as shown in Table 3.4-2. Table 3.4-1 I-25 Existing Right-of-Way Widths in the Project Area Segment Average Right-of-Way Width (feet) SH 1 to SH 14 350 SH 14 to SH 68 250 SH 68 to SH 392 255 SH 392 to US 34 285 US 34 to SH 402 315 SH 402 to SH 60 325 SH 60 to SH 56 300 SH 56 to SH 66 300 SH 66 to SH 119 445 SH 119 to SH 52 510 SH52toSH7 415 SH 7 to E-470 210 E-470 to SH 128 200 SH 128 to US 36 225 Source:CDOT right-of-way plans,parcel data from Weld,Adams,and Larimer counties • Right-of-Way 3.4-1 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.4-2 I-25 Existing Interchange Widths in the Project Area • Location Average Interchange Width (feet) SH 1 850 SH 14 1,750 LCR 50 1,300 Prospect Road 1,500 SH 68 1,875 LCR 36 750 SH 392 1,125 Crossroads Boulevard 1,150 US 34 1,675 SH 402 875 SH 60 600 SH 56 800 WCR 38 800 WCR 34 1,125 SH 66 800 SH 119 1,125 SH 52 1,650 WCR 8 1,300 SH 7 1,000 E-470 1,125 136th Avenue 1,125 120th Avenue 925 104th Avenue 650 Thornton Parkway 725 84th Avenue 825 US 36 1,625 Source:COOT right-of-way plans,parcel data from Weld,Adams, and Larimer counties Table 3.4-3 shows the existing BNSF rail corridor width parallel to US 287. This includes the railroad bed and railroad-owned land beyond the bed. Table 3.4-3 Existing BNSF Rail Corridor Widths Parallel to US 287 Segment Average Rail Corridor Width (feet) SH 14 to SH 68 100 SH 68 to US 34 105 US 34 to SH 402 125 SH 402 to SH 60 135 SH 60 to SH 56 100 SH56toSH66 115 SH 66 to SH 119 80 Source:Parcel data from Weld,Adams,and Larimer counties • Right-of-Way 3.4-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The BNSF rail corridor shares right-of-way with streets in some locations. Table 3.4-4 shows the existing UPRR rail corridor width in the project area. Table 3.4-4 Existing UPRR Right-of-Way Widths for Commuter Rail Alignment at Connection to North Metro Line Location Average Rail Corridor Widths (feet) WCR 10 130 East of 1-25, north of WCR 8 100 WCR 11, south of WCR 8 90 East of 1-25, north of WCR 6 215 Source:Parcel data from Weld,Adams,and Larimer counties As described in Chapter 2 Alternatives, numerous facilities such as stations and maintenance facilities for the various transit service types are included in the build packages. The commuter rail stations in Package A are located adjacent to the rail corridor on privately held parcels. Many of the BRT stations in Package B are located in the center median of 1-25 or at existing car pool lots on publicly owned parcels. The right-of-way acreage and displacement impacts for these facilities are summarized in Section 3.4.2. Property acquisition along the US 85 corridor would generally be limited to commuter bus • stations and a maintenance facility. Commuter bus queue-jumps would be located at various signalized intersections along US 85 and US 34. The proposed design of the queue-jumps would not require acquisition of additional right-of-way. 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences The implementation of either of the build alternatives would require acquisition of property for additional rights-of-way and the displacement of some occupants. This section summarizes the impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative and each of the build packages. Impacts are summarized in two categories: ► Right-of-Way Impacts. Right-of-way impacts describe the total amount of physical land (in acreage) that would be required as additional right-of-way for each build package. Right-of- way needs are identified by build package component. ► Property Impacts and Displacements. Impacted properties include those properties where a build package would result in a partial or total acquisition of the property or modify access to the property. Access modifications include changing the locations of existing access to certain streets and providing new access from different streets. Displacements occur where the impacts are substantial. Displaced occupants are eligible for relocation benefits. Property impacts and displacements are identified by build package component. All agricultural, residential, industrial, and commercial land uses and ownership information are reported using 2006 data and do not consider future development or ownership changes that might occur prior to right-of-way acquisition for the proposed action. • Right-of-Way 3.4-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.4.2.1 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS • No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would not include major changes from the existing conditions, and so - would not require acquisition of property or any relocations. However, safety and maintenance -• improvements would need to be constructed if neither build package was constructed. No- Action Alternative improvements include bridge and pavement replacement or rehabilitation and minor safety modifications within existing right-of-way. Package A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25 and implementation of commuter rail and bus service. Table 3.4-5 summarizes the additional amount of right-of-way needed for Package A highway and transit components. Table 3.4-5 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Package A PACKAGE A: General Purpose Lanes + Commuter Rail and Bus Component ROW(acres)* Package A Highway Components A-H1 -Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 81 A-H2-General Purpose Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 406 A-H3-General Purpose Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 231 A-H4-Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 1 Total Package A Highway 719 • Package A Transit Components A-T1 -Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 165 A-T2-Commuter Rail: Longmont to North Metro 166 A-T3-Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 18 A-T4-Commuter Bus: Greeley to DIA 0 Total Package A Transit 349 Total ROW for Package A 1,068 Source:County GIS and engineering data and North/-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives 'Includes partial acquisitions and displacements. Package B Package B includes construction of tolled express lanes on I-25 and implementation of bus rapid transit service. Table 3.4-6 summarizes the additional amount of right-of-way needed for Package B highway and transit components. • Right-of-Way 3.4-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.4-6 Additional Right-of-Way Needed for Package B PACKAGE B: Tolled Express Lanes + Bus Rapid Transit Component ROW(acres)* Package B Highway Components B-H1 -Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 81 B-H2—Add Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 477 B-H3—Add Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 252 B-H4—Add Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 49 Total Package B Highway 859 Package B Transit Components B-T1 -BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver 18 B-T2-BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 0 Total Package B Transit 18 Total ROW for Package B 877 Source:County G1S and engineering data and North 1-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives *Includes partial acquisitions and displacements. Comparison of Package A and B Right-of-Way Impacts Table 3.4-5 and Table 3.4-6 summarize the approximate amounts of right-of-way that would need to be acquired for Packages A and B. As these tables show, Package A would require the greatest amount of right-of-way acquisition, approximately 156 acres more than Package B. This difference is in part attributed to the inclusion of the commuter rail component in Package A. • 3.4.2.2 PROPERTY IMPACTS AND DISPLACEMENTS No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would not require acquistion of property nor relocations (see Section 3.4.2.1). Package A Table 3.4-7 summarizes Package A property displacement information by highway and transit components, including the number of business and residential property relocations involved and impacted acreage. Figure 3.4-1 displays Package A business and residential property displacement totals graphically by component. Where access to business and residential properties must be modified, reasonable access will be provided. Access modifications will be confirmed during final design. The impacted acreage in Table 3.4-7 is for property displacements only. The right-of-way acreage in Tables 3.4-5 and 3.4-6 are for all property impacts, including displacements and partial takes. • Right-of-Way 3.4-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.4-7 Property Displacements for Package A • PACKAGE A: General Purpose Lanes + Commuter Rail and Bus Impacted Business Residential Component Acres Relocations Relocations Package A Highway Components A-H1 -Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 7 0 4 A-H2-General Purpose Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 34 11 14 A-H3-General Purpose Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 29 1 5 A-H4-Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 0 0 0 Total Package A Highway 70 12 23 Package A Transit Components A-T1 -Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 5 15 18 A-T2-Commuter Rail: Longmont to North Metro 15 1 17 A-T3-Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 6 5 1 A-T4-Commuter Bus: Greeley to DIA 0 0 0 Total Package A Transit 26 21 36 Total for Package A 96 33 59 Source:County GIS and engineering data and North I-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives Residential Displacements. Figure 3.4-1 shows the general location of Package A property displacements by highway and transit components, including residential displacements. As the figure shows, residential displacements in the A-H1 highway component are irregularly located along the corridor in Weld County. Residential displacements in the A-H2 highway component are located in Larimer and Weld counties along the 1-25 corridor from US 34 south to CR 16. Residential displacements in the A-H3 highway component are along 1-25 at locations in the • Johnstown area. As Figure 3.4-1 shows, residential displacements in the A-T1 transit component are concentrated adjacent to the existing BNSF right-of-way in the City of Longmont. These homes were constructed in the early 1900s to mid-1970s. A concentration of displacements is found along SH 7 in the A-T2 transit component in rural Boulder County, and along CR 7 between SH 119 and SH 52. The one residential displacement in the A-T3 transit component is along • US 85 in Evans. Business Displacements. Figure 3.4-1 shows the general location of Package A property displacements by highway and transit component, including business displacements. Business displacements in the A-H2 highway component are located through Larimer County along the 1-25 corridor. The one business displacement in the A-H3 highway component is at the • l-25/WCR 34 interchange. As Figure 3.4-1 shows, business displacements in the A-T1 transit component are located throughout Larimer County along US 287 between SH 14 and SH 119. The one business displacement in the A-T2 transit component is located along CR 7 south of CR 12. Business displacements in the A-T3 transit component are located from Greeley to Fort Lupton along • US 85 in Weld County. • Right-of-Way 3.4-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.4-1 Package A Displacements 4 t LEGEND `• - a Cities & Towns in Project Area ial Regional Study Area .- c,�„aa,,, A-T1 - Commuter RailN. %•_e l N-• 85 A-T2 - Commuter Rail E i i J -,- - Businesses - 0 \� ® Residences -4: ' A-H1 - Safety Improvements 1 t._, _ r EI �, Flsce . ,� i eE at i I A-H2 - General Purpose Lanes I Fort Collins ; �'� Ma A-H3 - General Purpose Lanes I 0 all MAIM A-T3 /A-T4 Commuter Bus ; /\/ Highways ___c____. __ a Tumult:. o , ! ,' xverante "i Eatoi; I i "/ Arterial Roads i 7 1 I it;) City Boundaries - - "int,« . Lucerne \-ja (a'? County Boundaries i I Businesses - 11 i_- - --_ - �\ _ . Residences - 14 Greeley - I r 34 ` --__ - _ . -� --o- 1263 6a-den c t,• 34 Loveland --L. si Lc Stile ! / ra. .,, 0 tavn 6U 1 85 . i-� E�tharl . Wilkey / La L" Businesses - 15 I- I s��r�; III ---- _...—•---------'—;-..., -,Residences - l8 ____ ___1_ _. !i Mi I , a i Businesses - 5 I f'."'l / Residences - 1 I PlPlattevilleF. , • 1'.! • ' _ mural Businesses - 1 Residences - 5 it 1 i 1,7t Businesses - 1 rkdkn r v - _ Residences - 17 ! - f / f s r * o ri185la1e ! :'mono Fat Lupien 9 _ a GuitWu I el .1/4\ 119 a 7,e 6 I 0 . - _ •. watteivril I Weld •-' ' I Boulder 7 [- " -k Costs/ - a Lefayece ► i Men r . ./. \ `%celia ^f I WNW \'`j FI Etoxnfiecelr 0 �I: -- ! del ' NaOrgteni % r rl 1. - elin 3ci ‘.)_ 6 '� 0 It m;m / I / , i I -r \ / Adams I I} r t- -1_1-j • I ,•+ `\ - /J 1 Wady I 4n Dave �■ I, .Denve —Li 70 .... co! --n, I IIMIEIM i C 0 2 4 6 8 10 ,.. i I ' ' ' ' ' Miles Nortn ` --C \t � • Right-of-Way 3.4-7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Package B • .. Table 3.4-8 summarizes Package B property displacement information by highway and transit components, including the number of business and residential property relocations involved - and impacted acreage. Figure 3.4-2 displays Package B business and residential property displacement totals graphically for each highway component. Table 3.4-8 Property Displacements for Package B PACKAGE B: Tolled Express Lanes + Bus Rapid Transit Component Impacted Business Residential Acres Relocations Relocations Package B Highway Components B-H1 -Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 8 0 4 B-H2-Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 43 13 15 B-H3-Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 40 2 5 B-H4-Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 0 0 0 Total Package B Highway 91 15 24 Package B Transit Components B-T1 -BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to 120th 1 1 0 B-T2-BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 0 0 0 Total Package B Transit 1 1 0 Total for Package B 92 16 24 Source:County GIS and engineering data and North 1-25 design footprint for EIS alternatives. Table 3.4-8 and Figure 3.4-2 summarize Package B property displacements. Right-of-way displacement needs for B-H2 and B-H3 tolled express lanes would be similar to those needed • for A-H2 and A-H3 general purpose lanes. Comparison of Package A and B Displacement Impacts Table 3.4-7 and Table 3.4-8 summarize the number of business and residential property displacements associated with Packages A and B. Of the two packages, Package A would require more business and residential relocations than Package B. This is due in large part to the inclusion of the commuter rail component in Package A. • Right-of-Way 3.4-8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 4111) Figure 3.4-2 Package B Displacements LEGENDI i a Cities & Towns in Project Area e....„...r........................-..�, 7 Fr..] Regional Study Area -del N.B-H1 - Safety Improvements and �,,r— Businesses - 0 :, B-H2 - Tolled Express Lanes and \-14:2- �i! r I Residences -4 4• B-T1 - Bus Rapid Transit /': I El Pate II ,\ 1♦ B-H3 - Tolled Express Lanes and i Fort Collins g a i - '! 1 / i o.., _ B-T1 - Bus Rapid Transit —r�, ALdr \ 14 11111• B-H4 - Tolled Express Lanes and 2571 \ IA B-T1 - Bus Rapid Transit i O , Fa ai _ - e eaue /\/ Highways I _- 1 iz87S s /\/ Arterial Roads _-- - ..dwnxiscl ` 1 w:exne t dir City Boundaries t Businesses - 14 - t � Residences - 15 Greeley � - 1- County Boundaries j c .L 263 r.r lnvelanci IuaideitCity Ii: .- �34 - irinnINN— Ewirt O ,� l 1 t La Salle 0 Campitm Iriruovn eKtnwa , so o NGuiltet 85 '� L t 1.-Whoa I Gilcste twistyall BuildsComfit % tiGI ,. gum..66 . Businesses - 2 iLongmont Residences - 5 i l l ane —1 _ % Wilma O r j ' i _SA Fiestale 1 ` a 4 `" \ ' I J :I•-ian Fat Loon ' -JG O esttattel i 1 1 tr i til 1 u 1 weld 1 ,-----f,.=....- i Boulder 'eirtrr k - �— --- --- r- W County --- — — — S � N .I A�■■s lerave,- . County �- Y Beulw - ' N `) A i Nnerity■ � - Businesses - 0 ---1 93 ' '� ; , Residences - 0 fl ,, \ 287 // f� \ -\\: ..: 7:::: Adams in—. ----- --\ , � , count' i iJ t .... 1 s�. . J 1 1 ! J....— 1—. 11,— !J Denvet 11 rt� Befri'l'f'-y J e .._ ! ',gyp Ulna--^-L--1 h. i/ \J /4 i— 0 2 4 6 8 10 _ — -' .j i l ' l ' ' ' I Miles North i j r \N. 1 III -. i Right-of-Way 3.4-9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Availability of Replacement Residential and Commercial Properties Market data for replacement properties was collected from a variety of sources including commercial real estate firms, residential multi-listing services, and city and county websites. • The data and subsequent analysis indicates a sufficient number of comparable replacement homes and business sites at similar values and in the same general areas are available at this time to accommodate relocatees. Regarding potential future conditions, residential building permits remain steady and market emphasis on affordable housing remains high. Prior to relocation, a relocation analysis will be prepared that will enable the relocation activities to be planned so that the problems associated with the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, and nonprofit organizations are recognized, and solutions are developed to minimize the adverse impacts of displacement. The scope of planning will be based on the complexity and nature of the anticipated displacing activity, including the evaluation of program resources available to carry out timely and orderly relocations. The relocation study will include the following: ► A current estimate of the number of households to be displaced, including information such as owner/tenant status, estimated value and rental rates of property to be acquired, family characteristics, and special consideration of impacts on minorities, the elderly, large families, and the handicapped, when applicable. ► An estimate of the number of comparable replacement dwellings in the area (including price ranges and rental rates) that are expected to be available to fulfill the needs of displaced • households. When an adequate supply of properties for displacees to be relocated into is NOT available, CDOT must take actions or make assurances to address the inadequate supply before it can start any relocation activities. ► An estimate of the number, type, and size of businesses and nonprofit organizations to be displaced and the approximate number of employees that may be affected. ► Consideration of any special advisory services that may be necessary from CDOT or any other implementing agency. • Right-of-Way 3.4-10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 3.4.3.1 ACQUISITION For any person(s) whose real property interests may be impacted by this project, the acquisition of those property interests will comply fully with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, (Uniform Act). The Uniform Act is a federally mandated program that applies to all acquisitions of real property or displacements of persons resulting from Federal or federally assisted programs or projects. It was created to provide for and insure the fair and equitable treatment of all such persons. To further ensure that the provisions contained within this act are applied "uniformly," CDOT requires Uniform Act compliance on any project for which it has oversight responsibility regardless of the funding source. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property may not be taken for a public use without payment of "just compensation." All impacted owners will be provided notification of the acquiring agency's intent to acquire an interest in their property including a written offer letter of just compensation specifically describing those property interests. A Right-of-Way Specialist will be assigned to each property owner to assist them with this process. 3.4.3.2 RELOCATION In certain situations, it may also be necessary to acquire improvements that are located within a proposed acquisition parcel. In those instances where the improvements are occupied, it becomes necessary to "relocate" those individuals from the subject property (residential or • business) to a replacement site. The Uniform Act provides for numerous benefits to these individuals to assist them both financially and with advisory services related to relocating their residence or business operation. Although the benefits available under the Uniform Act are far too numerous and complex to discuss in detail in this document, they are available to both owner occupants and tenants of either residential or business properties. In some situations, only personal property must be moved from the real property and this is also covered under the relocation program. As soon as feasible, any person scheduled to be displaced shall be furnished with a general written description of the displacing Agency's relocation program which provides at a minimum, detailed information related to eligibility requirements, advisory services and assistance, payments, and the appeal process. It shall also provide notification that the displaced person(s) will not be required to move without at least 90 days advance written notice. For residential relocatees, this notice cannot be provided until a written offer to acquire the subject property has been presented, and at least one comparable replacement dwelling has been made available. Relocation benefits will be provided to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Benefits under the Act, to which each eligible owner or tenant may be entitled, will be determined on an individual basis and explained to them in detail by an assigned Right-of-Way Specialist. • Right-of-Way 3.4-11 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • NORTH I-25 lel EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 5 Air Quality • • NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1 3.5 AIR QUALITY 2 In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 3 requires all states to submit a State 4 Implementation Plan (SIP) to What's in Section 3.5? 5 address all areas that do not comply 6 with the National Ambient Air Quality 3.5 Air Quality 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework 7 Standards (NAAQS). A SIP contains 8 the set of actions or control 3.5.2 3.5.2.1Affecte Environment 3.5.2.1 Meteorology 9 measures that the state plans to 3.5.2.2 Air Quality Monitoring Results 10 implement to meet NAAQS. Non- 3.5.2.3 Fugitive Dust 11 attainment areas contain one or 3.5.2.4 Class I Federal Areas and Nitrogen 12 more pollutants levels that are in Deposition 13 violation of NAAQS. 3.5.2.5 Transportation Conformity 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 3.5.3.1 Regional Analysis 14 Attainment/maintenance areas are 3.5.3.2 Attainment/Maintenance Area 15 those areas where the NAAQS have Analysis 16 been achieved and a long-term 3.5.3.3 Project-Level CO Analysis 17 maintenance plan has been 3.5.3.4 Project-Level PM10 Analysis 18 approved by EPA Four areas in the 3.5.3.5 Project-Level MSAT Analysis 19 regional study area are in carbon 3.5.3.6 Localized Effects of Commuter Rail and BRT Stations 20 monoxide (CO) 3.5.3.7 Indirect 21 attainment/maintenance: Denver, Effects 3.5.4 Mitigation on Measures • 22 Fort Collins, Greeley, and 23 Longmont. Denver is also in 24 attainment/maintenance for 1-hour ozone and for particulate matter under 10 micrometers 25 in size (PM,o). However, ozone levels are an imminent concern for the northern Front 26 Range. Because of ozone exceedances recorded in the last three summers, the regional 27 study area is likely to be designated by EPA as an 8-hour ozone non-attainment area. 28 Results from regional and project level pollutant emissions analyses support that neither 29 Package A nor Package B would likely cause or contribute to any new localized CO or PMto 30 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations (40CFR 93.116). 31 Emerging topics of concern for the regional study area include mobile source air toxics 32 associated with urbanized and high-density transit areas, re-entrained dust from vehicle 33 tires and excess roadside sand, and nitrogen deposition affecting sensitive high-alpine 34 environments in Rocky Mountain National Park. 35 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework 36 Air quality standards establish the concentration above which a pollutant is known to cause 37 adverse health effects to sensitive groups in the population, such as children and the 38 elderly. The amount of pollutants released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and 39 disperse the pollutants affect a given pollutant's concentration in the atmosphere. Factors 40 affecting transport and dispersion include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and, for 41 photochemical pollutants, sunlight. The Front Range's air quality can largely be attributed to 42 emissions, topography, and meteorology. • 43 The CAA as amended led EPA to establish NAAQS for each of six criteria pollutants to 44 protect the public from the health hazards associated with air pollution. The six criteria 45 pollutants are CO, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns Air Quality 3.5-1 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM1o, PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide. NAAQS for these criteria • 2 pollutants were established based on known human health effects and measurable, health- 3 related threshold values. 4 Carbon monoxide is a gas produced when carbon contained in fuel is not completely 5 burned. Sources include motor-vehicle exhaust, industrial processes, or forest fires. Carbon 6 monoxide affects the central nervous system by depriving the body of oxygen and mostly 7 affects people with respiratory, cardiovascular, or blood anemia sensitivities. 8 Lead is a metal that is typically ingested and accumulates in blood, bones, and soft tissues. 9 It can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. With the near 10 elimination of lead as an additive in gasoline, the non-industrial emissions of lead have 11 been reduced significantly. 12 Nitrogen dioxide is a gas that can be an irritant to the eyes and throat. Oxides of nitrogen 13 (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) are formed when the nitrogen and oxygen in the air are 14 combined in high-temperature combustion, such as at power plants and in motor vehicle 15 engines. 16 Ground-level ozone is a gas that is not emitted directly from a source, as are other 17 pollutants, but forms as a secondary pollutant. Its precursors are certain reactive 18 hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which react chemically in sunlight to form ozone. The 19 main sources for these reactive hydrocarbons are automobile exhaust, gasoline, oil storage 20 and transfer facilities, industrial paint and ink solvents, degreasing agents, and cleaning • 21 fluids. Exposure to ozone has been linked to a number of health effects, including significant 22 decreases in lung function, inflammation of the airways, and increased respiratory 23 symptoms, such as cough and pain when taking a deep breath. 24 Particle pollution (particulate matter) is a mixture of suspended microscopic solids and 25 liquid droplets made up of various components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, 26 dust particles, and pollen or mold spores. The size of a particle is directly linked to its 27 potential for causing health problems. Small particles, that is, those less than 28 10 micrometers (PM10) in diameter, pose the greatest problems because of their ability to 29 penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream. Exposure to such particles can affect both 30 the lungs and heart. Particles larger than 10 micrometers (PM1o) act as an irritant to the 31 eyes and throat. 32 Fine particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers is called PM2.5. Sources 33 of fine particles include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, particularly diesel 34 exhaust, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some 35 industrial processes. Because these smaller particles penetrate deeper into the respiratory 36 system, they have a strong association with circulatory (heart disease and strokes) disease 37 and mortality. 38 Sulfur dioxides are formed when fuels containing sulfur (mainly coal and oil) are burned at 39 power plants or for other industrial processes. Fuel combustion, largely from electricity 40 generation, accounts for most of the total sulfur dioxide emissions. High concentrations of 41 sulfur dioxide can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults • 42 who are active outdoors. 43 The NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants are shown in Table 3.5-1. Air Quality 3.5-2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.5-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant/Averaging Time Primary Standard* I Secondary Standard* Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour' 10,000 pg/m' (9.0 ppm) -- 1-hour' 40,000 pg/m' (35 ppm) -- Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter 1.5 pg/m' -- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 100 pg/m' (0.053 ppm) 1 100 pg/m' (0.053 ppm) Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 pg/m' (0.12 ppm) 235 pg/m' (0.12 ppm) 8-hour3 157 pg/m'(0.08 ppm) 157 pg/m' (0.08 ppm) Particulate matter less than -10 microns (PM1e) Annual 4 50 pg/m' 50 pg/m' 24-hour' 150 pg/m' 150 pg/m' Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) AnnualTh 15 pg/m' 15 pg/m' 24-hour ' 35 pg/m' 35 pg/m' Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 80 pg/m'c0.03 ppm) -- 24-hour' 365 pg/m (0.14 ppm) -- 3-hour' -- 1300 pg/m'(0.5 ppm) ' Primary standards set limits to protect public health,including the health of"sensitive"populations such as asthmatics, children,and the elderly.Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare,including protection against visibility impairment,damage to animals,crops,vegetation,and buildings. • ** Due to mathematical rounding,a measured value of 9.5 ppm or greater is necessary to exceed the standard. pg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter ppm=parts per million (1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. (2) (a)The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is< 1. (b)As of June 15,2005, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the fourteen 8-hour ozone non- attainment Early Action Compact(EAC)Areas. (3) To attain this standard,the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. (4) Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution,the EPA revoked the annual PM,o standard in 2006,effective December 17,2006. is} Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. (b) To attain this standard,the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2 s concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 pg/m'. (7) To attain this standard,the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 pg/m',effective December 17,2006. 1 The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division 2 (CDPHE-APCD) monitors concentrations of these pollutants. Geographic areas that violate 3 a particular NAAQS are considered "non-attainment" areas for that pollutant. Violations are 4 determined by a prescribed number of exceedances of the particular standard. • Air Quality 3.5-3 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 3.5.2 Affected Environment S 2 The North 1-25 regional study area includes the cities of Boulder, Brighton, Fort Collins, 3 Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Northglenn, Thornton, and northern Denver, plus numerous 4 other small towns. The core of the regional study area is experiencing urban growth 5 resulting in increased conversion of farmland and open ranchlands to residential 6 development and urbanization. 7 Ozone is formed as a by-product of combining the precursor pollutants of oxides of nitrogen 8 (NO„) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with sunlight. Dispersion and point source air 9 quality modeling are establishing emission levels for base 2002 and target 2007 years, 10 incorporating mobile source and non-road, industrial, and agricultural source ozone 11 precursor emissions of NO„ and VOCs. Figure 3.5-1 shows the location of the Denver, Fort 12 Collins, Greeley, and Longmont criteria pollutant non-attainment and attainment/ 13 maintenance areas. Other criteria pollutants are no longer pollutants of concern in the 14 regional study area and the Front Range area. 15 Weld County contains over 10,000 active oil and gas wells and production facilities. 16 Revisions to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 7 provide more 17 stringent emissions controls for these facilities that produce flash hydrocarbon and VOC 18 emissions. Agricultural sources, such as fertilizers, animals, and off-road mobile sources, 19 are also important sources of ozone precursor emissions in Weld County. In July 2007, 20 violation of the 8-hour ozone standard within the EAC resulted in exceedances of the 8-hour 21 standard. EPA has designated to designate the area as non-attainment. • 22 3.5.2.1 METEOROLOGY 23 Regionally, weather systems emanate from the west across the Front Range to the plains. 24 Winds are generally strong when associated with a low-pressure system or temperature 25 front. These turbulent weather conditions help disperse atmospheric pollutants. 26 Atmospheric inversions are common in the Front Range where geomorphic basin landforms 27 are configured to allow cold mountain air to override warm basin-filling air, forming a 28 "ceiling" to atmospheric mixing. The air trapped in the "inversion" layer remains stagnant, 29 concentrating pollutants, and leading to poor air quality conditions, particularly in winter. 30 Wind direction data from monitoring sites west of 1-25 along the foothills demonstrate 31 westerly and northwesterly prevailing winds. Wind distributions from farther east along the 32 I- 25 corridor show more widely distributed wind patterns, but include a strong bi-directional 33 north and south wind preference. Denver area sites located in the Platte River valley have 34 wind patterns favoring the elongated southwest-northeast axis of the valley. 35 The dry, windy climate of the 1-25 corridor from north Denver to the Wyoming border is 36 prone to blowing soil particles disturbed by grazing, farming, or construction. The area 37 averages 10 to 19 inches of precipitation per year, and 48 to 83 inches of snowfall annually. 38 Temperatures average 32°F and 73°F for January and July, respectively. • Air Quality 3.5-4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. • I Figure 3.5-1 Non-Attainment and Attainment/Maintenance Areas LEGEND Ail Alternative Corridors "/ Highways --�1i 1AUIIngMn '. �,. " I85J / NY Arterial Roads 287 ,. \ • : Regional Study Area �,, , , City Boundaries / i- I-""`' , o Cities & Towns I Fort Cnilins .\ / 7r Ozone Non-Attainment Area a �" C CO Attainment/Maintenance Areas 12 7 , 1' I • Rocky Mountain National Park j ____-_...__ 3 .fmnath 11 . /, t O Severaniv. i.r.iii tv, PM•io Attainment/Maintenance Area I r l 287 \Winthot , TL : •:, ,. 392 1 Greeley 1 t -r : 34 "—N.__ . Loveland - - I an , , r .Iclutstw:n CampHon 60 0 1 85 i Lt Berthoud Q Milliken /• . I re- , / Gams':� ® tileaQ F5atteville Longmont I Yallm O arI i / O f irestone I / 287- - - ;�� Nr;:ot O freAerick I p Z Q ()mono Fa:twirl. i /:/ 52 j• I / I � .IIEI Ia�� Erie / . // INatica hero I Boulder // - 1 r. ♦�iI 'Ixf ,l � �� I''� Brighto .� ,/ `-.\ Y/ �'7 'f a:allA,•' / ,rte '•.\ /`' :j` 93 • R � _ itiglefin \mil `: ./ I 7 • ttttttt�L ' Miles North +�� fr '--- ! A 0 Air Quality 3.5-5 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 3.5.2.2 AIR QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS • 2 There are 27 active air quality monitoring stations located in the regional study area. 3 Monitoring station locations and monitored mobile source related criteria pollutants are 4 summarized in Table 3.5-2. CO, NON, ozone, PM10, PM2.5,total suspended particulate 5 matter less than approximately 40 microns in diameter, lead, and sulfur dioxide are 6 monitored in the general area. Lead and sulfur dioxide are generally considered to be 7 industrial pollutants and are not included in Table 3.5-2. Table 3.5-2 2005 Criteria Pollutant Monitoring Stations Monitoring Stations Criteria Pollutants County Site Name Location CO NO, O3 PMte PM2.5 TSP Adams Brighton 22 S. 4`"Ave. X Commerce City 7101 Birch St. X X X Globeville 5400 Washington St. X Welby 78th Ave. & Steele St. X X X X Boulder Boulder 2440 Pearl St. X X Boulder 2102 Athens St. X Boulder 1405 '%S. Foothills Hwy X Longmont 350 Kimbark St. X X Longmont 440 Main St. X Denver Denver CAMP 2105 Broadway X X X X X X Denver Firehouse#6 1300 Blake St. X Denver Visitors Center 225 W Colfax Ave. X Larimer Fort Collins 251 Edison St. X X • Fort Collins 708 S Madison St. X X Fort Collins 4407 S College Ave. X Weld Greeley 1516 Hospital Rd. X X Greeley 3101 35th Ave. X Greeley 905 10 Ave X Platteville 1004 Main St. X Data were obtained from CDPHE-APCD, 2005 Annual Data Report(September,2006a)and the 2007 Annual Monitoring Network Assessment(2007). Not all 27 sites are included in this table. CAMP—Continuous Ambient Monitoring Program O3-ozone TSP-total suspended particulates Monitoring stations for Jefferson County are not listed since there are no proposed improvements within this county. 8 Criteria Pollutants and Critical Pollutant Data Trends 9 Monitoring data from the stations noted in Table 3.5-2 illustrate the following trends in 10 criteria pollutants concentrations: 11 ► Carbon monoxide 8-hour concentrations (2nd maximum) have declined steadily across 12 the regional study area over the past 10 years and are below the 9.0 ppm standard. 13 ► NO2 levels have remained relatively flat in spite of increasing vehicle miles traveled. 14 ► Ozone concentrations have shown no consistent trend. Concentrations spiked in 1998 15 and 2003, with 2003 concentrations exceeding 8-hour standards in much of the regional 16 study area. Concentrations at monitoring stations throughout the regional study area 17 returned to levels below the 8-hour standard concentrations after the 2003 peak. 18 Although ozone concentrations remain below the 1-hour threshold, the Fort Collins • 19 Mason Street monitoring station data show a steady increase in 1-hour ozone 20 concentrations since 1999. Air Quality 3.5-6 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 ► PM tp and PM2.5 annual average concentrations have remained flat and below the 2 particulate matter standards over the past 10 years throughout the regional study area. 3 ► PMto 24-hour maximum concentrations have been much more irregular, but show a 4 trend of gradually increasing in concentration in many areas. Concentrations at all 5 stations remained below the 150 pg/m3 standard. 6 ► PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentration shows a steady decrease over the last few years 7 but has only consistently remained under the new 35 pg/m3 standard in Fort Collins and 8 Boulder. The Greeley and Longmont areas show a steady decline in the past 5 years 9 and are currently below the 35 pg/m3 standard. 10 11 The North 1-25 Air Quality Technical Report(Jacobs, 2008c) contains representative graphs 12 showing criteria pollutant trends in the regional study area. 13 Mobile Source Air Toxics 14 In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, EPA also regulates 15 air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile 16 sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and 17 stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). 18 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the 19 Clean Air Act. MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road 20 equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the • 21 fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the 22 incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also 23 result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. 24 EPA is the lead federal agency for administering the CAA and has certain responsibilities 25 regarding the health effects of MSATs. EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of 26 Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 Federal Register [FR] 17229, March 29, 27 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the CAA. In its rule, EPA 28 examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, 29 including its reformulated gasoline program, its national low emission vehicle standards, its 30 Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its 31 proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control 32 requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent 33 increase in vehicle miles of travel (VMT), these programs would reduce on-highway 34 emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 35 percent, and would reduce on-highway diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions by 87 36 percent, as shown in Figure 3.5-2. 37 The EPA has issued their final rule, fulfilling the commitment from the 2001 rule, limiting the 38 benzene content of gasoline to an annual refinery average of 0.62% by volume, beginning in 39 2011. In addition, gasoline would have an established maximum average standard for 40 refineries of 1.3% by volume beginning on July 1, 2012, which acts as an upper limit on 41 gasoline benzene content when credits are used to meet the 0.62 volume % standard. . 42 Exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons from passenger vehicles would be limited when they are 43 operated at cold temperatures. This standard would be phased in from 2010 to 2015. For 44 passenger vehicles, the EPA is adopting evaporative emissions standards that are equivalent 45 to those currently in effect in California. Finally, a hydrocarbon emissions standard for Air Quality 3.5-7 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 portable fuel containers would be adopted beginning in 2009, which would reduce +� 2 evaporation and spillage of gasoline from these containers . These controls would significantly 3 reduce emissions of benzene and other mobile source air toxics such as 1 , 3-butadiene, 4 formaldehyde, acetaldehyde , acrolein , and naphthalene . There would be additional 5 substantial benefits to public health and welfare because of significant reductions in 6 emissions of particulate matter from passenger vehicles . Figure 3.5-2 U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020 VMT Emissions (trillions/year) (tons/year) 6 - 200.000 Benzene (-57%) T VMT (+64% DPM+DEOG (-87%) 3 100,000 Formaldehyde (-65%) Acetaldehyde (-62%) 1 ,3-Butadiene (-60%) Acrolein (-63%) 0 _la. - 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000 , Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles. with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns. 7 Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT Impact Analysis. This study includes 8 a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available 9 technical tools do not allow prediction of project-specific health impacts of the emission 10 changes associated with the alternatives in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement 11 (DEIS). Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with 12 Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or 13 unavailable information . 14 Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed transportation 15 project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling , dispersion 16 modeling to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, 17 exposure modeling to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then 18 final determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure . Each of these steps is Air Quality 3.5-8 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete 2 determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project. 3 1. Emissions. EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not 4 sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway 5 projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has 6 limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model—emission 7 factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this 8 typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission 9 factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. 10 Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and 11 levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot 12 adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the 13 model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT 14 emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Lastly, in its discussions of 15 particulate matter under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with 16 MOBILE 6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis. 17 18 These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT 19 emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends and for 20 performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not 21 sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to 22 predict emissions near specific roadside locations. • 23 2. Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. EPA's current 24 regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than 25 a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of CO to determine 26 compliance with NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for 27 predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within 28 a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure 29 patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to 30 assess potential health risk. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program is 31 conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods 32 in the analysis of MSATs. This work also would focus on identifying appropriate 33 methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and 34 to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA 35 is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project- 36 specific MSAT background concentrations. 37 3. Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations 38 of MSAT5 could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for 39 exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude one from reaching meaningful 40 conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult 41 because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near 42 roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to 43 those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year 44 cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to 45 be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects 46 emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties 47 associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of Air Quality 3.5-9 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to • 2 the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in 3 health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties 4 associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments 5 would not be useful to decision-makers who would need to weigh this information 6 against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis. 7 Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts 8 of MSATs. Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission 9 types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated 10 with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on 11 emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health 12 outcomes when exposed to large doses. 13 Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency 14 conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled 15 estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a 16 measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database 17 best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or state level. 18 EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these 19 pollutants. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health 20 effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The 21 IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the • 22 six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence 23 Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database 24 and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and 25 toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures. 26 ► Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen. 27 ► The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing 28 data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the 29 oral or inhalation route of exposure. 30 ► Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, 31 and sufficient evidence in animals. 32 ► 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. 33 ► Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal 34 tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after 35 inhalation exposure. 36 ► Diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental 37 exposures. (Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel 38 particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.) Diesel exhaust also represents 39 chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary non-cancer hazard from MSATs. 40 Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, 41 such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been 42 developed from these studies. • Air Quality 3.5-10 NORTH I25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. 2 The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, 3 has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the 4 health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final 5 summary of the series is not expected for several years. 6 Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health 7 outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 8 2000). Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of 9 both criteria and other pollutants. FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but 10 more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the 11 uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of 12 the health impacts specific to this project. 13 Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information. Because of the uncertainties 14 outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on 15 human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to 16 reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the 17 amount of MSAT emissions from each of the packages, including No-Action Alternative, and 18 MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the packages cannot be predicted 19 with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. Therefore, the relevance of 20 the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a determination of 21 whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human • 22 environment." 23 In this document, FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to 24 the various alternatives, (see Section 3.5.3.5. Project-Level MSAT Analyses) and has 25 acknowledged that the build packages could result in increased exposure to MSAT 26 emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are 27 uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot 28 be estimated. 29 3.5.2.3 FUGITIVE DUST 30 Fugitive dust from unpaved roads is a notable contributor to particulate matter emissions in 31 rural Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties where 50 percent to 80 percent of roads, or over 32 3,450 miles, are unpaved. Each of these counties employ dust suppressant programs 33 utilizing magnesium chloride and/or other additives to establish a hard surface and promote 34 moisture retention on unpaved roadways. The more urbanized areas, such as Boulder, 35 Denver, Fort Collins and other municipalities, as well as CDOT, have instituted street 36 sweeping programs after winter-storm sanding operations to minimize excess roadside 37 sand available for re-entrainment. Winter liquid de-icing operations used by CDOT and local 38 road departments for winter operations also help to reduce fugitive dust emissions 39 throughout the regional study area. • Air Quality 3.5-11 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 3.5.2.4 CLASS I FEDERAL AREAS AND NITROGEN DEPOSITION S 2 Class I Federal Areas include areas such as nationally protected forests, wilderness areas, 3 and parks larger than 6,000 acres, designated for their natural environment and attributes. 4 Rocky Mountain National Park is a Class I federal area of 267,370 acres, straddling the 5 Continental Divide in the northern Front Range. The park was created to protect the scenic 6 beauty and unique natural resources of the region and its ecosystems are managed to be 7 as natural or unimpaired as possible. The park is 93 percent existing or proposed 8 wilderness. 9 High-elevation ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park are vulnerable to atmospheric 10 nitrogen deposition and have been affected by regional pollutants as evidenced by about a 11 2 percent per year increase in nitrogen deposition over the past 20 years. There is more 12 nitrogen deposited in high-elevation ecosystems than plants can use, and excess nitrogen 13 is leaching into park lakes and streams during certain times of the year. Pine and fir trees 14 are experiencing excess nitrogen-derived disease. Experiments near the park show that 15 nitrogen increases change the kind and diversity of plants that grow in the tundra. Grasses 16 and sedges out-compete flowering plants, a change that could reduce habitat for some 17 animals and diminish alpine flowers in the park. Potential consequences of nitrogen 18 saturation on terrestrial systems include loss of species biodiversity, changes in forest 19 species composition, and increased incursion by more nitrogen-tolerant invasive species. 20 Nitrogen-affected ecosystems and the accompanying changes in species composition, soil, 21 water, and tree chemistry have been documented in eastern areas of Rocky Mountain • 22 National Park. Total annual wet and dry nitrogen depositions monitored in the park since the 23 mid 1990s average around 21 pounds/acre/year. Pre-industrial or"natural" levels of 24 nitrogen deposition are estimated to be about one pound/acre/year. 25 Nitrogen deposition is a growing concern not only in Rocky Mountain National Park but also 26 in sensitive mountain environments all along the Front Range. N0x and ammonia (NH3) can 27 be transported long distances and eventually are deposited on land and water through 28 precipitation in wet deposition or as gases and particles in dry deposition. This process is 29 known as nitrogen deposition. Combustion of fossil fuels, such as petroleum and coal, 30 generates emissions that form NOx in the atmosphere and is the major contributor to 31 nitrogen deposition. Agricultural releases of nitrogen are primarily in the form of NH3 from 32 fertilizer manufacturing, livestock production activities, and cultivation of various crops. 33 Ammonia is also emitted from vehicle catalytic converters. Over 3,254 tons of NH3 were 34 estimated along the Front Range in 2002. Regional studies indicate that Front Range NH3 35 emissions due to mobile sources would grow to over 3,700 tons by 2018. 36 Unlike transportation and utility NOx emissions, agricultural NH3 emissions are not 37 regulated. Front Range sources of ammonia are graphically represented in Figure 3.5 3. 38 3.5.2.5 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY 39 Transportation conformity, as a provision of the CAA (as amended in 1990), helps to ensure 40 that transportation funds go to projects that are consistent with local air quality goals 41 outlined in the SIP. Conformity applies to federally funded or approved transportation plans, • 42 transportation improvement programs, and highway and transit projects. Conformity 43 requires that these actions be included in a fiscally constrained Regional Transportation 44 Plan and Transportation Improvement Program that meet certain statutory and regulatory Air Quality 3.5-12 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. • 1 air quality tests. This is required for areas that do not meet, or have not in the past met, air 2 quality standards for CO, nitrogen dioxide , ozone, or particulate matter. A conformity 3 determination includes a regional emissions analysis at the plan and TIP level , and 4 demonstrates that those emissions are within the limits set by the SIP . Federal projects 5 require a separate project-level conformity determination , which includes an evaluation of 6 localized pollutant concentrations if the project is in a CO or PM area . 7 One of the first steps in the development of a SIP is the preparation of an emissions 8 inventory, which is based on the actual or modeled emissions from all sources of air 9 pollution within the non-attainment or attainment/maintenance area . The inventory of mobile 10 source emissions is further categorized by on-road and non-road emissions . The emissions 11 inventory helps define the extent of the pollution problem relative to air quality standards in 12 current and future years . Emission estimates for on-road mobile sources are usually based 13 on the combination of two fundamental measures : VMT and emissions rates (the rate of 14 pollutants emitted in the course of travel based on vehicle speed and other factors) . Figure 3.5-3 2002 Ammonia Emissions for the Front Range Area 12.5% Domestic Sources 1 .4% 25.2% - Fertilizer Application Livestock 8.0% Mobile Sources • Native Soils 1 .8% f--_�� Open Burning I Point Sources 3.6% Waste Disp. Treat. & Recov. Wild Animals 12.7% 4.0% 30.8% The following 12 counties comprise the Front Range: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, Pueblo and Weld. Adapted fromTaipale, 2006; Colorado 2002 Ammonia Emissions Inventory, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division. 15 • Air Quality 3.5-13 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 The SIP identifies the allowable on-road emissions levels to attain the air quality standards • 2 as an emissions budget. These budgets act as a cap on emissions and represent the 3 "holding capacity" of the area. Portions of the North 125 project have been included in the 4 long range plan for future CDOT projects; however, no portion of the project has yet been 5 included within the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) or 6 the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) fiscally constrained Transportation 7 Improvement Program or a Regional Transportation Plan, so no formal regional conformity 8 findings have been made for any of the potential project actions. Transportation conformity 9 must be demonstrated before a Record of Decision can be signed, and before 10 improvements can be built. 11 Transportation control measures such as transit investments, HOV and managed lanes, 12 reduction of vehicle use, and improved traffic flow (congestion reduction) are important 13 planned pollution control measures incorporated in both Packages A and B. 14 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 15 3.5.3.1 REGIONAL ANALYSIS 16 Emissions from mobile sources for various air pollutants within the entire regional study area 17 were estimated for the existing condition (Year 2001), the No-Action Alternative, Package A, and 18 Package B. The existing condition year is that year that the travel demand models were 19 calibrated: 2001 for DRCOG and 2000 for NFRMPO. Future emissions were based on 20 anticipated traffic levels for each alternative for an interim year 2015 and the design year 2030 • 21 (see Table 3.5-3). Emissions levels included winter-summer seasonal influence, expected 22 vehicle types, and traffic composition. Portions of all six SIP areas were included within this 23 evaluation. Fugitive dust and construction generated emissions were not included in these 24 analyses. 25 Travel demand forecasting completed for this DEIS generated a calculation of VMT for the 26 regional study area. The traffic network was evaluated by roadway linkages (as described in 27 Section 2.2.6) and found an influence from proposed project changes on traffic volume of 28 5 percent or more around the primary travel corridors of US 287, 1-25, and US 85. 29 Traffic-generated emissions for pollutants CO, NOR, PM10, VOC, and MSATs were estimated 30 from an FHWA-modified interface to MOBILE 6.2 called EMIT. Roadway facility classifications 31 included expressway, freeway, arterial, connector links, and ramps. 32 Bus-generated emissions were not considered to be an important factor because the maximum 33 daily circulation volume for either Package A commuter and feeder buses or Package B Bus 34 Rapid Transit (BRT) and feeder buses would be less than 60 buses. No more than 6 idling buses 35 (40 seconds per stop) and/or commuter rail units (60 seconds per stop) would be present at any 36 one station, at any peak or non-peak traffic hour. Thus, analysis of transit station operations was 37 also not included in the regional analysis. Rail-generated emissions for Package A were 38 calculated separately using emissions factors provided by RTD, and added to the calculated 39 vehicle emissions burden totals (see Table 3.5-3). Larger parking lot generated emissions are 40 addressed under project-level analyses. • Air Quality 3.5-14 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Results tabulated in Table 3.5-3 illustrate the trend of decreasing criteria pollutant emissions with 2 increasing VMT in future years. The reason for this is increasing controls on the vehicle sources. 3 Regional VMT measured over the regional study area would increase approximately 80 percent 4 between 2001 and 2030. Regional analyses of total criteria pollutants show reductions in total 5 emissions between 2001 and 2030: CO decreases 44 percent, VOC decreases 56 percent, NOx 6 decreases 79 percent, and PM10 decreases 32 percent. Package A and Package B 2030 criteria 7 pollutant emissions would average about 1 percent higher than the 2030 No-Action emissions. 8 Package B would generate slightly fewer emissions of CO and NOx than Package A. Package A 9 would generate slightly fewer emission of VOC. For PMto and MSATs, the emissions would be 10 identical. The substantial reductions in pollutant concentrations between 2001 and 2030 are due 11 primarily to future emissions controls and low-sulfur fuels, which would be in place by 2011. 12 Although gross pollutant emissions tabulated in Table 3.5-3 show a reduction in emissions levels 13 from 2001 to 2030, the individual declining pollutant emission trends are not consistently linear. 14 The 2015 data for CO and PM10 are the lowest emissions value among the modeled years of 15 2001, 2015, and 2030. Year 2030 CO emissions are on average 45 percent or 372 tons per day 16 (tpd) lower than 2001 levels. However, 2030 CO emissions are 6.1 tpd higher than 2015 17 estimated CO emissions. • • Air Quality 3.5-15 C • «° O a M 7 < CO M N N 6N N O CD CA I- o D co r O co O O co N Nr Z CD CO r O O O O 0 O o m O V N n tn m a) N W E V Z CO 0 71 N �+ E Ill ,r- c, Q CO O O N- CO N CO 0 O) N- Ic W N .- O O r N co O N LO Z N CO O O O O O O N Z 0 LO 7 O o M O co CO r co M O 0) O M LO O 7 LO O N-: N CV N CO O O O O O O Q O e LO 0 7 0 CD CO I. CO A N 0 N- E C 117 CrD O• O M N- v) N CO 0 r C) r 0 W M O 0 • N r O CA r N MLO LL N U) N LO 7 CO M M6 O O O O O ((V Cn ct O II In E 0 y M < M NO 7 N C) CO O) co i V O co N co, O co O O M t .� N CO Z cci V N °C) r O O O O O O O (n 0 SD CU Q A C O •- C 0 MI CD CO 0 r CO ea O O < N O O N. N CO 0 0) M 4a Z O CO Z CO •0 • N r 0 00 O (T N CO N F N O 6 7 co co O 0 0 O O O N in ✓ 7 r CO O M CO 0 00 Nr Q M CO m M 0 7 V N C) 0 O co O co N CD CT 0 M r O O O O O W Cud O a) } N R0 A N CO M .Cu .tic (0 0' N CO M .�-. I N T f6 CQ Cu a) C CO N J -0 o v p C O C U oo CU,� 2 2 Q "O N N 0 L O w N .O O > I- N C O C N ; -O T Ca J. a) j. 'N -Ft Q 75 y ` ee 0. (u g c o o O a Co C C m CO 0_ CO 'O CO E W L _ . U co O N S] U) U) 0 E Cn t—6 N O (u m (a O O O 8 o o aa)) (1o ° o 00 0o < is > C' � U > Z d Q — Q m r — O ."... ILA H � Z 00 (v M NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1 A portion of the increased regional CO and PM10 emissions from year 2015 to 2030 are related 2 to changes in the vehicle composition and future emissions characteristics. The Tier 1 and Tier 3 2 regulations implemented by EPA beginning in 1994 and 2004, respectively, placed tighter 4 controls on CO, VOC and NOx emissions from light duty motor vehicles. EPA has also 5 adopted tighter emission standards for heavy duty highway vehicles beginning with the 2007 6 model year, more stringent Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission standards for heavy duty nonroad 7 engines (e.g., locomotives), and lower limits on the sulfur content of gasoline and diesel fuel. 8 The vehicle fleet used in transportation air quality modeling is projected 25 years into the 9 future, allowing for increasingly stringent emissions controls and improved engine efficiency. 10 Once fleet turnover is complete (e.g., all vehicles meet the most recent set of emissions 11 standards), then emissions rates start to go back up primarily because of VMT increases. 12 The amount of CO emitted is sensitive to the speed and composition of traffic. A 13 comparison of the 2015 and 2030 roadway area and facility types to travel speed shows 14 that much of the VMT attributed to 2015 regional roadway network travels at speeds below 15 25 mph on non-urban and suburban freeway facilities (see North /-25 Air Quality Technical 16 Report[Jacobs, 2008c]). The highest CO emissions generated by motor vehicles occur 17 during idling and at speeds below 20 mph and above speeds of 50 to 55 mph. The 2030 18 packages (No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B) would have a higher percentage 19 of vehicles traveling at very slow speeds on all types of roadway facilities than the 20 equivalent roadways in 2015. A higher percentage of highway speed (greater than 55 mph) 21 traffic traveling on new facilities associated with Package A and Package B also would 22 increase the CO emission-generating capacity of the year 2030 compared to the year 2015. • 23 This combination of high-emissions generating traffic patterns and volumes appears to be a 24 factor in the slight increase in CO emissions for the year 2030. 25 Similarly, PM10 tailpipe emissions for 2030 would be 32 percent lower than 2001 emissions, 26 yet would be 15 tons per year (tpy) (3.2 percent) higher than estimated 2015 PM10 27 emissions. The PM10 emissions rate is not speed dependent in EPA's MOBILE 6.2 28 emissions model, thus the slight increase in regional PM10 emissions is associated with the 29 increased volume of traffic and not the character of the roadway network. 30 The differences in annual regional total emissions between the 2030 No-Action and 31 Package A and Package B is 9.4 tpd and 7.7 tpd, respectively. The total pollutant emissions 32 increases are attributed primarily to the 1 percent higher year 2030 VMT (463,000 and 33 440,000 vehicles per day [vpd] respectively) for both Package A and Package B. 34 Total 2030 emissions for Package A would be 1.7 tpd more than total emissions for 35 Package B. Approximately 0.28 tpd would be emissions from the commuter rail [A-H1 and 36 A-H2] component exclusive to Package A. The remaining 1.4-tpd difference would be 37 primarily CO emissions resulting from differences in traffic distribution and the speed-VMT 38 relationship noted above. 39 It takes a 3-year average of the fourth-highest measured ozone level to be over 0.08 ppm 40 (mathematically over 0.084 ppm) to create a violation similar to those that occurred in the 41 2003 season. The ozone situation in the summer of 2007 has led to a violation of the 8-hour 42 ozone standard. EPA and APCD are currently evaluating how and when the non-attainment 43 plan would be implemented. Because ozone emissions are a regional pollutant created from • 44 photochemical reactions between NO and VOCs in the atmosphere, localized sources of 45 these ozone precursors are not easily related to direct ozone effects within the regional 46 study area. Ozone is also created from emissions from non-mobile sources such as lawn Air Quality 3.5.17 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 mowers, small engine equipment, and industrial sources. Ozone concentration is highly 2 susceptible to weather conditions, such as local upslope winds or regional upper level wind 3 patterns. Because ozone is a regional-scale pollutant, the conformity rule does not require 4 analysis of ozone at the project level. However, the conforming TIP would likely not include 5 regional ozone analyses that includes Package A or Package B until after the MPO's 2035 6 Regional Transportation Plan has been adopted. 7 MSAT emissions would be reduced between 53 percent and 66 percent for acetaldehyde, 8 acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde between 2001 and the 2030 No-Action 9 Alternative. DPM was reduced by over 93 percent during that same timeframe. PM10 10 emissions reductions shown in Table 3.5-3 are much less than reductions in DPM 11 emissions because PM10 is made up of more components than DPM, including gasoline 12 and diesel engine exhaust and evaporative emissions, brake wear, and tire wear. 13 Package A and Package B 2030 MSAT emissions generally would be equal to or less than 14 0.003 tpd more than the No-Action levels, except for benzene, which would generate 0.01 15 tpd and 0.01 tpd respectively, more emissions than the No-Action Alternative. 16 Formaldehyde emissions would be 0.005 tpd more than the No-Action Alternative. 17 3.5.3.2 ATTAINMENT/IVIAINTENANCE AREA ANALYSIS 18 Emissions for various air pollutants within each attainment/maintenance area were 19 estimated to provide a comparison against important mobile source air quality area pollutant 20 emission burdens calculated by local planning and air quality agencies for each SIP area. 21 These emission calculations are not representative of attainment/maintenance area 22 conformity modeling and only include that portion of the attainment/maintenance area within 23 the North 1-25 regional study area. Comparisons are meant to compare emissions 24 generated among project packages. The mobile source emissions burden estimated for the 25 entire attainment/maintenance area is shown in each of the following tables to provide a 26 relative benchmark for package emissions. 27 Regional study area emission levels were estimated for the existing condition for 2001, and 28 for years 2015 and 2030 for the No-Action Alternative, Package A, and Package B. Future 29 emissions were based on traffic distributions, speeds and volumes for each component 30 located in each of the attainment/maintenance areas or located within an area influencing 31 the attainment/maintenance area roadway network (0.5 mile from the 32 attainment/maintenance area boundary). Emissions levels included seasonal influences, 33 vehicle types and traffic composition. 34 The following tables show emissions levels for the criteria and MSAT pollutants by SIP 35 (attainment/maintenance) area. In general, emissions from each SIP area mimic the 36 regional trend of decreasing pollutant emissions from current 2001 levels to the year 2015 37 and to year 2030. Emissions budgets calculated by the various metropolitan planning 38 organizations and published by CDPHE-APCD in the SIP maintenance plan revisions are 39 projected to planning years in the future. Not all planning organizations have updated their 40 plans to a consistent planning year, therefore; emissions budgets listed in the following SIP 41 area data tables may be for different years. S Air Quality 3.5-18 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Fort Collins Attainment/Maintenance Area For CO 2 Package A [A-H2, A-T1] and Package B [B-H2, B-T1] components within the Fort Collins 3 SIP area would generate 33.6 percent and 33.9 percent fewer total emissions respectively 4 than are estimated for the baseline condition in 2001. The 2030 design year total CO 5 emissions for Package A and Package B would be 19.7 tons and 19.9 tons respectively 6 (see Table 3.5-4). The regional trend of increasing CO emissions from 2015 to 2030 is not 7 apparent within the Fort Collins SIP area. 8 Package A 2030 total emissions would be 87 tons or about 0.4 percent more than those for 9 2030 in Package B. The largest contributing emissions would come from higher CO and 10 NO, emissions. This increase would be attributed in part to the commuter rail component 11 [A-T1]. Package B would have lower CO and NO, emissions, resulting from lower emission 12 rates associated with less congestion (lower emissions rates) and with more freeway traffic 13 (VMT) distribution. 14 Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area For CO 15 Package A [A-T3] and Package B [B-T2] components within the Greeley SIP would generate 16 29.3 percent and 28.8 percent respectively fewer total emissions than are estimated for the 17 baseline condition in 2001. The 2030 design year total CO emissions for Package A and 18 Package B would be 36.4 tons and 36.2 tons, respectively (see Table 3.5-5). 19 A comparison shows that Package B within the Greeley SIP area would contribute 0.17 tpd • 20 of CO and 0.003 tpd more PM10 emissions than Package A. The higher emissions would be 21 due to corresponding higher VMT. 22 Longmont Attainment/Maintenance Area For CO 23 Package A (A-T2) and Package B (B-T2) components within the Longmont SIP would 24 generate 43.1 percent and 42.2 percent respectively fewer total emissions than are estimated 25 for the baseline condition in 2001. The 2030 design year total CO emissions for Package A 26 and Package B would be 22.6 tons and 22.3 tons, respectively (see Table 3.5-6). 27 Similar to Greeley, CO and PM10 emissions would be subject to emissions controls. Over 28 time, emissions rates would start to go up. 29 A comparison shows that Package B within the Longmont SIP area would contribute 30 0.34 tpd more of criteria and MSAT emissions than Package A. The higher emissions would 31 be due to corresponding higher VMT associated with Package B. 32 • Air Quality 3.5-19 O < r N C) ' N O O 0 ° . a O z V N CA O O O O O CA o O 0 r M r O O O O O O O La to P7 Cr) 0 O N c m In m .- C) O/ CO In Ct) A U O Q N V CON O CO N In 0) N H m fC z f-- V 0 O O r O O O .- 1J„1 0 1 4 M O O O O O O O CO I—Io to to Co d O cT ti O N e{ Q! m O E zC O )!) In V CO 7 N O O r r C 0 00 V t` r m r O O O O ON to CO r O O 6 6 6 6 6 OLo N co O N a N cn C) 0 CO C) V in i co r V CON 0 CO N )f) 0 ++ ca f� (Oct. N r 0 0 r O 0 0 0) rd CL CO V V M O O 6 6 6 6 6 � EIII U) N W v y O O O Q In CO O M N O 0 Ar r 9 7 W 00 Z f-- O O r 0 O r O O O O I ; O 0 O M r O O O O O O O in W N Cric RI C N a a CU C Up Cr) v0r0 0 CO 0 N 0 V O r 4 CO MI U M u7 e V M 0 06 O O O O N t a m co .h.. O O 7 C Z N 7 ed 0 in 4 0 x 0 0 0 O N O 0 O C) r p z N E C N N.: O c O coJ 0 0 o O 6 6 O 6 ` N- 0 C5— 0 N In C Q Q r Q Q Q Q Q Q 4 Q Q a V) z z N- zzzz z z z z z z o a U o o a) In 211 -0 w o W C) E CO N Q W RI Q C T C7 >. T N0 O 9 6 d N N 13 N 0im (5 f- �' N Ca N N W C N ! - E w m N 'V � 2 Q O v -p 'o �. O 0 N 0 T W O N f� L 1. _ > H N C C C 0 T N -O T co T N T co a W C) en 0. C) 2 cc 0 0 p CO C c CO C) a 0 'O O G Q .O d v > .-. 0 �. o- -0 a) a) 5 -o - (73 -0 �'"U X CU N O N S) V) y WE N ~ Z ta v aLi m 0 002 c°)) 0 0 a0i r?o 2 0 `0 0 oO E > CL , O > za < �Q W tZ.O ..� - z `- NC) c O O O co 0 O Q O r 0 r 0 N 0 p M M o O 0 O 0 co O O O O 0axi N N- Z N r 0 0 O O O O O 6 N m V m N o a m u1 Cr Iii u r4 d m 0 III W $ a an � v N- NN- 0N r 6 `r? v Ln o r 0 0 r 0 o O co Q go Z N r r O o O O O O O N H O E (N Z 0 0 00 G p o N M QOi o o 0 o O O N O N V N .- 0 0 O O O O O O N Q N 0 0 CO VI Y V - a LU N In O CO CO f� 0 (N in o • V IRO O O O O O O O W 1' 0 r N r r O O O O O O O N V N W N CA O O ... 00 0 o _ c,..i.4 > M LU Q LO N O 113 0 0 V 0 N - F. 0 MOO O 0 0 O O O N co Z N 0 0 O O O O O O N .>`. To 1- W N N N Y ."' of. + ad a 'a ✓ O o V - RC N Cr) Q Q o '7 L I- N N- r 0 N Ln n 0 O o O O O O W 0z 0 N N Z N • • • •r r O O O O O O O N •.. N b Z 0 Q) N 7 Q O N Lo 00 O 0 CO O 0 0 N A M Z N Ni M O O O O O O O M RI 0 .i+ )" r d i.) v a c .. M M H V M < Q co Q Q Q < < < < < < < C7 w o Z Z o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ft v •EM ... ` N LOW ed Q (21 I1') I T T m co I co _ (0 co M C J. -o - N o O p R N T N m N N C 0 G U 'y m N 3 2 - 'o � N � L O OV N LE L N T n et • a y d d a) 2 C o 0 0 -0 m C C '1:3 m a o-_0o >, >" Q W U > YO v. o N :ciN 0 a) z 32 ill N N N y N o 1_• a a '( 00O2 uo o o �?o — 0000OO Z O 0 > cYc» Zaar. a CO r ..o �u_ :,-..: irr. z L OO «° C, O r LO r CO r O V r O N r n O N co z O co O O O O O O O c m N O N O• O •O •O O O O •O oi E a) N W o a) Y n ID to m 7 � in H W o a ¢ p� M V O V N O r�ro O O N M O O O O O O O W c N CO Z 06 .— v- O O O O O O O N H o r=4 iTi O E Z O o M O to (o 7 O) CC) r 0 0 0 0 N CD a Q N 0 co ON r O O O O O O O O N a) N O It Y U CA co M a 'n CO O LO O CC) O V r N V) M O r N M O O O O O O O O. y N 'Do.. M m r r O O o O O O O N E 4.0 (I] a) O O 1.O `U) M 6 ¢ (Do CO W O O OO 0 O O O W A C a 0 00 Z ON r O O O O O O O O N . a) U)u7 N u) 4 5 c la4 C M v . C Z W N M O O CD c O O O O N a7 c N co 30 C N " O O O O O O O N C7 'A Z Q o CU V A r N- O C co V O of O O m LI) V T CD N ¢ aJ n W r O O O O O O G R co Zc`i N M O O O O O O O M } C a) O N ac .. •0 g° 'ny N ¢ ¢ 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 4 ¢ ¢ ¢ Q O Z Z M Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z t a) Em N .7)- < aw a C O C G -co OOO CO a •w _ T T co a) C To r co N T N c T S 7 'O CO CO W O _N 2 a) CO a1:3 ~ >, m T m a) co c a) J a� d O (O M Q 'o w L o o d C-) .c .C17 m 07 N lf? > 2 c o c O -a c c a a E a W W KS > o .� o 'a� a) w a Q 4J L _ ._. U o O N S) 41 E al Q m r y a) m O O O Ma v aci w t) p z° el F z C N Cr: Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 1 Denver Attainment/Maintenance Areas For CO, PM fo and Ozone 2 Package A (A-H3, A-H4, A-T2) and Package B (B-H3, B-H4, B-T2) components within the 3 Denver SIPs would generate 46.7 percent and 46.4 percent fewer total emissions than are 4 estimated for the baseline condition in 2001 (see Table 3.5-7). 5 Similar to Greeley, CO and PM,() emissions would be subject to emissions controls. Over 6 time, emissions rates would start to go up. 7 A comparison shows that Package B within the Denver SIP area would contribute more overall 8 criteria pollutant and MSAT emissions than Package A. The higher emissions would be due to 9 corresponding higher VMT (93,570 vehicle-miles per day) associated with Package B. 10 3.5.3.3 PROJECT-LEVEL CO ANALYSIS 11 Carbon monoxide emissions rates have been steadily declining over the past 10 years due 12 to improvements in vehicle engine emission controls, motor efficiency, and fuel composition. 13 However, traffic volumes due to increasing population and travel trips are continuing to rise 14 over time. Ambient monitoring levels for CO concentrations within the regional study area 15 have remained below 5 ppm since 2000. The highest 2005 readings for 8-hour CO in the 16 regional study area were 3.2 ppm, 3.0 ppm, and 2.9 ppm for monitors located in Fort 17 Collins, Greeley, and Denver CAMP, respectively. 18 Pollutant levels from CO emissions were estimated using CAL3QHC air quality dispersion 19 modeling. This model is used to estimate CO concentrations at poorly operating signalized 20 intersections to simulate worst-case localized air pollutant emissions at points where vehicles 21 congregate, incorporating idling emissions and start-stop traffic conditions. High volume 22 intersections and interchanges within the project area affected by Package A and Package B 23 traffic conditions, and operating with unacceptable levels of congestion (LOS D or worse) 24 were selected through consultation with CDPHE-APCD, EPA, and FHWA for project-level 25 "hot spot" analysis. The following locations were identified for CO hot spot analysis: 26 ► Harmony Road and 1-25 [A-H2] (Fort Collins area) 27 ► Evans Bus Station at 31st Street and US 85 [A-T3, B-T1, B-T2] (Greeley area) 28 ► Sugar Mill Transit Station at SH 119 and County Line Road [A-T2] (Longmont area) 29 ► SH 7 and 1-25 [A-H3] (Denver area) 30 ► Thornton Parkway and 1-25 [A-H4] (Denver area) 31 Traffic volumes at these intersections are among the highest in their respective corridors 32 and SIP areas. All of the above intersections experience current congestion at peak hours. 33 These intersections and interchanges would continue to experience congestion in the future 34 under the No-Action Alternative, Package A, or Package B. Each location was modeled for 35 the proposed 2030 traffic volumes, number of through lanes, turning lanes, and 36 signalization. . 37 Motor vehicle emissions rates for 2001 were combined with projected 2030 peak-hour traffic 38 volumes at each intersection to utilize the highest emissions rate with the highest traffic 39 volumes, to represent the worst-case modeling conditions for future years (Table 3.5-8). 40 Modeled receptors are located approximately 10 feet from the edge of roadways. Air Quality 3.5-23 C o y° 0 el 7 < Cr) (O. 7 r:::- u) 7 W o O N Z O) r O O M O ‘`;.3 N 0. N N N r O O O O O O O O N c LL O m y N O) 0 o y Ls a co a in_ N ry W p D. co c5 Q .ctMO ,- O N- N 7 N W M r,-� Oj N- O O 7 O Oi W c N N Z N r 0 O O O O O O N H 0 O 'a' N z r O U O) O I� r in in (0 of co r O o co O co r N r O O) O O O O O O O Zit N N r N Q N 0 N O) 0J Y U co co a 0) y r M i •r O CO O O• 0• 0• 7 O N CO CO en 0 N r O N r r 0 O O O O O O N N N W W C O) V CO O N. l() V CO N NN CO C G co z co r O O co O O r a•i N O N O) O O O O O O O 'it iiiik- k.7 w N N CI Q QJ 7.4C i Q O r CO V Q r Q Nm co 0) N- N 7 N COoO OD C OO I� Z O V � O 0 0 7 0 r (O Z N r O O CJ CJ O O O N C N N d N C M O N Q O r N M CO W (D N co CO (OO COU V C 10 .U- Z CO N N r O O O O O O in 0) (p co ? E C - .-a m 0 i a) d d •O 7 O m p C O N Z Z r (o ui Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C) `T)r in Q .E —Ii E •-. W 0 Q T j, > o co0 •t as -0(0 T @ c N 0 N CO "000 T N co N 0 N C a) C a) C W 0) M )> > H y C C C t >. " a) '6 T co T a) >, E Of Q Q a) C O U O .� CO C_ c N N C1 CO CO 0! d � v a 'O 'O W 'O p 't r " U > N -2. o - N N N -0 --- 0) N a) N "Co- Z • SOU a a a) '( Q0 0 O 2 c°)io o 0)) ('?o _ o `oo 00 H > c> > z a Q ... Q m rt0t.0 t H - z "C to R E E E EE EE EE E EEE • a s a a a a s a s a a s a E ' d as a a a as as a as a C0x O a) r LA) If) CO CO r a 710 N LO 1I} 10 '� = 10 10 10 IA) N 10 (o V V V M M CO n U c m s d m caa p, E E E E E FE FEE EEE trycf) tr2 1 ov0 as a a a as as a a s a N I--I m L ca as a no_ as CL a 0_ 0_ a 02-i W g z OS 113, 0) 0) 0) CO 0) a) a) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) CO Z c F R4 ��jj E O ti 4 .E 3O .- as a a a as as a as a o - OE. a s a a a a s a s a a s a = ...tit) N V V V 1f) In (0 CO NN N CO CO CO co C N N N N N N N N N (N r r N— CO V n C E c E E E FE E E E E E EEE V . a s a a a a s a s a a s a Egg as a a a a ° as a a s a % o v CO CO v v n co CO r) CO 0) 0) ao 2 = •C ao C31 Oi of CO IC Or IC IC IC (n U) l)i 0 U Cri I- ° EE E E E EE EE E FEE 0 = 0(a,.. sa a a a as as a o_ o_ a ap Qt2O as a a a as as a as a Q co V 1n 1n 1n 1r) It) 1n 1n 1n 1n 1r) In In 1n - Z r CO CO CO CO CO COCO (`') M CO COCO CO r d co N C oN J • w E E FE EE E EEE Q LrnO = as a a a as as a as a N- Z . U IT U a) V V V (o co �7 V co CO CO r r r o m O M M M (`7 ch M M M M CO m U N k U ' I-I to'm N O O O O O O O O O O O O O w EF 1C) 1[) O O 1n O 1c) co co 1C) 10 c cn • = a I- I` co co CO V I- 1n r N a0 a0 CO yN - O (") h IL) a) O O N CO N N V m T > 1f) W in 6V N V CO (o (o d' C V N 11 r� N M Q j c a CO C Q C Q C Q m C Q m C' .4 .o a) 0 O m .0 m .0 0) 0 .0 a) 0 N c a O) 0) O 0) O O) O O) O) O O) O) N �+ c Q Y co a Y a Y Q Co Y Q Y Y o, 2 o m Co o Co o o m CO " Co m r o Q Z a d z d z a z a n. Z a d • x W O W m o 1n 1() II) U C c CD CD_ _ NN N ° c ics) in in U) m C (n (1) N O s N N N '" m m C C -0 'O V w m ,n - (7) - Cr) CC C o C • a) C ' M O .o O C = CO CO m o y �C �C ^-C '-' C C a T TSB TR jp o m memeo of (1) CI) Q ao m m � mc a, o " a) a) O Y Y nCO CO o a1 'O "O c C YO O - - a 40 1n 1n c0 C 0 = N 00 O 0 00 Oa CI) CO co Ce W' O N NO N ^ m m a m a L o •co i '1 J Et cC E 0 in IT —_ —_ U — - C = C O_ a Ea- E 'L� E E > > -D -o ° o ° W Q M c c ° c tj m m a g m m o m o 0 o U o U m n 4J o oU o (/) N (I) LO a a c c c '� w ' O E EN Er Coo Coo (0 ft) I� r` N 0 or ol-T T-) 13 8 ng S 2Q2m W7 WD O W cow co (n0 (no f— H ¢Hm— a F r cv Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 1 The project-level CO analyses resulted in no exceedances of the NAAQS at any of the 2 identified interchanges and intersections representing the highest volume and worst 3 operations within the regional study area. The highest modeled 8—hour average 4 concentration was 6.9 ppm associated with Site E of the Sugar Mill Transit Station [A-T2] 5 at the poorly operating intersection of SH119 and County Line Road in Longmont. This 6 value is below the federal 8—hour CO NAAQS of 9 ppm. Carbon monoxide concentrations 7 100 feet from the Sugar Mill intersection would be 3 ppm. Lower concentrations would be 8 expected at greater distance from the roadway due to dispersion of the pollutions by wind 9 and air turbulence. 10 3.5.3.4 PROJECT-LEVEL PA/InANALYSIS 11 PM10 is one of the air quality criteria pollutants outlined in the CAA that is generated, in 12 part, by motor vehicles. PM10 is a pollutant of concern in the Denver 13 attainment/maintenance area. Although this analysis addresses emissions generated by 14 mobile sources, area and point source PM10 emissions in the Denver area include the 15 Denver International Airport, Buckley Air Force Base, a large oil refinery complex, four 16 power generation plants, and other industrial sources. 17 Some PM10 particles are formed by eroded natural surface rock and soil material and 18 enter the air through a variety of actions including "entrainment" into the atmosphere by 19 wind-blown dust. This is particularly important to the Denver Metro Area because it is 20 situated within a low-lying basin where atmospheric temperature inversions trap entrained 21 dust and other pollutants underneath a ceiling of overriding cold air. This frequent 22 condition creates stagnant air within the Denver Metro Area and acts to concentrate 111 23 pollutants. Counteracting this condition, Denver also experiences very strong westerly 24 winds that effectively disperse pollutants. These same winds act to accelerate entrainment 25 of exposed dust and sand. 26 Particles from winter road sanding, brake and tire wear, pavement wear, and other vehicle 27 degenerative processes contribute to PM10. Fugitive dust is one of the major contributors 28 of PM10 in the regional study area. Fugitive dust is mainly dust from roads, fields and 29 construction sites. Mobile sources of fugitive dust includes road dust generated from 30 vehicle entrainment of excess roadside sand, as well as non-roadway vehicle dust 31 contributed from motorized vehicles that typically operate off-road, such as farming 32 equipment, recreational vehicles, construction equipment, and airport vehicles. The 33 primary vehicular emissions source of PM10 comes from diesel engines which are critical 34 to both the transit and transportation freight industries. 35 The CDPHE—APCD enforces several regulations through the auspices of the Air Quality 36 Control Commission (AQCC) to reduce particulate emissions from mobile sources as 37 control strategies and contingency measures for non-attainment areas, including gas and 38 diesel motor vehicle inspections and maintenance programs (Regulations 11 and 12) and 39 street-sanding and sweeping standards to clean up winter sanding operations and excess 40 roadside sand accumulations (Regulation 16). 41 There is currently no FHWA-approved quantitative dispersion modeling methodology for 42 assessing PM10, therefore a qualitative analysis was performed following the guidelines 43 presented in the Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-Spot Analyses in 44 PM2 5 and PMfo Non-attainment and Maintenance Areas (2006). Air Quality 3.5-26 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 A survey of PM10 levels recorded from monitoring stations within the regional study area 2 for the years 2001 to 2006 shows that there have not been any exceedances of the 3 annual or 24-hour NAAQS from monitoring stations within the Denver and northern Front 4 Range areas. Although the annual average PMio standard was revoked by the EPA in 5 December 2006, maximum concentrations recorded at area monitoring stations have 6 been listed in Table 3.5-9 for comparison purposes. 7 Only the southernmost segment of the 45-mile long regional study area, including Package A 8 commuter rail [A-T1, A-T2], Package B new BRT-express lanes [B-T1], and station facilities 9 associated with each package, is located in the Denver attainment/maintenance area for PM10. 10 Consultation with CDPHE-APCD, EPA, and FHWA determined that the project-level hot spot 11 analysis would be conducted at a worst-case transit station parking facility within the regional 12 study area and a comparative analysis for each of the four proposed bus and rail maintenance 13 facilities located outside of the Denver PM10 attainment/maintenance area. The intention of 14 these project-level qualitative analyses is to assess whether the project would be likely to cause 15 or contribute to any new localized PM10 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any 16 existing violations (40 CFR 93.116). 17 Table 3.5-9 Maximum Annual Mean and 24-Hour Particulate Matter Concentrations Monitoring Station PM10 Average Annual' 24-Hour Std Maximum Std Maximum Monitored Monitored • Brighton 50 27.6 150 102 Commerce City 50 38.9 150 142 Welby 50 35 150 140 Boulder 2440 Pearl St 50 24 150 75 Longmont 50 22 150 75 Denver CAMP 50 39 150 103 Denver Gates 50 39.3 150 84 Denver Visitors Center 50 37 150 119 Fort Collins 50 21 150 130 Greeley 50 22 150 96 1 The annual standard for PM10 was revoked in 2006. 18 The project-level analysis did not include fugitive dust or construction-generated 19 emissions. Road re-entrained dust emission is a function of road silt content, average 20 weight of vehicles, and VMT. Because only VMT would change as a result of Package A 21 or B, fugitive dust from roads would be proportionate to VMT. Package A would therefore 22 increase road re-entrained dust by approximately 0.95 percent over the No-Action 23 Alternative and 80 percent over existing levels. Package B would increase road re- 24 entrained dust by approximately 0.90 percent over the No-Action Alternative and 81 25 percent over existing levels. 26 North Fort Collins Commuter Rail Maintenance Yard 27 The proposed commuter rail operations and maintenance facility for Package A located off East 28 Vine Street and North Timberline Road in Fort Collins would accommodate end-of-the-line 29 storage, repair and inspection of train components, including locomotive and coach units. Air Quality 3.5-27 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 The expected fleet would consist of six EPA Tier 2 motorized units: either diesel multiple units 2 (DMU) or locomotive hauling coaches (LHC). The choice of operating units would be compatible 3 with the FasTracks North Metro Corridor commuter rail connecting Denver Union Station with the 4 Package A Fort Collins - Longmont commuter rail terminus. 5 The site is estimated to be 76.1 acres of track, open yard and service buildings housing 6 administration, employee services and parts storage, parking, water quality facilities, on-site 7 fueling centers, areas for vehicle cleaning, equipment repair, paint and body shops, yard utilities, 8 track sanding facilities, repair bays, and docks. Yard run-around and bypass tracks, double end 9 access, layover track, and lead tracks to the main line would form the ground facilities. 10 Currently, the proposed site at East Vine and North Timberline is surrounded by undeveloped and 11 agricultural land. A small construction yard is located south of Vine Street near the site. 12 A developing residential area and apartment complex are located northeast of the site. A mobile 13 home park, as well as industrial and commercial development, occupies land west of Timberline 14 near the site. 15 Berthoud Commuter Rail Maintenance Yard 16 The proposed 61.6 acre maintenance yard [A-T2], located at CR 46 and US 287 in Berthoud, 17 would have the same functions and operations as the Fort Collins Commuter Rail Yard. 18 Existing railroad tracks flank the west side of the Berthoud site. Single and multi-family 19 residences lie scattered to the west and southwest of the tracks. The surrounding land is mostly 20 undeveloped with some active crop farming to the northwest. An industrial and manufacturing 21 complex is located south of the proposed site. 22 Rail Hot Spot Analysis 23 A comparative analysis of PM,o emissions was used to evaluate the potential for causing or 24 contributing to any new localized PM,o violations or increase the frequency or severity of any 25 existing violations (40 CFR 93.116). 26 Qualitatively, the proposed rail maintenance yards were compared to an existing air quality 27 analysis completed for an early, unadopted version of the US 36 Corridor DEIS (dated August 28 4, 2006) at Rennick Rail Maintenance Yard located in Boulder County. Both North 1-25 corridor 29 commuter rail maintenance yards were delineated to a conceptual level of design. Although 30 yard site functions and general operational capacities have been identified, site specific track 31 layout and rail operations and repair schedules have not yet been defined. Therefore, project- 32 level PM10 emissions would be compared to the US 36 corridor site under one set of 33 parameters and the results related to each site. For the US 36 analysis, a worst-case LHC 34 technology was assumed because it is more maintenance intensive and requires 35 accommodating longer train lengths compared to DMU technology. 36 PM,u effects from the US 36 Rennick Rail Maintenance Yard were estimated for the US 36 37 Corridor DEIS by calculating the emissions from LHC engine traffic and modeling those 38 emissions using an EPA-approved Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST3) dispersion 39 model. Emissions factors acquired from RTD for EPA Tier 2 commuter rail units were used in 40 the analysis. Emission factors approved by CDPHE-APCD for diesel multiple units are 41 substantially lower than these, so this analysis represents a worst case. 111 Air Quality 3.5-28 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 The results of the US 36 DEIS rail maintenance yard modeling indicate that the maximum 2 predicted concentration for 24-hour PM10 was 5.6 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), 3 which is above the 5 ug/m3 24-hour PM10 significance level standard used in evaluation of 4 plume source dispersion modeling. The maximum impact was determined to occur at a 5 receptor located downwind from and at the boundary of the rail yard facility located 6 directly in line with the emission sources representing two rows of three idling LHC 7 engines situated in the center of the facility. All other receptors modeled around the 8 periphery of the facility were below the designated significance level. The highest annual 9 PM10 concentration was 1.6 ug/m3 and exceeded the annual PM10 significance level of 1 10 ug/m3 at several receptors modeled around the facility boundary. 11 Although the predicted impacts exceed the plume modeling significance levels, they are 12 well below the NAAQS. To provide a conservative evaluation of emissions levels in and 13 around the yard, background levels from one of the highest reading PM10 ambient 14 monitoring stations within the area were added to the calculated emissions. The Denver 15 CAMP monitoring station located in downtown Denver was selected because it 16 represented the highest background levels of PM10 during the years 1999 to 2003. The 17 maximum second-highest 24-hour value measured during that period was 75 ug/m3. This 18 value represents a conservative background concentration that would include influences 19 from other mobile, industrial, and natural sources in the Denver area. Adding this 20 background to the maximum 24-hour value for the maintenance yard, the total predicted 21 impact is 80.6 ug/m3, which is well below the NAAQS of 150 ug/m3. Likewise, adding the 22 highest annual measured value from Denver CAMP of 38 ug/m3 to the modeled 23 maintenance yard annual maximum value of 1.6 ug/m3 would total 39.6 ug/m3, below the • 24 NAAQS annual PM10 value of 50 ug/m3. Thus, there would be no exceedances of air 25 quality standards for such a facility. 26 Comparison of the North Fort Collins and Berthoud Rail Yards to the US 36 Rennick Rail 27 Yard shows similar function, similar yard size, and a smaller operating engine fleet as 28 tabulated in Table 3.5-10. The emissions generated at the Rennick facility would be well 29 below the PM10 NAAQS for the maximum predicted 24-hour and annual emissions levels. 30 Additionally, if lower polluting DMU engines are selected as operating units on the North I- 31 25 corridor rail package, emissions would be expected to be lower than those predicted at 32 the US 36 Rennick Yard. Therefore, emissions generated at each of the proposed North 33 Fort Collins and Berthoud Yards would be less than the NAAQS and would be unlikely to 34 cause or contribute to any new localized PM10 violations or increase the frequency or 35 severity of any existing violations. 36 Table 3.5-10 Comparisons of Commuter Rail Maintenance Yards North I-25 to US 36 37 Corridor Rennick Rail Maintenance Yard Rail Yard Rail Engine Yard Ground Functions and Conclusion Type Fleet Size Size (acre) Operations Emissions are below 24-hour US 36 LHC 11 58 Similar and annual NAAQS levels for Rennick I'M10 North Fort DMU 6-8 74 Similar Emissions would be similar Collins [A-T1] or LHC to the Rennick Yard • Berthoud DMU 6-8 58 Similar Emissions would be less [A-T2] or LHC than Rennick Yard Air Quality 3.5-29 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Greeley Commuter Bus /BRT Maintenance Facility • 2 The commuter bus operations and maintenance facility proposed at 31s` Street and 1st Avenue 3 in Greeley would accommodate covered storage, repair and inspection of the bus fleet 4 consisting of 38 buses for Package A US 85 commuter service and a portion of 43 total buses 5 for Package B Bus Rapid Transit and feeder bus service. This facility would be deployed for 6 either Package A or Package B. 7 The site is estimated to be 4.6 acres of service buildings, administration offices, employee 8 services, tire and parts storage, parking, water quality facilities, on-site fueling centers, areas 9 for vehicle cleaning, paint and body shops, and repair bays. The entire 2 acre open yard area 10 would be paved and have multiple access points. 11 The area surrounding the proposed 31s` Street and ls` Avenue bus maintenance yard is 12 commercial and undeveloped land. 13 Fort Collins Commuter Bus/BRT Maintenance Facility 14 This proposed facility at Portner and Trilby Roads in Fort Collins would be a second option for a 15 facility deployed for Package B to provide facilities for feeder bus line and BRT fleets. Package 16 A commuter and feeder bus maintenance was not considered at this facility. The BRT 17 operations and maintenance facility would accommodate covered storage, repair and 18 inspection of a portion of the total bus fleet of 43 buses. The new facility augments an existing 19 bus maintenance and storage facility operated by the City of Fort Collins. The 7.4 acre site 20 would have the same functions, facilities and operations as the Greeley Commuter Bus • 21 Maintenance Facility. 22 The site is located in an area of commercial and undeveloped land, while outlying areas are 23 surrounded by increasingly urbanized development including low density to medium density 24 residential areas and remnant agricultural properties. 25 Commuter Bus and BRT Hot Spot Analysis 26 A comparative analysis of PM10 emissions was used to evaluate the potential for either bus 27 maintenance facility causing or contributing to any new localized PM10 violations or increase the 28 frequency or severity of any existing violations (40CFR93.116). 29 The PM10 monitoring stations located near the proposed Greeley and Fort Collins maintenance 30 facilities recorded maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations of 96 ug/m3 and 130 ug/m3 31 respectively in the past 10 years. 32 Both North 1-25 Corridor commuter bus and BRT maintenance yards were delineated to a 33 conceptual level of design. Although yard site functions and general operational capacities 34 have been identified, site specific circulation, storage and repair schedules have not yet been 35 defined. A relative comparison of facility bus fleet and site size at each facility was used to 36 indicate whether the proposed maintenance facilities would be likely to generate more or less 37 emissions than a similarly functioning bus maintenance facility located at Commerce City within 38 the Denver PM10 attainment/maintenance area (see Table 3.5-11). • Air Quality 3.5-30 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. a, 1 The Colorado State Implementation Plan for PM10 Revised 2005 Summary of Dispersion 2 Model Results was used to formulate a comparison using total emissions model grid cell data 3 for the area of the Commerce City maintenance facility (Grid Cell No.96). The modeled grid 4 data is used to establish emissions concentrations associated with a larger, modeled bus 5 maintenance facility within the PM10 attainment/maintenance area. The Commerce City site is 6 located in a highly industrialized area. The regional PM10 modeling grid point includes 7 emissions generated from other sources than vehicular mobile sources, such as industrial and 8 urban area generators, and therefore provides a more conservative reference to compare 9 among the Greeley and Fort Collins sites. 10 Table 3.5-11 Comparisons of Physical Attributes of the Commuter Bus Maintenance 11 Facility in Commerce City to North I-25 Bus and BRT Maintenance 12 Facilities Bus Yard Functions Maintenance Facility Bus Type Fleet Ground and Comparative Size Size Operations Emissions Estimate Emissions are some of Commerce City Standard Diesel (Commuter and Commuter Bus 118 14 acres Similar the highest within the Regional Bus Service) and Diesel Coach conformity modeling area. Standard Diesel Emissions are Greeley[A-T2] or estimated to be 68% Commuter or 38-43 4.6 acres Similar [B-T1] Diesel Coach less than the Commerce City facility. • Emissions are North Fort Collins Standard Diesel estimated to be 64% [B-T1] Commuter Bus 43 7.4 acres Similar less than the and Diesel Coach Commerce City facility. 13 As shown in Table 3.5-12, expected increase in 98 percentile maximum PM10 concentrations 14 all remain below the NAAQS of 150 ug/m3 in the interim year 2015 and design year 2030 at the 15 proposed North 1-25 Corridor facilities. This suggests that for these scenarios, no emissions 16 violation or increase in frequency or severity of violation are anticipated due to operations at the 17 Greeley or Fort Collins Bus or BRT maintenance facilities. 18 Table 3.5-12 Comparison of Commerce City, Greeley and Fort Collins Maintenance 19 Facilities Total PM10 Emissions (98 Grid Cell NAAQS PM10 a Location Description Number (ug/m3) percentile) (ug/m ) 2015 2030 Commerce City Maintenance Facility 96 150 150.86 175.45 Greeley Bus Maintenance Facility NA 150 48.28 56.15 (Proportional emissions) Fort Collins BRT Maintenance Facility NA 150 54.31 63.16 (Proportional emissions) S Air Quality 3.5-31 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Worst-Case Transit and Parking Station • 2 The predicted highest-volume transit station with the largest associated parking lot occurs at 3 the SH 7 BRT station in the morning peak hours. This site is expected to have a maximum 4 idling congregation of four buses at any one peak hour. The site would accommodate 5 180 parked vehicles under Package A [A-H3 Component] as a commuter parking lot with 6 feeder bus service and 469 parked vehicles under the BRT station parking in Package B (B-T1 7 Component). Average individual bus idling times are approximately 40 seconds per stop. The 8 maximum number of buses coincident to one parking station at any one peak hour occurs in 9 the peak hours when feeder and mainline US 85 bus headways are shortest. Transit headway 10 refers to the frequency of circulating buses in any one direction on a transit route. A 30-minute 11 headway would be equivalent to two buses per hour. The analyses did not include fugitive dust 12 pollution. Only tailpipe emissions were analyzed. 13 Traffic accessing the parking facility is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service 14 during peak morning hours. Level of service in the afternoon peak hours is expected to operate 15 less adequately (LOS D). Passing and parking traffic volumes are listed in 16 Table 3.5-13 and Table 3.5-14. 17 Table 3.5-13 Characteristics of SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Facility 2030 2030 2030 Peak Hour No-Action Package A Package B [A-H3] [B-T1] Idling BRT volume NA NA 4 • Idling commuter bus 0 4 4 Parked vehicles 0 180 469 Internal parking travel (VMT) 0 74 266 Parking access and pass-by vehicles (VMT) 5,685 5,715 5720 18 Table 3.5-14 Daily Peak-Hour PMio Emissions from SH 7 BRT Station and Parking 19 Facility Pollutant 2030 No-Action Pass-by Traffic Only Package A [A-H3] Package B [B-T1] PM10(tons/year) 0.06 0.07 0.08 20 Actual vehicle travel within the parking lot was estimated as requiring each vehicle to traverse 21 two row lengths of the lot to successfully locate and park the vehicle and one row length to exit 22 the lot. A speed of 15 mph was used to calculate an emissions factor for this increment of 23 travel. Emission factors for vehicles were estimated from MOBILE 6.2 look-up tables for typical 24 Denver vehicle compositions utilized in conformity modeling. Future low-sulfur and alternate 25 fuel operating buses would produce less overall emissions; however, idling emissions were not 26 calculated for this analysis. 27 There are no PMip monitoring stations located near the SH 7 BRT station and parking lot. The 28 Colorado SIP for PMfo Revised 2005 Summary of Dispersion Model Results was used to 29 formulate a comparison between total emissions model grid cell data at the SH 7 BRT station 30 and parking site [B-T1 Component] (Grid Cell No.155) and at a known similar RTD commuter 31 park-n-Ride facility at the Thornton Parkway (Grid Cell No.125) for purposes of assessing 32 whether the new facility would likely cause or contribute to any new localized PMto violations or Air Quality 3.5-32 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . 1 increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations (40 CFR 93.116) over the project 2 timeline (see Table 3.5-15). The Denver area PMtp maintenance plan dispersion modeling 3 incorporates both area-wide analysis and hot spot analyses to determine regional PM10 4 concentrations. Grid cells at the northern periphery of the modeling domain evaluate an area 5 approximately one kilometer by one kilometer in size and include many more emissions than 6 just the featured sites. 7 Table 3.5-15 Comparison of PM10 Dispersion Model Data at SH 7 BRT Station and 8 Parking Lot [B-T1 Component] and Thornton Parkway RTD Facility Total Emissions (98 Location Description Grid Cell NAAQS percentile) (ug/m3) Number (uglm ) 2015 2030 1-25 and Thornton Parkway RTD Facility without 125 150 119.92 133.60 added VMT influence 1-25 and Thornton Parkway RTD Facility with 125 150 119.93 133.61 added VMT influence 1-25 and SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Facility 155 150 113.28 126.59 without added VMT influence 1-25 and SH 7 BRT Station and Parking Facility 155 150 113.29 126.60 with added VMT influence 9 Neither Package A nor Package B is included in the most recent DRCOG and NFRMPO 10 conformity models. VMT comparisons for the two sites show that, in the years 2015 and 2030, 11 the total VMT would only increase 0.009 percent and 0.007 percent respectively due to the new 12 SH 7 facility. This percentage increase has been applied to the 98 percentile PM10 values for 13 the SH 7 BRT and Parking Facility and the Thornton Parkway RTD Facility. The result is that 14 expected increases in emissions would all remain below the NAAQS of 150 ug/m3 in the interim 15 year 2015 and design year 2030, suggesting that for these scenarios, no emissions violation or 16 increase in frequency or severity of violation would be anticipated due to installation of the SH 7 17 BRT and Parking Facility. 18 Results from regional and project level pollutant emissions analyses support that the neither 19 Package A nor Package B would likely cause or contribute to any new localized PM10 violations 20 or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations (40CFR 93.116). This conclusion 21 would be the same even when road re-entrained dust is included because the increase 22 between either of the two packages and the No-Action Alternative is less than one percent. 23 3.5.3.5 PROJECT-LEVEL MSAT ANALYSIS 24 A basic quantitative analysis of the mass of air toxic emissions from the regional study area of 25 the proposed project was completed using the latest version of the EPA's mobile emission 26 factor model (MOBILE 6.2) as discussed in Section 3.5.3.1 Regional Analysis. The local study 27 area used for this traffic analysis includes all major roadways potentially affected by the 28 proposed new transportation facility. 29 Table 3.5-16 describes the mass of MSAT emissions associated with the No-Action Alternative, • 30 Package A, and Package B. Package A and Package B would generate 1.1% and 1.6% higher 31 emissions, respectively, than the No-Action Package in the year 2030. The MSAT emissions in 32 the year 2001 base case was much higher than either the build or no-build cases in the year 33 2030. This is reflective of the overall national trend in MSATs as previously described. Air Quality 3.5-33 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 3.5-16 MSAT Emissions (tons per year) by Package • Pollutant 2001 2030 Existing No-Action Package A Package B VehicleVMT(Daily) 27,171,738 48,684,000 49,147,000 49,124,000 Acetaldehyde 110 52 52 53 Acrolein 15 7 7 7 Benzene 672 295 299 300 1,3-Butadiene 95 33 34 34 Diesel Particulates 358 23 23 23 Formaldehyde 329 141 142 143 Total Emissions 1579 551 557 560 (Tons/year) 2 When evaluating the future options for upgrading a transportation corridor, the major mitigating 3 factor in reducing MSAT emissions is the implementation of the EPA's new motor vehicle 4 emission control standards. Substantial decreases in MSAT emissions would be realized from 5 a current base year (2001) through an estimated future year. Accounting for anticipated 6 increases in VMT and varying degrees of efficiency of vehicle operation, total MSAT emissions 7 were predicted to decline more than 65 percent from 2001 to 2030. 8 The MSATs from mobile sources, especially benzene, have dropped dramatically since 1995, 9 and are expected to continue dropping. In addition, Tier 2 automobiles introduced in model year 10 2004 would continue to help reduce MSATs. Diesel exhaust emissions have been falling since • 11 the early 1990s with the passage of the CAA amendments, The CAA amendments provided for 12 improvement in diesel fuel through reductions in sulfur and other components. 13 The Urban Air Toxics Pilot Program in Denver monitored three locations, all of which are within 14 the regional study area: the downtown Denver CAMP, Swansea Station located at 15 4650 Columbine Street in metro Denver, and Welby Station located near 78th Avenue and 16 Steele Street in the heart of the Platte River industrial district. Although not all MSATs were 17 monitored at these sites, acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde were 18 sampled during the period of May 2002 through April 2003 and were detected 90 percent or 19 more of the time at all three monitoring locations. 20 Calculated regional MSAT emissions associated with Package A and Package B would be 21 3.13 tons per year (tpy) and 4.75 tpy, respectively, more than the No-Action Alternative by the 22 design year of 2030. Decreases from the base year are substantial even with the associated 23 increase in VMT in the regional study area. Some sensitive receptors do exist but their 24 exposure would decrease from the interim 2015 year to the 2030 design year and beyond. 25 Sensitive receptors located along the project corridor are listed in Table 3.5-17. These 26 receptors include schools, churches and community centers. Sensitive residential areas, such 27 as the Pleasant Grove Mobile Home Park and other high density neighborhoods, are located 28 along proposed Package A and B improvements and are shown and listed in the Noise and 29 Vibration Technical Report (FHU, 2008a). These locations are not replicated in the following 30 table. • Air Quality 3.5.34 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 3.5-17 List of Schools, Churches, and Community Centers Along North I-25 Name Street City Zip Type Distance from I-25 (feet) Abiding Love Lutheran 950 Cleveland Avenue Loveland 80537 Church 500 Abundant Life Church 4380 CO-66 Longmont 80504 Church 1,940 Adams County 10190 Bannock, #100 Northglenn 80260 Center 650 Government: Northglenn Anglican Church of the 701 Oval Drive Fort 80525 Church 2,500 Ascension Collins Barbour State Park 4995 Weld County Road 300 Longmont 80504 Park 24 1/2 Calvary Baptist Church 1002 19th Avenue Greeley 80631 Church 200 Campion Academy 300 42"d Street SW Berthoud 80537 School 300 Campion Seventh Day 300 42n° Street SW Berthoud 80537 Church 200 Adventist Church CB America 3686 Stagecoach Road, Longmont 80504 Park 1,750 Charles C Winburn Park Melody Drive Northglenn 80234 Park 1,250 Church of God 330 West 152n°Avenue Broomfield 80020 Church 1,000 Church of Jesus Christ of 100 Miley Drive Northglenn 80233 Church 1,100 Latter Day Saints: Bishop Fo Community of Christ 220 Oak Street East Collins 80524 Church 1,200 Concentra Medical Center 420 East 58th Avenue Denver 80216 Medical 860 le Facility Concentra Medical 500 East 84°i Avenue Thornton 80229 Medical 1,500 Center: Thornton Facility Davita Longmont Dialysis 1700 Kylie Drive Longmont 80501 Medical 2,500 Center Facility Destiny Christian Center 6250 W 10th Street Greeley 80634 Church 200 Fo District 35 School County Road 54 Collins School 100 Evangelical Covenant 4825 Lemay Avenue Fort Church of Fort Collins South Collins 80525 Church >2,500 Faith Cornerstone 243 West 80th Avenue Thornton 80221 Church 1,330 Fellowship Farmers High Line Trail 12400 Washington Street Thornton 80241 Park 1,500 Park First Church of Christ 824 9th Street Greeley 80631 Church 600 Scientist First Congregational 800 Lincoln Avenue North Loveland 80537 Church 800 Church - UCC First Presbyterian Church 531 College Avenue Fort 80524 Church 400 South Collins First United Methodist 917 10th Avenue Greeley 80631 Church 150 Church of Greeley First United Methodist 533 Grant Avenue Loveland 80537 Preschool 1,000 Church Pre-School Fort Foothills Assembly of God 305 West Swallow Road Collins 80526 Church 200 Front Range Baptist 625 Harmony Road East Fort 80525 Church >2,500 le Church Collins Garden Place Elementary 4400 Lincoln Street Denver 80216 School 900 School Air Quality 3.5-35 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.5-17 List of Schools, Churches, and Community Centers Along North I-25 (Cont'd) . Distance Name Street City Zip Type from I-25 (feet) Globeville Community 5039 Lincoln Street Denver 80216 Church 800 Church Grace Church 10100 Grant Street Thornton 80229 Church 1,240 Grant Park Grant Drive Northglenn 80234 Park 100 Greater Harvest Church of 4501 Lincoln Street Denver 80216 Church 880 God and Christ Greeley Missionary Baptist 919 18th Avenue Greeley 80631 Church 200 Church Greeley Quick Care Walk- 2928 10th Street West Greeley 80634 Medical 250 In Clinic Facility Hahn Park Rocky Mountain Avenue Loveland 80537 Park 1,460 HealthOne 9351 Grant Street Denver 80229 Medical 1,200 Facility HealthOne 9191 Grant Street Thornton 80221 Medical 1,500 Facility Head Center of the Rockies 2121 East Harmony Road Fort Collins 80528 Medical 1,100 Facility Hmong District of Christian 12287 Pennsylvania Street Thornton 80241 Church 2,700 and Missionary Alliance Hulstrom Elementary Grant Drive Northglenn 80234 School 1,760 School Huron Crossing Park W 117th Street Northglenn Park 960 Jehovah's Witness 5236 County Road 7 South Fort Collins 80528 Church 2,200 Ill Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witness 1531 Vista View Drive Longmont 80504 Church 800 Kingdom Hall John Dewey Middle School 7480 Conifer Road Denver 80221 School 570 Joshua's Crossing 144 Mason Street South Fort Collins 80524 Church 300 Journey Community 12301 Grant Street Thornton 80241 Church 1,040 Church Joy Christian Church 2962 Redwing Road Fort Collins 80526 Church 350 La Clinica Tepeyac 501 W 40th Avenue Denver 80216 MeddFacility 810 Laradon Vocational Center East 51st Street Denver 80216 School 850 Latin District Central 7510 Sherman Denver 80221 Church 100 Longmont Community Of 641 Martin Street Longmont 80501 Church >2,500 Christ Loveland Bilingual Christian 109 12th Street West Loveland 80537 Church 1,700 Center Loveland Community 450 Cleveland Avenue Loveland 80537 Medical 400 Health Clinic Facility Majestic Oaks Church 455 115 Avenue West Northglenn 80234 Church 1,050 Martha and Mary Lutheran 7000 Broadway Denver 80221 Church 1,000 Church Message of Life Ministries 605 18th Street SW Loveland 80537 Church 500 • Air Quality 3.5-36 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 2 Table 3.5-17 List of Schools, Churches, and Community Centers Along North I-25 (Cont'd) Distance Name Street City Zip Type from I-25 (feet) Mountain Crest Behavioral 4601 Corbett Drive Fort 80528 Medical >0.5 mi Health Care Center Collins Facility Mountain View School 3500 Mountain Lion Drive Loveland 80557 School 3,800 Musculoskeletal Surgery 9005 Grant Street Thornton 80229 Medical 1,200 Center Facility North Valley Baptist 11882 Community Center Northglenn 80233 Church 1,260 Church Drive North Suburban Maternal 9141 Grant Street Thornton 80229 Medical 1,500 Care Facility Northglenn Thornton 12 1500 East 128`"Avenue Thornton 80241 School 1,000 School Poudre Valley Medical Fort Medical Facility: Rehabilitation 1330 Oakridge Drive >0.5 mi Collins 80521 Facility Services Reformation Baptist 1300 9th Street Greeley 80631 Church 2,300 Church Resurrection Fellowship 6502 East Crossroads Loveland 80538 Church 3,400 Blvd. Rinn United Methodist 3783 CR 20 Frederick 80504 Church 1,000 Church Salomon Daniel 8333 Acoma Way Denver 80221 Church 680 • Salud Family Health 220 Rogers Road East Longmont 80501 Medical 1,200 Center Facility Shepherd of the Hill 950 43rd Avenue Greeley 80634 Church 1,200 Evangelical Church Shepherd of the Hill 950 43rd Avenue Greeley 80634 School 1,200 Evangelical School Shepherd's Hall 10785 Melody Drive Northglenn 80234 Church 1,300 Spirit of Joy Lutheran 4501 Lemay Avenue Fort 80525 Church >0.5 mi Church South Collins St. James Orthodox 2610 Frontage Road SE Fort 80525 Church 400 Christian Church Collins St. John The Baptist 350 Emery Street Longmont 80501 School 700 Catholic School St Patrick Presbyterian 803 10th Avenue Greeley 80631 Church 900 Church St Peter Evangelical 4610 Hogan Drive Fort 80525 Church 1,150 Lutheran Church Collins Stapleton Health Station 5075 Lincoln Street Denver 80216 Medical 780 Facility Thorn Creek Church 12590 Washington Street Thornton 80241 Church 2,900 Thornton City Government: 9351 Grant Street Thornton 80229 Fire 600 Fire Administration Timnath Presbyterian 4020 Main Street Timnath 80547 Church 3,400 Church Transfiguration of Christ 349 47th Avenue East Denver 80216 Church 1,320 Orthodox Church Trinity Assembly of God 348 5th Street South Berthoud 80513 Church >0.5 mi • Trinity Baptist Church 904 Atwood Street Longmont 80501 Church 1,200 Air Quality 3.5-37 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. 1 •Table 3.5-17 List of Schools, Churches, and Community Centers Along North I-25 (Cont'd) Distance Name Street City Zip Type from 1-25 (feet) Trinity Lutheran Church 301 East Stuart Street Fort Collins 80523 Church 900 Trinity United Methodist 801 Cleveland Avenue Loveland 80537 Church 400 Church Twin Mounds School Route 60 Loveland 80537 School 1,700 Victory Christian 6101 10th Street West Greeley 80634 Church >0.5 mi Fellowship Victory Temple 7908 Pearl Street Denver 80229 Church 1,500 2 Greeley Commuter Bus [A-T3]/BRT Maintenance Facility[B-TI] 3 A quantitative analysis of MSATs addressed localized emissions associated with the proposed 4 bus or BRT maintenance facilities proposed in Packages A [A-T3] and B [B-T1]. Both proposed 5 commuter and feeder bus, and BRT maintenance yards have been delineated to a conceptual 6 level of design. Although site functions and general operational capacities have been identified, 7 site specific storage, circulation, and repair schedules have not yet been defined. Therefore, 8 project-level MSAT emissions would be calculated under one set of parameters and the results 9 related to each site. 10 The proposed BRT, commuter bus operations and maintenance facility at 31St Street and 1st • 11 Avenue in Greeley would accommodate covered storage, repair and inspection, and the bus 12 fleet consisting of 38 buses for Package A US 85 commuter service and a portion of 43 total 13 buses for Package B BRT and feeder bus service. This facility would be deployed for either 14 Package A or Package B. 15 The site is estimated to be 4.6 acres of service buildings, administration offices, employee 16 services, tire and parts storage, parking, water quality facilities, on-site fueling centers, areas 17 for vehicle cleaning, paint and body shops, and repair bays. The entire 2-acre open yard area 18 would be paved and have multiple access points. 19 The area surrounding the proposed 31st Street and 1st Avenue bus maintenance yard is 20 commercial and undeveloped land. 21 Fort Collins Feeder Bus/BRT Maintenance Facility[B-TI] 22 This proposed facility, located at Portner and Trilby Roads in Fort Collins, would be a second 23 facility deployed for Package B to provide facilities from feeder bus line and BRT fleets. The 24 BRT operations and maintenance facility would accommodate covered storage, repair and 25 inspection for a portion of the total bus fleet of 43 buses. The 7.4 acre site would have the 26 same functions, facilities, and operations as the Greeley Commuter Bus/BRT Maintenance 27 Facility. 28 The site is located in an area of commercial and undeveloped land, while outlying areas are 29 surrounded by increasingly urbanized development, including low-density to medium-density • 30 residential areas and remnant agricultural properties. Air Quality 3.5-38 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Commuter Bus and BRT Hot Spot Analysis 2 Air quality effects from the proposed bus maintenance areas were estimated by calculating 3 the running and idling emissions from diesel traffic to establish a peak-hour maximum 4 parking and transit operations generated emissions for that facility. A 0.5 mile travel distance 5 was assumed for each vehicle to enter, exit, and park per day. The resultant total MSAT 6 emissions would be less than 0.01 tpy or 13.8 pounds per year for either size facility. MSAT 7 emissions factors derived from California Air Resources Board research data published for 8 late-model diesel buses (Ayala et al. 2003a) were used in the analysis. Emissions factors for 9 diesel fuel operated buses are limited to diesel particulates (119.0 milligrams per mile) and 10 benzene (1.6 milligrams per mile). Reliable emission rates for diesel fuel operated buses are 11 not available for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. No acrolein or butadiene is emitted in 12 start-up and steady state late-model diesel bus exhaust. The limited travel distance and idle 13 times associated with bus and BRT facilities of this size are estimated to be negligible to the 14 project. 15 Summary of MSAT Analysis Findings 16 The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the 17 roadway sections that would be built along highly developed residential areas and major 18 intersections. In summary, when a highway is widened and as a result moves closer to 19 receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the build package could be higher 20 relative to the No-Action Alternative, but this could be offset due to short-term reductions in 21 congestion, which are associated with lower MSAT emissions for some pollutants. However, • 22 on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, would 23 over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, would cause region-wide 24 MSAT levels to be substantially lower than today. 25 Summary of MSAT Analysis: Package A—The air quality effect from Package A commuter 26 rail and bus service is incrementally neutral. Diesel emissions generated by rail locomotion 27 (DMU or LHC) and diesel-operated transit bus engines are anticipated to be less than 28 current operating levels due to introduction of low-sulfur fuels and Tier 3 and 4 diesel engine 29 emission controls. Transit service would remove an estimated 6,700 to 7,800 individual 30 vehicles daily from the roadway network in the year 2030. The commuter bus and feeder 31 systems would provide roughly 1,600 daily riders with service between various northern 32 Front Range sites to Denver and DIA. This translates to an average of 1,100 vehicles 33 removed from the roadways. However, the reduction associated with vehicles removed from 34 the roadways by Package A transit options would account for only 0.11 percent of total area 35 VMT. 36 Specific emissions levels for each transit station along the BRT and feeder bus routes were 37 not evaluated in this study. However, a worst-case scenario of the largest bus and parking 38 facility within the regional study area generated 6 tpy more MSAT pollutants than the No- 39 Action background traffic scenario and 3 tpy less than generated by Package B transit 40 components. This increase over background levels could affect residential and sensitive 41 receivers, such as schools and hospitals located within immediate proximity of the transit 42 facility. Weather conditions, such as wind or atmospheric inversions, would act to either 43 disperse local pollutants or concentrate pollutants within stagnant air. • Air Quality 3.5-39 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Summary of MSAT Analysis: Package B—The air quality effect from Package B BRT and • 2 feeder bus service would be affected by diesel emissions generated by buses running in the 3 dedicated transit lane. Diesel emission levels would be anticipated to be less than those 4 currently experienced on buses in use in the regional study area, due to introduction of low- 5 sulfur fuels and Tier 3 and 4 diesel engine emission controls. Transit service would remove 6 an estimated 3,900 individual vehicles daily from the roadway network in the year 2030. 7 However, the reduction associated with vehicles removed from the roadways by Package B 8 transit options would account for only 0.39 percent of total area VMT. 9 Specific emissions levels for each transit station along these BRT and feeder bus routes were 10 not evaluated in this study. However, a worst-case scenario of the largest bus and parking 11 facility within the regional study area generated 9 tpy more MSAT pollutants than the No-Action 12 background traffic scenario and 3 tpy more than generated by Package A transit components. 13 This increase over background levels could affect residential and sensitive receivers, such as 14 schools and hospitals located within immediate proximity of the transit facility. Weather 15 conditions, such as wind or atmospheric inversions, would act to either disperse local pollutants 16 or concentrate pollutants within stagnant air. 17 3.5.3.6 LOCALIZED EFFECTS OF COMMUTER RAIL AND BRT STATIONS 18 Commuter rail and BRT stations would result in local increases of some pollutants due to 19 increasing emissions from transit vehicles themselves and from automobile, truck and bus 20 traffic accessing the stations. These emissions would be greater than with the No-Action 21 Alternative at these particular locations, but in no cases would there be exceedances of the 22 NAAQS. • 23 Table 3.5-18 and Table 3.5-19 show the stations with residential or other sensitive land uses 24 that could be affected by these localized increases in emissions. • Air Quality 3.5-40 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooreration. transportation. • Table 3.5-18 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Package A Transit Station Location Sensitive Land Uses in the Vicinity Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Rail Station: Residential, church and educational land uses Mason and Cherry Streets within 600 feet. CSU Commuter Rail Station: Church and college residential and uses within 600 South Mason Street between West Laurel Street feet of the commuter rail. and Old Main Dr. South Fort Collins Transit Center Commuter Rail Commuter rail station would be 500 feet from Station [A-H2 Component]: residential areas. US 287 and Harmony Road North Loveland Commuter Rail Station: 29th Street Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from and US 287 residential development and 600 feet from school and church facilities. Downtown Loveland Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 700 feet from N. 4th Street and Cleveland Avenue (US 287) residential, school, community health, and church facilities. Berthoud Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from US 287 and Mountain Avenue (SH 56) residential land uses. North Longmont Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 100 feet from SH 66, between US 287 and N. 115th Street residential land uses. Longmont at Sugar Mill Commuter Rail Station: Commuter rail station would be 600 feet, 1,000 feet Three sites are under consideration: The first site is and less than 100 feet respectively, from residential south of Sugar Mill Road, north of Ken Pratt land uses. Boulevard, and west of N. 119th Street. The second site is on north side of Sugar Mill Road. The third • site is at County Line Road and SH 119. 1-25 and WCR 8 Commuter Rail Station: No sensitive land uses in close proximity. Nearest 1-25 and WCR 8 sensitive land use is 2,300 feet from site. Fort Collins Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility: Commuter rail facilities would be within 500 feet Vine Drive and Timberline Road from residential, church and health facilities. Berthoud Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility: Scattered residential land use within 100 feet of the CR 46 and US 287 maintenance facility. No other sensitive land uses in area. Greeley Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 300 feet from US 85 and D Street A residential area and community facility. South Greeley Commuter Bus Station: Commuter bus facilities would be 100 feet from US 85 and US 34 interchange on the southwest closest residential land use. Most sensitive land use corner of 26th Street and 9th Avenue areas are located more than 1,100 feet from site. Evans Commuter Bus Station: US 85 and 42nd Commuter bus facilities would be 100 feet from Street residential areas and church facilities. Platteville Commuter Bus Station: US 85 and SH Commuter bus facilities would be 300 feet from 66 sensitive land use areas. Fort Lupton Commuter Bus Station: US 85 just Commuter bus facilities would be 850 feet from south of 14th Street sensitive land use areas. Greeley Bus Maintenance Facility: 31st Street and Commuter bus facilities would be 700 feet from 1st Avenue residential areas and church facilities. • Air Quality 3.5-41 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 •Table 3.5-19 Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Package B BRT Station Location Air Quality Indirect Effects South Fort Collins Transit Center BRT Station Commuter BRT facilities would be 500 feet from [B-H2]: US 287 and Harmony Road residential areas. Harmony Road and Timberline BRT Station Commuter BRT facilities would be 300 feet from [B-H2]: Harmony Road and Timberline closest residential areas. I-25 and Harmony Road BRT Station [B-T1]: I- No sensitive land use areas in close proximity. 25 and Harmony Road Nearest residential development 2,000 feet from site. Windsor BRT Station [B-T1]: 1-25 and SH 392 Commuter BRT facilities would be 300 feet from residential areas. Crossroads BRT Station [B-T1]: There are two No sensitive land use areas within 0.5 mile proximity. sites: Site O is northeast of 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard. Site M is located southwest of 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard US 34 and SH 257 BRT Station [B-T1]: US 34 No residential areas in close proximity. and SH 257 West Greeley BRT Station [B-T1]: US 34 Commuter BRT facilities would be 100 feet from (Business Loop)and 83r°Avenue residential areas. Greeley Downtown Transfer Center BRT Commuter BRT facilities would be greater than 1,000 Station: Downtown Greeley between feet from residential areas. 9th Avenue and 8th Avenue on 7th Street Berthoud BRT Station [B-T1): I-25 and SH 56. Commuter BRT facilities would be 600 feet from residential areas. Firestone BRT Station [B-T1]: 1-25, south of Commuter BRT facilities would be less than 300 feet SH 119. from residential areas. • Frederick/Dacono BRT Station [B-T1]: 1-25, 0.5 No sensitive land use areas in close proximity. mile north of SH 52 1-25 and SH 7 BRT Station [B-T1]: Two sites: Both commuter BRT facilities would be less than 300 Site E Is east of 1-25 and 0.5 mile north of SH 7 feet from the closest sensitive land use. Site C is located on the southwest corner of the I-25 and SH 7 interchange Fort Collins BRT Maintenance Facility [B-T1]: Commuter BRT facilities would be less than 100 feet Portner Road,just north of Trilby Road from residential areas. 2 33.3.7 INDIRECT EFFECTS 3 Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable and can be linked together and extended to 4 estimate further consequences. The most apparent link to air quality is incremental population 5 growth, land use, and development changes caused as a result of the North 1-25 corridor 6 project. These growth and development changes would affect traffic and traffic patterns which 7 would then affect air quality. In areas of anticipated transit oriented development, air quality 8 would be anticipated to improve due to more efficient travel patterns. This improvement would 9 be more noticeable with Package A than Package B. The incremental growth, due in part to 10 increased capacity and mobility built into Packages A and B, would be 0.95 percent and 11 0.90 percent, respectively. 12 Another indirect air quality effect could be the continued conversion of agricultural land use 13 which is the dominant source of ammonia along the Front Range (see Figure 3.5-3). This land 14 is being converted to residential and commercial uses which would lessen agricultural sources 15 of nitrogen deposition effects to the Rocky Mountain National Park and other sensitive • 16 environments in the future. Air Quality 3.5-42 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures 2 Regional and local agency strategies that could be used to reduce criteria pollutant and MSAT 3 emissions, especially diesel particulate matter from existing diesel engines, include but are not 4 limited to: tailpipe retrofits, closed crankcase filtration systems, cleaner fuels, engine rebuild 5 and replacement requirements, contract requirements, anti-idling ordinances and legislation, 6 truck stop electrification programs, and aggressive fleet turnover policies. 7 The following mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate potential project impacts from 8 commuter rail: 9 ► New commuter rail, BRT, commuter, and feeder bus vehicles will be required to meet Tier 3 10 and Tier 4 standards (see Section 3.5.3.1). 11 ► Alternative bus fleet vehicle selections will be investigated for more energy and emissions 12 efficient vehicles, such as hybrids, electric buses, etc. 13 The following mitigation measures are recommended for construction activities associated with 14 either of the build packages: 15 ► Project proponents must prepare an air quality mitigation plan that describes all feasible 16 measures to reduce air quality impacts from their project. CDOT staff must review and 17 endorse construction mitigation plans prior to work on a project site. 18 ► Acceptable options for reducing emissions could include use of late model engines, • 19 low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, and 20 after-treatment products. 21 ► The contractor will ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. 22 ► Idling time will be minimized to 10 minutes —to save fuel and reduce emissions. 23 ► An operational water truck will be on site at all times. Water will be applied to control dust as 24 needed to prevent dust impacts off site. 25 ► There will be no open burning of removed vegetation. Vegetation will be chipped or 26 delivered to waste energy facilities. 27 ► Existing power sources or clean fuel generators will be utilized rather than temporary power 28 generators. 29 ► A traffic plan will be developed to minimize traffic flow interference from construction 30 equipment movement and activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, 31 use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Operations 32 affecting traffic for off-peak hours will be scheduled whenever reasonable. 33 ► Obstructions of through-traffic lanes will be minimized. A flag person will be provided to 34 guide traffic properly minimizing congestion and to ensure safety at construction sites. 35 These mitigation measures would be enacted along with the project phases (see Section 2.2) 36 for which the measures are relevant. • Air Quality 3.5-43 • 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • NORTH I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 6 Noise and Vibration • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.6 NOISE AND VIBRATION This section describes the analyses performed to assess existing and potential future impacts from noise and what's in Section 3.6? vibration from both traffic and rail transit to properties (i.e., "receivers") near the 3.6 Noise and Vibration project corridors. The purpose of the 3.6.1 Methodology analyses is to determine whether any 3.6.2 Affected Environment receivers near the corridors would be 3.6.2.1 Traffic Noise Measurements impacted by either noise or vibration 3.6.2.2 Rail Noise Measurements from the project alternatives according 3.6.2.3 Existing Traffic Noise to CDOT, FHWA, or FTA guidelines. 3.6.2.4 Existing Traffic Vibration More details on the analyses can be 3.6.2.5 Existing Rail Noise found in the Noise and Vibration Impact 3.6.2.6 Existing Rail Vibration Assessments (FHU, 2008a; Harris, 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences Miller, Miller& Hanson [HMMHI, 2008). 3.6.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.6.3.2 Package A The objectives of the noise and vibration 3.6.3.3 Package B analyses were to assess project-related 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures noise and vibration at properties near 3.6.4.1 Non-Barrier Traffic Noise any proposed improvements or Mitigation Evaluation substantive changes and to determine 3.6.4.2 Traffic Noise Barrier Evaluations • whether impacts are present or may be 3.6.4.3 Rail Noise and Vibration present in the future. The analyses were Mitigation Evaluations based on noise levels in 3.6.4.4 Impacted Receivers After A-weighted decibels (dBA) and on Recommended Mitigations vibration levels in vibration decibels 3.6.5 Construction Noise (VdB). 3.6.6 Summary The main focus of the traffic noise and vibration analyses is 1-25 because the alternatives being evaluated in this Draft EIS included substantive roadway changes only along 1-25 between US 36 and SH 1. Other potential traffic noise sources relevant for each alternative were also considered as appropriate, such as commuter bus service and traffic accessing transit stations. The focus of the rail transit noise and vibration analyses was the potential commuter rail corridor between Fort Collins and Thornton (Section 2.2.2). 3.6.1 Methodology The traffic and rail analyses consisted of a combination of field measurements and calculations of future conditions. The analyses for traffic and rail were performed following different procedures (FHU, 2008a; HMMH, 2008), as summarized below. Traffic noise and vibration analyses were performed according to CDOT procedures (CDOT, 2002). When applicable, FTA procedures (FTA, 2006) were followed to evaluate • noise impacts from traffic to transit stations or maintenance facilities. Noise and Vibration 3.6-1 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The main traffic noise sources analyzed were: • ► roads that would be built or reconstructed under either of the alternatives ► roads where traffic volumes would be substantively changed by the alternatives ► other major roads adjoining the changed roads within the regional study area as needed for technical/modeling reasons FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 software (FHWA, 1998) was used to model traffic noise levels at more than 500 points that represented noise-sensitive properties within approximately 500 feet of project roads. Impacts from traffic noise were assessed either by comparing the measured and modeled traffic noise levels to CDOT's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or through FTA procedures, as appropriate. CDOT's NACs (Table 3.6-1) are based on the one-hour average sound level (Leq). Land Use Categories A and E are either not present or not analyzed within the project area and were not considered further. Under CDOT guidelines, traffic noise levels equaling or exceeding the NAC are viewed as noise impacts, which trigger an evaluation of traffic noise mitigation measures. A "substantial" traffic noise increase (when the future noise level is expected to increase by 10 dBA or more over existing levels) is also considered a noise impact, also leading to evaluation of noise mitigation actions. Assessment of impacts from traffic vibration is described in Section 3.6.2.5. Table 3.6-1 CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) Land Use CDOT NAC Description • Category (Leq) Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the 56 dBA preservation of those qualities is to continue to serve its intended A (Exterior) purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks, or open spaces that are recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, B 66 dBA libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, (Exterior) and parks. 71 dBA Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in categories A C (Exterior) and B above. D None Undeveloped lands. 51 dBA Residences, motels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, E (Interior) libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: CDOT, 2002. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The rail transit noise and vibration analyses were carried out in conformance with procedures prescribed by FTA (FTA, 2006). The highest level of analysis under the FTA process (i.e., "detailed" analysis) was followed. FTA noise criteria use either one-hour averaged noise levels (abbreviated Led or Led(h)) or 24-hour averaged noise levels (Ldn). The Ldn is defined to include a 10 dBA penalty for noise between 10 PM and 7 AM. FTA groups noise-sensitive land uses into the following three categories: ► Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters, concert pavilions, National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use, recording studios, and concert halls. ► Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. ► Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds, and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included. The noise level thresholds used to determine transit noise impacts are variable, depending on existing noise exposure, as illustrated in Figure 3.6-1. There are two levels of impact • associated with the FTA noise criteria: ► Moderate Impact: In this range of noise impact, the change in the cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. In this transitional area, other project-specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These factors include the existing noise level, the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses affected, the noise sensitivity of the affected properties, the effectiveness of possible mitigation measures, community views, and the cost of mitigating the noise. ► Severe Impact: Project-generated noise in the severe impact range can be expected to cause a significant percentage of people to be highly annoyed by the new noise and represents the most compelling need for mitigation. Noise mitigation would normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there are truly extenuating circumstances which prevent it. There are also separate FTA criteria for ground-borne noise, i.e., the "rumble" that can be radiated from room surfaces in buildings due to ground-borne vibration. Because airborne noise often masks ground-borne noise for above ground (i.e., at-grade or elevated) rail systems, ground-borne noise criteria are primarily important with subway operations where airborne noise is not a factor, which is not the case with this project. Finally, the FTA vibration impact criteria are based on land use and train frequency (FTA, 2006). The vibration criteria are rather technical and are therefore discussed in detail in Rail Noise and • Vibration Impact Assessment (HMMH, 2008). Briefly stated, FTA has established a criterion for detailed vibration analyses of residential buildings with nighttime occupancy at 72 VdB, measured in one-third octave bands over the frequency range from 8 Hertz (Hz) to 80 Hz. Noise and Vibration 3.6-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-1 Transit Noise Impact Criteria • t� tfielirlZ•igs q e. * 1k. 75 � �e. W. r,3-. ,µ t ��+„'� 80 Y, � QI 70 hY}pu fiJCtT : a Y {1 i4.nWWi`+ •t, - 75 M a, x t „q"� qe ay.T• _ O1 rn4•-:47,12.47', Save Itn ;t-9-. .; 7144."'"- - «: d 65 w, --. x+, P70 CO _ 03 1l,, al m W Ch vi • N 60 r ,t ' y G N 65 x 0.c Moate ai c co co :: tt OZ17 - 55 ti c - Note: - a No Impact Noise exposure is in terms ' • 45 — of Leg(h)for Category - 50 1 and 3 land uses, Ldn for - Category 2 land uses. - 40 , ' i , i i 45 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Existing Noise Exposure(dBA) Source: FTA, 2006. 3.6.2 Affected Environment There are a number of receivers along both the road and rail corridors (Figure 3.6-2) of the EIS alternatives that could be impacted by noise or vibration. Potential impacts from noise or vibration were evaluated according to the methods described in Section 3.6.1. Along 1-25 between SH 1 and 136th Avenue, there are dispersed residential and business properties with some clusters of developed properties. The Mountain Range Shadows residential development located south of SH 392 is one of the larger neighborhoods near l- 25, while the majority of other developed properties are scattered throughout the northern project area. At the south end of the project area between 136th Avenue and US 36, there are numerous densely populated residential and business areas along both the east and west sides of 1-25. A number of traffic noise barriers (Figure 3.6-3) have been built in the project area along 1-25. There are several constructed walls in the southern region of the project between US 36 and • 120th Avenue. In addition, there are three earth berms along the 1-25 corridor, as shown on Figure 3.6-3. Noise and Vibration 3.6.4 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.6-2 Noise Sensitive Areas along Project Corridors LEGEND Developed Area along Railroad ,.„),, Developed Area along I-25 � Iw,ato, O Cities & Towns %- `''''• i Er] Regional Study Area i _ \:� ^, Study Corridors •. i ® • Piece/ � . I, ,'� /\,/ Highways -- f • 1 Arterial Roads I--_-JortGollins—i _71. 1 % 1 ///l Ault ' 4 - City Boundaries � I �., -, : - i k 1, "-- I 11 I 'r 1 -* r t Tunnath. 5everarte Ea:y1 1 I I I it — —I 1_ Wir>dsar . 1 .� 4. a o I • ne 'Ya I - r- {�N 21.1.1 nlarrn-Range - : row \ is ' 1 i 1_______ i Greeley t — .� 1 1 ..........-- 263± 34 �.-.—e ! ` ! .. �! _ -j I 7 ' Ga den City I& CI - t-- . Loveland ' ' ( : I -� . L�' . -- — --- —`--- -- -t Evans • LE ! rte., La Sale / °i' I tampion a.� Qkirrtstavi % I ' a 85 1�., I Berthoud 6 I 1 a Milliken / 1 :4_ _ ,_ _ ..,-- ,,r i • I ,_ . Mead .,M ; / I Elert€vil!e 66 } 1 --mss _---4.- i. ongmont bne R 1 Vallma Q 11, / rreSto 1F J' ^ --17-4)-/ �if� Q kedoick Niwot s+ 2 �./ 0 Daum Em Lupton I71I ,• ..... � ' Grmlavrel . 1 ' rte. / r Q Erie— __ I 76 • / r ti f ' -\ .� ' i Q ] ti. 1 Wattenterg Boulder ._. _ T - Lafavette .\', ' • f:AlI5V111E , auc31gui Dightan __j_l I r. t. ' ` � t`- ' 9wmfield ` -- Q Eastlake dersa'1, I 1 .3 I•� -- In thglenn f J la morntm i 1 - L_ ---r. , r 1. r, r ..: i 'I 1 r Denver 70 71.,,,...3/4:.....N_ i 0 2 4 6 8 10 c-- ' a f-'- I I t I Miles North ' IV , .1 iN .4..:Nelt_i • ,-, Source: FHU project data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-3 Existing Noise Barriers along Project Corridor I 1 . i tierthoud �i I l+ IVIIIIlKerr LEGEND 56 i i a Existing Barrier �' v Cities & Towns Gilcrest i el Lae Regional Study Area I /SAv Study Corridors ' Berm 'i "/ Highways a /\/ Arterial Roads Mead - dip City Boundaries Platteville bb I i Longmont Isis I �� lone I / 120th Ave. Vollmar v ° i Firestone ° Frederick 1 \ ■ie 0 °Dacono Fort Lupton ! 52 i I 104th Ave. / ! i i Berm O i Wattenberg I Il I . . MI ) ) RKWAI II ----- Brighton a i 7 i Berm t 1 --N. ; / i 84th Ave. i , \ . � . � . Eastlake ►♦♦•♦��'♦♦s••♦� Henderson i I * a mss ♦ I ! A I ►♦�O� 1♦♦♦�♦� % ► ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ 4 •) ♦ ♦ +� ♦ s ♦ ► ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ . i %. ♦ s ' ♦ �� r� h lenn ' . s ♦ s .— ill Ist• `�� ornton ; - - 1 \ / *s♦�,♦r.�♦♦s♦� +� i is I � _ i - _ ! ' ril 1 ��•� ;i 0 1 2 3 4 5 _ .4\---_-- �. , : ' F ;i - I Miles North -•/j �. L ; �. i ! i t Denver' 70 _-__ i 4 - Source: FHU project data, 2007. II Noise and Vibration 3.6-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Along the proposed rail corridor, there is a range of adjoining property uses. Much of the corridor abuts undeveloped or agricultural land with dispersed residential properties and neighborhoods in some areas (Figure 3.6-2 or Figure 3.1-2). Some of this area is developing quickly, however, into primarily commercial properties. The rail corridor intersects substantial portions of highly developed areas in several cities and towns, including Fort Collins, Loveland, Campion, Berthoud, and Longmont. In many of these areas, residences are very near the project rail corridor and at-grade rail crossings. The affected environment for traffic and rail noise and vibration in the project area has been characterized through a combination of measurements and modeling, as described in the following sections. 3.6.2.1 TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENTS Measurements of existing traffic noise levels (Table 3.6-2) were performed at 16 locations in the project area in 2005 or 2006. The measurements consisted of 10-minute measurements at 13 locations and 24-hour measurements at the three remaining locations. The measurements were spread over a variety of locations in the project area adjacent to 1-25 (Figure 3.6-4). Measured noise levels at six of the monitoring locations equaled or exceeded the applicable CDOT NAC, which indicated that these areas are currently impacted by traffic noise (Table 3.6-2). The measured noise levels for these locations are denoted in bold in the table. Table 3.6-2 Existing Traffic Noise Measurement Results • Location Location Description Land Use CDOT NAC Measured Number Category* (dBA)* LeQ (dBA) 1 Fort Collins soccer fields B 66 69 2 Mountain Range Shadows neighborhood B 66 76 3 Johnson's Corner Campground B 66 74 4 Home along Weld County Road 46 B 66 62 5 Coyote Run neighborhood B 66 57 6 Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area B 66 69 7 St. Vrain State Park B 66 66 8 Willowbrook Park B 66 62 9 Businesses near SH 52 C 71 66 10 Near SH 7 interchange D None 50 11 Summit View Apartments (behind wall) B 66 62 12 Summit View Apartments (beside wall) B 66 72 13 Near former University of Phoenix (behind wall) C 71 62 14 Near former University of Phoenix (beside wall) C 71 67 15 Near Wagon Wheel park-n-Ride D None 62 16 13000-block Grand Circle neighborhood B 66 66 Source:FHU field data, 2005-2006. • 'See Table 3.6-1. Noise and Vibration 3.6-7 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-4 Noise and Vibration Measurement LocationsIII LEGEND L Noise Measurements a Traffic Noise Location (Level [dBA]) i ..— ---�, o Rail Corridor Noise Location (Level [dBA]) .i- Wellington '`--�`•N. Q Cities & Towns % .N`�� 3/4.---(kg.K . ‘ L j Regional Study Area �' 04--04-- Location #1 (69) ' /V Study Corridors LT44.(.6 )_ 4 Fierce /%/ Highways _.._Fort CollinsLYNL �� •� /\/ Arterial Roads LT-13 (7Q)-.`■`---r— - F Ault \ 4 \, Local Streets �I City Boundaries s t - 257 ,, i _ () _ " TimrXath_ 1 severance. Fata, LT-12 (58 ' ' I 1 1 r .1_.287 L_ Windsor ' .._ •Location #2 (76) : , Lucerne ; 392 _ Y LT-11 (6.43) I . -�-�- r ( .. l �- Greeley \ -- •— T� (Oki.s sr �- f Q �'�-. 3 3` 10 68 '� l 4 's —1-1---1-17"-E-M Loveland 4-- Location #6 69) Galen''iI' sl � V4 ' . Location #3 (74) E:ens i ' LT9 (63� r - i s. * M La Salle is f _-§ LT-8 63 �r Garn�ir<, .a + wn>siom_� ; ,i ( )� i- p 60 / V-3 i'i ■ © Milliken 85 i L Ec+tlnou � ,� I , . ' a Location #4 (62)— LT-6 (59 • ST-3 ( ° 1 ) Gitmie LT7, (e�1 ) i i j .0-- Location #5 (57). I LT-75 (7 ) MuA 1 66 i ST=1 (70)t Piaui-Mlle in V-2,- oriymont �- Location #7,(64) LT-4 (77) _I ,, `..t . _4 { 1 �S a I Vollmar Q 4 / ST-2 (61 ) Firestone r� Niwot g kedaick I �—� , -6,,,...S47 L`T t'(S6)� : X � • - Location#9 (66)'1 ? t i ,, . &Antral 710 _ --- Location #10 (50) 76 I V-1 . [ Boulder ._ _ - .r L 2.(59,) 1 L - 4)AImJI if Lwsville I g 7 � •�-.d @i him. � ,�`. $sower ri • 1 ' Location #16 (66) / 18 --- �- Broomfield Location#8 (62) ---- x- �• 36 ; - N`x''' -f-'Location /113 (62) & #14 (67) Location #15ri i --� i _L\ ( '9 . ts- f^`' � t_ 1 .Denver,r70 7pr,...,....t i e'`-` I [ .-(:A /- tr '-- - rte'-- 0 2 4 6 8 10 - ' --- ' I ' I Miles North �-,7-,,,c 1\4 ,-- ,\ -1,-. J -N% ._ Source: FHU and HMMH field data, 2007. ' I Noise and Vibration 3.6-8 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.6.2.2 RAIL NOISE MEASUREMENTS Fourteen sites, designated as LT-1 through LT-14, were selected for long-term (24-hour) monitoring and four sites, designated as ST-1 through ST-4, were selected for short-term (one-hour) monitoring (Figure 3.6-4). Results of these 2006 measurements are summarized in Table 3.6-3. Based on the average measured train noise levels, the noise exposure in Ldn from current freight train operations at a distance of 100 feet from the track was estimated to be approximately 60 dBA in areas where train horns are not sounded and approximately 72 dBA in areas near grade crossings where horns are sounded for trains in both travel directions. Where train horns are sounded in only one direction of train travel, the Ldn at 100 feet was estimated to be 65 dBA, assuming that the horn is not sounded for the single nighttime train. This provides a conservatively low estimate of the existing noise for purposes of the noise impact assessment (Figure 3.6-1). The total existing noise environment along the rail corridor was established by combining train noise (adjusted for distance) with background ambient noise from other sources (e.g., road traffic, aircraft, general neighborhood activities). The results of the noise-monitoring program indicated that the background Ldn (i.e., without trains) generally ranged between 50 dBA and 60 dBA, depending on the location along the corridor. 3.6.2.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE Existing traffic noise was calculated based on traffic models which include existing roadways, • interchanges, and frontage roads near noise receivers and existing (2005) traffic volumes. These calculations have also been compared to the actual noise measurement data to make sure there is an accurate reflection of the existing noise. - More than 500 total (residential and commercial) points were used in the noise models (FHU, 2008a). In some cases, a single point in the model represented several nearby and similar receivers/properties where distance from the roads and geography were similar. Modeling results are presented in Appendix C. From the modeled points, 473 receivers are calculated to have existing traffic noise levels above the respective NAC during the afternoon peak hour. Of the 473 impacted receivers, 374 are Category B properties (residential) and 99 are Category C properties (commercial). The impacted areas are shown in Figure 3.6-5 and summarized in Table 3.6-4. It should be noted that noise levels at 30 Category B modeled locations without existing barriers currently are at or above 75 dBA (FHU, 2008a), which is a severe impact (CDOT, 2002). In general, these locations are homes within about 150 feet of 1-25 without any intervening barriers and are spread throughout the corridor. 3.6.2.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VIBRATION There are no FHWA or CDOT requirements regarding traffic-induced vibration. Studies assessing the impact of operational traffic-induced vibrations have shown that both measured and predicted vibration levels from traffic were less than any known criteria for structural damage to buildings (FHWA, 1995). Often, normal indoor activities, such as closing doors, have been shown to create greater levels of vibration than highway traffic. As such, vibration • from highway traffic was not a major concern for this EIS and was not examined in this analysis. Noise and Vibration 3.6-9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.6-3 Rail Noise Measurement Results • Noise Level Ldn dBA) Location 2 c o m t co (North to Location Description o v m c ._ south) C " o Leq(dBA) fa in N F o ff 0 .c t C W d 3 0 GK m 5 H LT-14 401 N. Timberline Road, Unit#178— N/A 24 -- 63 -- Fort Collins (near potential maintenance facility site) LT-13 635 Mason Street—Fort Collins (track in 80 24 72 60 median of street) LT-12 328 Albion Way—Fort Collins 150 24 58 56 -- LT-11 4355 Filbert Drive—Loveland 120 24 63 51 -- LT-10 1246 N. Arthur Avenue—Loveland (track in 50 24 68 58 -- cut) LT-9 5105 S. Iowa Avenue—Campion 120 24 63 53 -- LT-8 1220 N. 4th Street— Berthoud (near 180 24 63 50 -- potential maintenance facility site) LT-7 208 3rd Street— Berthoud 80 24 61 50 -- LT-6 1375 S. Larimer County Road 15— 90 24 59 52 -- Berthoud (120 feet from road;track in cut) LT-5 1556 Centennial Drive—Longmont 50 24 73 51 -- LT-4 514 Atwood Street—Longmont (track in 80 24 77 55 -- median of street) • LT-3 4871 Weld County Road 7—Erie (100 feet N/A 24 -- 56 -- from road) LT-2 4647 Chia Court—Dacono (near unused N/A 24 -- 59 -- track) LT-1 15930 Jackson Street—Brighton (near N/A 24 -- 54 -- unused track) ST-4 2639 Cedar Drive at N. Garfield Avenue— N/A 1 -- 59* 61 Loveland (near potential station site) ST-3 Peakview Meadows (SH 287 at N/A 1 -- 59* 61 Turner Avenue)—Berthoud (near potential station site) ST-2 Weld County Road 1 at Great Western N/A 1 -- 59* 61 Drive—Longmont(near potential station site) ST-1 SH 119 at Fairview Street— Longmont N/A 1 -- 68* 70 (170 feet from highway) Source:HMMH field data, 2006. --Not measured *Estimated level N/A—Not applicable • Noise and Vibration 3.6-10 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . Figure 3.6-5 Existing Traffic Noise Imnacted Receivers LEGEND Ci Noise Impacted Receivers --\ t •�, v Impacted Category B Receiver ,� '' "mason %%••• X85 o Impacted Category C Receiver 287 ii •.• •.` Q Cities & Towns "Ni1 I13CategoryB (' Regional Study Area ! I - •� 2 Category C Piece ',\ A, Study Corridors I_ Fort Collins-1 _ 1�� _ • _ / / Highways \....„ it N•. 14 ti � w 1' /\/ Arterial Roads ( I ^, 1 • 411 City Boundaries " j - r r * Tin '. - 93 Category B Eatc ! i I _t - 1 135 Category C wirgisor i - r - [ , , , Lucerne ` I I : I i Greeley i L • i. i--- _ \— i , __b.:Li), . . r 34 ��-j-J-:-.1. " I r ` . - Garderlcity 34 ' __;,� , Loy land i . ; • La Salle • _ ` Campan Johnstown / I .. 60 0 1 _� 85 i 1 i Q Milliken ,/ Berthoud ' L -- - t / • l Gila— • , f 31 Category B / I t _.A • X45 Category C I % hi; ■ I rlattcwi,le 66 I Longmont L-- ' 1- J Irvr 1 I L Vollmer O ;r . { ; ! a Nest«,e / Niwot a fridaick I 71/4 i , • o krt l nntce i 52 l c Q Cx rU rrCl { ' Erie- —' I 76 0 i•r l ;: jTiL19 ! e .,!\\*\,>111,Supet tcr r 1 k ,�' QigMa -._;.._ ! I / ..%-% II - , Eastlake t --�-.. /_____Y--- ) ,�•.` IIoomfield _ , mar Jerrs!a1+ ter•. -- _ Na hgla 237 Category B 36 287 ` ,• Q nointa, 17 Category C \ -1; / ,� —-7 ; / r `I i:12 s t Ai r — :I ---,Is % i 1 `• l !J �� . Denver—h. 70 t T: ff ar 0 2 4 6 8 10 -- -1, i I- I 1 1 1 i I Miles North • W0 7oax'mrt (S i-1: moa IV �ars_i ¢�Rocenor. ma;8.11 o; 1.?4/i00T-94140-AM Source: FHU project data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-11 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.64 Number of Properties Currently Impacted by Traffic Noise • Road Component Number of Impacted Number of Impacted Category B Receivers Category C Receivers Between SH 1 and SH 14 13 2 Between SH 14 and SH 60 93 35 Between SH 60 and E-470 31 45 Between E-470 and US 36 237 17 Total Impacted Properties 374 99 Source:FHU project data, 2007. 3.6.2.5 EXISTING RAIL NOISE The FTA noise evaluation protocol is based on comparison of existing noise levels to projected noise levels from the proposed project (FTA, 2006). Under the protocol, a rail transit noise impact occurs when the predicted project-generated noise level increase relative to the existing noise level is too large (Figure 3.6-1). There are not specific noise levels used by FTA to define noise impacts universally, as there are with the CDOT/FHWA protocol (Table 3.6-1). Because the determination of impacts depends on the change in noise levels, it is not possible or appropriate to assess "existing" noise impacts from rail • transit using FTA procedures. However, the existing noise exposure at the residential areas along the rail corridor between Fort Collins and Longmont is relatively high, dominated by BNSF freight train noise. In this area, the existing Ldn typically ranges from 65 dBA to 75 dBA at homes close to the tracks. The highest noise levels occur at locations near grade crossings where the train horns are routinely sounded. 3.6.2.6 EXISTING RAIL VIBRATION To characterize the existing baseline vibration conditions at sensitive receivers along the rail corridor, a field measurement program was performed in 2006. The measurement program consisted of ground vibration propagation tests as well as vibration measurements during train operations in representative areas along the proposed rail transit alignment. Five sites, designated as V-1 through V-5, were selected to represent the range of soil conditions in areas along the proposed transit corridor (Figure 3.6-4). Ground vibration measurements were made at various distances from the BNSF tracks • during train operations at V-2 through V-5 to document existing train vibration levels along the corridor. The results are summarized in Table 3.6-5. Overall, the measurements suggest that existing ground-borne vibration levels from trains operating along the BNSF track between Longmont and Fort Collins are likely to be perceptible at buildings located as far away as 100 to 150 feet from the track. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-12 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.6-5 Vibration Measurement Data for Freight Trains Site Description Maximum Vibration Velocity Level (North to o (VdB) at Distance cu South) > c o o _ o E ti = I;0 a U (I _ a o re v Ti 15w al 0 o W A y d d w F. d 'Cr) y t= �° °�' i a m a a c u, o r E E co •5 O m 1- 0 a of 7 7 r v1 N N < Z Z F F < h o) r r S. of Horsetooth Rd.— V-5 Fort Collins 3 66 36 North 82 74 71 68 66 Railroad Ave. and E. 8th V-4 St. — Loveland 3 86 18 South 76 72 69 69 62 Third St. and V-3 Capitol Ave.— Berthoud 2 2 22 South 78 73 70 72 67 Atwood St. and 6th Ave. V-2 —Longmont 3 45 11 North 70 64 59 59 58 Source: HMMH field data, 2006. • Note: Site V-1 is not near freight rails. • 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences Three alternatives are being evaluated for this Draft EIS: the No-Action Alternative, Package A, and Package B. Each alternative was evaluated for noise and vibration impacts (FHU, 2008a; HMMH, 2008). Depending on the alternative, some project area roads may be widened or realigned resulting in traffic closer to adjoining properties. Increased traffic volumes, increased traffic speeds, or different road alignments may lead to impacts from traffic. Rail transit would be added with Package A, which may cause impacts from rail along the existing corridors or may introduce impacts from rail into new corridors. The important new noise and vibration sources or changed conditions that were the focus of the noise and vibration analysis included: ► Road design changes in the 1-25 corridor (Packages A and B) ► Traffic volumes on 1-25 (all alternatives) ► Rail transit equipment and operations with the freight rail operations (Package A only) ► Traffic volumes on roads connecting to 1-25 from commuter buses, feeder buses, etc. (Packages A and B) ► New transit and maintenance facilities, parking lots, and access roads (Packages A and B) Some other sources were considered but found not to be important. For example, CDOT requires analysis of noise impacts if a project would make major physical changes to a road • (CDOT, 2002). Small changes, such as addition of traffic control devices, do not require noise analysis. Packages A and B both would make major changes by widening roads in the 1-25 corridor. Noise and Vibration 3.6-13 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Outside the 1-25 corridor, minor proposed changes to the project area roads that may affect • noise or vibration conditions would be installation of queue jumps for buses at select intersections and addition of commuter/feeder bus traffic on the existing roads. The queue jumps would be small changes within the existing road right-of-way and would not cause a substantive change in traffic noise, so the queue jumps are inconsequential for noise impacts. The loudest noise scenario for additional bus traffic on any project area road would be six buses per hour (three buses in each direction), which is a trivial amount of traffic relative to the volumes that already would be on these roads. The additional bus traffic would not have a material effect on traffic noise levels, so bus traffic noise was eliminated from detailed examination as well. Therefore, project area roads outside the 1-25 corridor, such as US 85, US 287, and SH 119, were not subjected to detailed traffic noise analysis because the proposed alternatives would not materially change noise conditions on these roads. However, new transit facilities (bus or rail) and new access roads to these facilities that were part of the alternatives were examined for noise impacts regardless of location within the regional study area because these facilities could be substantial changes at the local level. For the detailed analyses, future noise and vibration levels were evaluated for areas near the road and rail corridors in the project area for each alternative. The analyses for the alternatives assessed whether future levels near the project corridors would exceed the relevant CDOT, FHWA, or FTA criteria (Section 3.6.1). If future noise or vibration impacts were identified, mitigation measures were considered and evaluated following the relevant CDOT, FHWA, or FTA guidelines. • As previously described, many sensitive areas exist along the corridors in the project area (Figure 3.6-1). Noise and vibration results for these areas are presented below and impacts are summarized in Section 3.6.6. Detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C. 3.6.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE . Only potential impacts from road traffic are relevant for the No-Action Alternative; no changes to rail facilities would be made. As described in Section 3.6.2.4, traffic vibration would not be a major concern. Therefore, only potential road traffic noise impacts (Appendix C) are relevant for the No-Action Alternative and are discussed below. Results for this alternative for year 2030 (Figure 3.6-6) would be similar to existing conditions results. Traffic noise patterns would be similar to existing conditions with noise levels pushed out a bit farther from the roads due to increased traffic volumes, so that impacted areas would be slightly larger overall. Areas impacted under existing conditions also would be impacted under this alternative. For the No-Action Alternative, it is calculated that 505 Category B receivers and 121 Category C receivers in the project area would be impacted by traffic noise (Table 3.6-6). The residential areas calculated to be impacted are: ► Wellington East (Wellington) — 16 receivers ► Mountain Range Shadows (Larimer County)— 69 receivers ► Isolated/scattered homes along I-25 in Larimer and Weld counties — 70 receivers ► Numerous neighborhoods abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster, and in Adams County— 350 receivers • Noise and Vibration 3.6.14 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. IIIFigure 3.6-6 Noise-Impacted Areas for the No-Action Alternative (Year 2030) LEGEND ( Noise Impacted Receivers ` o Impacted Category B Receiver I % R It",,«, ``�.,\• 85 o Impacted Category C Receiver / •_ ,,,_„ o Cities & Towns j� t ® 23 Category B • rl 'a. ; Regional Study Area /, T. lI -. i - 2 Category C Pierce ^l, Study Corridors I AFort Collins-A .�, .a4=IN /� Highways I --�•.- _— r � Ault \ 14 _ 25 ! \ /\/ Arterial Roads { I � •� Tam h- Eata�R ,I • City Boundaries � ! j' � _ t 100 Category B t dis, I , 287 - - '� I 46 Category C Lucerne I t i l ; tL�_ _ , .' { Greeley i -- ..._ _�I {'. _ go — a 34 _. I J , J, . ` '� ':" Gar den City• _ -Loy land " l' . . I ; �i+ t — - . — __ -H Fans pa "• la Salle • ;/ 1 '4 I l Pion �Jahrast i/ 1•. 6o - Berthoud 9 Milliken 85 % • / • C uilUest • " 32 Category B A 52 Category C r �q j rI..d i. / ' fl altevi I 66 7 n . . it Longmont µ ! , I . L `' Vollmar v / • Q Firestone gititck I . Niwot ..Freda..\__ __ t, • - ) / . - t! Ga arx Fur l urxrn , GnGvrel 1 . s fp. Elie -- • 1 76 / • Q Boulder �_.-. t • i / _._, f 1 L;arayetteI� � .� 7 • Louisville •.- .. . j b iyht x -_ yy ��' `� / •N 1 . r _ _. 1I I . •\., h r Eastlake-t--�43t let son / ' N.� " 9auntitld I ` 1 �••N., -' I 350 Category B a — ' •` It 21 Category C _R_ _ a36 "" 287 0 nantcn I I - \- i / L____. • i r _. a SS I 70 I 0 2 4 6 8 10 _ pl ...... k " I is # [.., I %{ r t t t I Miles North t r 1 • Source: FHU project data, 2007. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-15 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. In addition, portions of Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, • Willowbrook Park, Niver Creek Open Space, Civic Center Park, and Thorncreek Golf Course are calculated to have traffic noise levels at or above the CDOT NAC for Category B. No receivers would be expected to experience a 10-dBA increase; the largest calculated increase would be 6 dBA. The farthest distance from a modeled road to a receiver impacted by traffic noise in year 2030 would be approximately 400 feet from 1-25. Table 3.6-6 Summary of Traffic Noise Impacts Highway Number of Noise-Impacted Receivers (Category B / Category C) Component Existing (2005) No-Action Package A(2030) Package B (2030) (2030) Component A-H1: 13/2 23/2 23/2 23/2 SH1toSH14 Component A-H2: 93/35 100/46 93 /47 93/42 SH 14 to SH 60 Component A-H3: 31 /45 32/52 37/50 38/50 SH 60 to E-470 Component A-H4: 237/ 17 350/21 350/21 469/39 E-470 to US 36 Total 374/99 505/ 121 503/ 120 623/133 Source:FHU project data, 2007. 3.6.3.2 PACKAGE A Both road and rail noise and vibration are relevant for Package A. Each of these two travel modes are discussed separately below. As described in Section 3.6.2.4, traffic vibration is not a major concern and is not discussed further. Traffic Noise For convenience, this discussion is divided into highway traffic noise based on the FHWA process and bus transit noise based on the FTA process. Highway Noise. Detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C. For Package A, 503 Category B receivers and 120 Category C receivers in the project area would be impacted by traffic noise (Figure 3.6-7), which represents three fewer receivers than for the No-Action Alternative (Table 3.6-6). Traffic noise impacts are summarized by project component in Table 3.6-6.The greatest number of impacted receivers is in the southern end of the corridor, which is also where the greatest number of existing impacted receivers are located. All of the impacted receivers would equal or exceed the NAC; no impacts would result from a 10 dBA increase. Package A would impact the fewest traffic noise receivers of the alternatives partly because some homes would need to be removed. Results for Package A are similar to the No-Action Alternative results for 2030. Even with the proposed roadway changes, many of the same receivers would be impacted. However, Package A is calculated to impact some different receivers due to wider roads and greater traffic volumes. A few receivers impacted under the • No-Action Alternative would be removed under Package A, thereby reducing the number of impacted receivers in a few areas. Noise and Vibration 3.6.16 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. SFigure 3.6-7 Noise-Impacted Areas for Package A (Year 2030) , LEGEND L ( , ca Impacted Category B Receiver 0 Impacted Category C Receiver �' ;Wigton '�.. , a Cities & Towns 1',� `N _:_ ire Regional Study Area \•1 ' --( Component A-H1 �l _ - _ ^/ Study Corridors i'` -4 � _ -723 Category B #� ",// Highways F'"1t` 2 Category C �, Fort Collins.: _. \ ,� I/ /.\/ Arterial Roads I • ss \ UV- i • i E Ault City Boundaries I ' 7 j - ♦ I 1 I 1 • j s� in, _ Component A-H2 ' . ; , 1 93 Category B 1 i t 287 _ ... 47 Category C k Lucern. \ 392 ` -- -- I 4_- i Lit I r `\\ Greeley 1 �,. `I.t • Low land' ! '_.._ GardenCiy ._j&, c I - Ev. 0 l � ' t La Sall % { I - ,lohnsto - Campion / , i - ...1~ l 85 /- ' Bef ! 9 Milliken {.1 t 1 . i �. , . I • t . ; Component A-H3 S I i 37 Category B _.'. • 50 Category C I l Platteville . . - . n • T `;'. ongmont i ' f '- Ion ' - t 1 ' : a �b ; y ` "' & ti Vollmer° I _ l s °Feestone ...--- Niwot `• • i ,Frederick eifil 7 --- • •, PDaoDno Fort Lupt 1 / 1, unbarrel 1 1).1—('4, ,; i Erie I( - r__ -- 1 - • ,`, Lafayette 1 P ; f;flght• N b ...._• . ,\ Eastlake ! " °roo�fi�ld ' _ He I `�'.� ' Component A-H4 `N� �` " Nor 350 Category B , .. . 9 rY - .f ' • •,or 21 Category C t / I / i • /7 , • • .y 1 , Denver-3z t I NV 0 2 4 6 8 10 /\ ' I I 1 ' Miles North � Leas/I- l! t • 2 Source: FHU project data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-17 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Residential areas that would be impacted are: • ► Wellington East (Wellington) — 16 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Mountain Range Shadows (Larimer County) — 69 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Margil Farms (Mead) — 7 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Singletree Estates (Mead)—2 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Isolated/scattered homes along 1-25 in Larimer and Weld Counties — 59 receivers (fewer than No-Action Alternative) ► Numerous neighborhoods and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster, and in Adams County— 350 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) In addition, portions of Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, Willowbrook Park, Niver Creek Open Space, Civic Center Park, and Thorncreek Golf Course would have traffic noise levels above the CDOT NAC for Category B. The farthest distance from a modeled road to an impacted receiver in year 2030 would be approximately 500 feet. Commuter Bus Transit Noise (Components A-T3/A-T4). A total of five new commuter bus parking lots (Figure 3.6-8), two potential maintenance facilities and associated access roads were evaluated for noise impacts following FTA procedures (FTA, 2006). The FTA screening process was the first step in the evaluations. Results from the screening showed no potential • noise impacts would occur from any of the commuter bus parking lots or maintenance facilities or four of the associated access roads. However, the screening showed that an access road to the proposed 42nd Street lot (Figure 3.6-8) needed to be reviewed using the more detailed FTA General Assessment procedures. Results from the general assessment indicated there would be no noise impacts to nearby homes. Therefore, Component A-T3 would not cause traffic noise impacts, and no noise mitigation considerations are necessary. Rail Transit Noise and Vibration For convenience, this discussion has been divided into rail noise and rail vibration. Both are based on the FTA process. Rail Transit Noise. The assessment of noise impacts from commuter rail operations is based on a comparison of existing noise conditions with projected future noise conditions following the FTA land use categories. Projected noise exposures in Ldn at locations without obstructions near commuter rail operations as a function of distance are illustrated in Figure 3.6-9. This figure shows 75 MPH train speeds, which is a worst case situation for the corridor, to ensure that potential rail noise impacts are not underestimated. Comparisons of existing and future noise levels are presented in Table 3.6-7 for residential locations along the rail alignment. Based on a comparison of the calculated project noise level with the impact criteria, Table 3.6-7 includes an inventory of the number of residences that would be impacted for each area along the corridor. The results indicate that moderate noise impact is predicted at a total of 167 residences along the project rail corridor, due • primarily to train horn noise (The train horn noise level assumed for this analysis is 90 decibels). No severe noise impacts are predicted for the corridor. Noise and Vibration 3.6.18 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.6-8 Proposed Bus Transit Parking Lots for Packages A and B 11 LEGEND I • Package A Bus Lots '1 • Package B Bus Lots o Cities & Towns / -- •\ � [3 Regional Study Area rk W •‘\ — - Pierce ^, Study Corridors i / ^/ Highways i Fort ollin3 /\/ Arterial Roads Aug I F, ` I : i City Boundaries i •. • • 1vnnath erance • I Cob •jr i_i- Irv" ,I • — Enter i _. .4 1 . • c l _� Creele,� 7, L • Gordon c i Loveiand 34' 1 ever• ) r 42nd I a sal /I• t` I Campton Johrit Street i Lot ,pr 5i, Lr°'t n.W • a ............ 1i 1 I r ! Gidcr 1 I . • I • t 0 Moao _ -_ • arlevllla I , ant • • root {` Vcxmarp I r anuestrms ! r• � i NSW OFr40t+ri:k • r • wnanrurn Fort I.**to . " ',_- le- • e •Goodarrel ) / / O Eric i O ILL Watlonborg r ;' Boulder I , , . lalayetto .-4 ""m-) 71 i Liub B / 6140110 \.-' / ----1)4N- SN' --..\- / ��. O CneNnhe cw 8rmlreld 4 I Tt] North r / erhoraton / I / I r /2j — H 1 • 3/4 Er' ; r Denver-, ww . V V t t __ i �. 0 2 4 6 8 10 A 1 / , I I , l Miles North •--- _' 0 . Source: FHU project data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-19 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-9 Projected Commuter Rail Noise Exposure at 75 MPH Train Speed • 70 65 60 to m 55 a J 0 :5h1 5 • D • 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance from Near Track(feet) W ithout Horns — —-With Horns Source:HMMH project data, 2007. S Noise and Vibration 3.6-20 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . Table 3.6-7 Summary of Residential Noise Impacts from Commuter Rail To' Train Speed Ldn Noise Level (dBA) CD es co Y v (MPH) 3 y co0 y � o ° Q a 112 F Z V v . CD Q 7 0 2 0 Location o '" Y m > c P m a o co N o o O N_ n- N U W C c- EC ,- a r k y c- a —NO0 C Q 3 p Z fA Q — Z Commuter Rail Component From Fort Collins To Longmont(Component A-T1) Loveland: Mountain Ash Place East 40 37 29 68 70 2 2 E. 23rd Street East 40 62 43 68 70 2 5 W. 1st Street West 45 35 35 77 78 1 3 Campion: 35th St. SW East 40 75 61 63 65 2 1 Longmont: 21st Ave. —23rd Ave. West 55 40 40 69 70 1 9 19th Ave.—21st Ave. East 40 40 40 68 70 2 31 17th Ave.— 19th Ave. East 40 40 40 68 69 1 16 17th Ave.— 19th Ave. West 55 40 40 69 70 1 14 17th Avenue East 30 40 40 76 77 1 3 15th Ave. — 17th Ave. East 50 40 40 74 75 1 2 15th Avenue East 50 40 40 67 69 2 1 Mtn. View Ave. — East 50 40 40 67 68 1 8 • 15th Ave. 11th Ave— Mtn. View East 70 40 40 66 67 1 15 Ave. 9th Ave. — 10th Ave. East 50 35 35 67 68 1 7 8th Ave.—9th Ave. East 50 35 35 74 75 1 2 8th Ave.—9th Ave. West 45 35 35 77 78 1 3 Atwood St./3rd— East 50 35 35 74 75 1 29 8th Ave. Total for Component: 151 Commuter Rail Component From Longmont To Thornton (Component A-T2) Erie: CR 7 East 120 75 75 56 60 4 1 Erie: CR 7 West 135 75 75 56 59 3 1 Dacono: CR 8 East 80 60 60 59 62 3 14 Total for Component: 16 Source:HMMH project data, 2007. For the rail component from Fort Collins to Longmont (Component A-T1), noise impacts are predicted at 151 residences located within 70 feet of the nearest track; 140 of these are in Longmont. For the rail component from Longmont to Thornton (Component A-T2), noise impacts are predicted for 16 residences within 135 feet of the nearest track; 14 of these are in Dacono. Rail Vibration. The approach used for assessing vibration impact generally follows the approach used for assessing noise impact, except that existing vibration levels are not considered when evaluating impact (FTA, 2006). For residential buildings with nighttime occupancy, the criterion for the detailed FTA analysis is a maximum vibration velocity level of • 72 VdB, measured in one-third octave bands over the frequency range from 8 Hz to 80 Hz. The same receivers used for the rail noise analysis were evaluated for the vibration impact assessment. Noise and Vibration 3.6-21 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The projected maximum overall ground vibration levels from commuter rail operations in • various parts of the corridor are shown in Figure 3.6-10 as a function of distance for the maximum train speed of 75 MPH. This train speed is consistent with the rail noise analysis and ensures that potential impacts are not underestimated. The residential criterion for an FTA general assessment (75 VdB) is also shown. These results indicate that for maximum train speed operation, ground-borne vibration impact would typically be expected to occur at residential buildings located within 40 feet to 80 feet from the track, depending on location in the corridor. Detailed projections of future vibration levels are presented in Table 3.6-8 for residential locations along the rail alignment where impacts are anticipated. Based on a comparison of the predicted project vibration level with the FTA impact criterion, results also indicate the number of residences where vibration impact is predicted for each residential area along the corridor. Results indicate that vibration impact is projected for a total of 87 residences within 65 feet of the nearest track, consisting of 37 residences in Loveland and 50 residences in Longmont. Vibration impacts affect 60 residences that would also have rail noise impacts and 27 residences that would not. Figure 3.6-10 Projected Commuter Rail Ground Vibration Levels at 75 MPH 110 00 • Et m 90 - - a a ao o 70 `. E 60 E I g 50 40 Ali 10 100 1000 Distance from Track Centerline(ft) —X—Site V-5(Fort Collins) tSite V-4(Loveland) Site V-3(Berthoud) -e-Site V-2(Longmont) —a—Site V-1 (Dacono) FTA Criterion(Cat.2) Source:HMMH project data, 2007. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-22 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.6-8 Summary of Residential Vibration Impact Without Mitigation Train Maximum Vibration Total Location along Rail Side of Distance to Speed Level (VdB re 1 Number of Alignment Track Nearest (MPH) pin./sec) Vibration Track (feet) NB SB Alt.A FTA Impacts Criterion Commuter Rail Component From Fort Collins To Longmont(Component A-T1) Loveland: Mountain Ash Place East 40 37 29 75 72 2 E. 23rd Street East 40 62 43 79 72 5 W. 10th St-W. 13th St West 65 54 70 72 72 13 Jackson Avenue East 40 63 62 79 72 3 E. 12th St— Eisenhower East 60 58 67 72 72 6 Blvd E. 11th S-E. 12th St East 50 54 70 74 72 2 E. 10th St- E. 11th S East 40 53 70 77 72 3 W. 1st Street West 45 35 35 73 72 3 Longmont: E. 17th Av— E. 21st Av East 40 40 40 75 72 47 E. 15th Av— E. 17th Av East 30 40 40 84 72 3 Total for Component: 87 Commuter Rail Component From Longmont To Thornton (Component A-T2 None I I 0 Total for Component: 0 iSource:HMMH project data, 2007. 3.6.33 PACKAGE B Only potential impacts from road traffic are relevant for Package B; no rail facilities are included. As described in Section 3.6.2.4, traffic vibration would not be a major concern. Therefore, only potential road traffic noise impacts are relevant for Package B and are discussed below. For convenience, this discussion has been divided into highway traffic noise based on the FHWA process and bus transit noise based on the FTA process. Highway Noise. Detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C. For Package B, 623 Category B receivers and 133 Category C receivers in the project area would be impacted by traffic noise (Figure 3.6-11), which represents 130 more receivers than the No- Action Alternative (Table 3.6-6). Of these 756 impacts, 755 would result from reaching the NAC and one Category C receiver would increase by 10 dBA over existing conditions. Traffic noise impacts are summarized by project component in Table 3.6-6. As with Package A, the majority of these impacts would occur in the southern end of the corridor. Results for Package B are similar to the No-Action Alternative results for 2030. Even with the proposed roadway changes, many of the same receivers would be impacted. This is largely because both alternatives focus on the 1-25 corridor. However, Package B is calculated to _ impact more receivers due to wider roads and greater traffic volumes. More receivers along I- 25 would be impacted primarily because of additional travel lanes. A few of the receivers impacted under the No-Action Alternative would be removed under Package B, thereby ereducing the number of impacted receivers in a few areas. Noise and Vibration 3.6-23 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-11 Noise-Impacted Areas for Package B (Year 2030) I (. LEGEND i' a Impacted Category B Receiver 0 Impacted Category C Receiver neon I 0 Cities & Towns ,• �N Sala co in 1 1 Regional Study Area `' !� ‘‘,..41/4... r Component B-H1 \. _ At Study Corridors jt - ---tki 23 Category B fce `.\ r "/ Highways + I / Fort Collins - 2 Category C :\ /./ Arterial Roads 1 ' \----- , 75® • , ' ; Ault 1 41 City Boundaries 57 I - + j \ willimmella im th - Component B-H2 : ..' • i - -- i ' , '' s 93 Category B 287 , I 42 Category C _ , : Lucern. , � \ G - Greeley 1 �- p 1 "--`-- 2631 s 34 "ti... j`rt' ~ �Gardenr., `c. - r- Lovi land -1 - 34 --. Evan • LaSall•t / t I Campos 1:4-2t--1 /' t. 85 i�Bert 0 MillikenR /•tComponent B-H3 38 Category B 1 Q50 Category C D eatFlIatteWlle iI ongmont iI- 1/ ' Ion ; ' Vdlmere i, 10NiWOt _ rederick no +• Daco Fort Lupton ,` ;/ 96unbarrel r r/ _ j' f, Erie /a 0 t_ ' Wallenberg ; i'Boulder �• I s k . Lala9ette ►Jw 1R --..s I ■.� 1 t 7 '0e 41 �� --- Bright y __-1-- I �;' ` roa�.teld Eastlake He ! —---i( 1 I �'-.1 1 I ` Component B-H4 -. ' '\, a 1 Nor • 469 Category B .__r �� ` 39 Category C Z ---- _ t - i /, l .._ - t - , I , , t ;• - �c t--1-\r �. , T - — /1 'V Denver/lam. / Y . l i ?� - i i I i " I 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles North �._..� N , ri I N :- , 1 ( / Source: FHU project data, 2007. I Noise and Vibration 3.6-24 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The residential areas that would be impacted are: ► Wellington East (Wellington)— 16 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Mountain Range Shadows (Larimer County) — 69 receivers (same as No-Action Alternative) ► Margil Farms (Mead)— 7 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Singletree Estates (Mead) — 2 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) ► Isolated/scattered homes along 1-25 in Larimer and Weld Counties — 60 receivers (fewer than No-Action Alternative) ► Numerous neighborhoods and isolated receivers abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams County —469 receivers (more than No-Action Alternative) In addition, parts of the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, Willowbrook Park, Niver Creek Open Space, Civic Center Park and Thorncreek Golf Course would have traffic noise levels above the CDOT NAC for Category B. The farthest distance from a modeled road to a receiver impacted by traffic noise in year 2030 would be approximately 525 feet from 1-25. Package B would impact the most receivers from traffic noise of all the alternatives. This is • primarily because it would result in the most vehicles traveling on the widest 1-25 profile at the highest speeds, thus producing more traffic noise. Bus Rapid Transit Noise (Components B-T1/B-T2). For Package B, a total of 12 bus rapid transit parking lot locations (Figure 3.6-8), two potential maintenance facilities and the associated access roads were evaluated for noise impacts following the FTA procedures (FTA, 2006). The FTA screening process was the first step in the evaluations and the results from the screening indicated no potential noise impacts would occur from any of the bus rapid transit elements. For all the parking lot locations, maintenance facilities and the associated access roads, adjacent buildings were found to be beyond the perimeter distance where noise impacts would occur. Therefore, it has been concluded that Package B bus rapid transit elements would not cause traffic noise impacts, and noise mitigation considerations are not necessary. 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures The results from noise measurements and modeling for the Draft EIS indicate that many receivers would be impacted by noise or vibration from each of the alternatives. Therefore, noise reduction actions for the impacted areas were investigated (CDOT, 2002; FHWA, 1995; FTA, 2006). It is important to note that impacted areas are not guaranteed mitigation measures under either the CDOT or FTA guidelines, but mitigation measures for the areas must be evaluated. Noise and vibration impacts from the alternatives affected multiple geographic areas and multiple land uses. Several types of mitigation were considered. Noise barriers are a common • mitigation action and were evaluated. There currently are several noise mitigation barriers (installed by other projects) within the 1-25 corridor. Other kinds of mitigation also were considered. The overall feasibility and reasonableness of noise reduction actions that provide a minimum acceptable mitigation benefit for the impacted receivers were evaluated and these Noise and Vibration 3.6.25 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. actions were then either recommended or not. For convenience, the mitigation discussion is • divided between road actions and rail actions. 3.6.4.1 EXISTING NOISE BARRIERS There currently are several traffic noise barriers in the project area (Figure 3.6-3) primarily south of E-470. These barriers are comprised of both berms and walls. The walls consist of both older "first generation" CDOT wooden walls and newer masonry walls. The barriers were included in the traffic noise modeling for the Draft EIS and the model results showed that the existing barriers are effective at reducing traffic noise to the homes behind the barriers. There are two important considerations within the Draft EIS regarding the existing barriers: new construction from the project that would require removal of an existing barrier, and the fate of deteriorating existing walls not touched by new construction. First, if any of the existing barriers must be removed for construction, the removed barrier would be replaced with an equivalent or better barrier as part of Package A or Package B. Second, the wooden CDOT barriers along 1-25 are deteriorating and their long-term effectiveness is in doubt. Therefore, any of the CDOT wooden barriers remaining in the project corridor at the time of construction of this project would be replaced, but only if Package B is the selected alternative. (Package B is the only alternative including improvements near the wooden barriers.) The details of a replacement barrier would be determined during final design of the construction element relevant to the barrier. It is important to understand that these barrier replacements would not be new noise mitigation actions because the old barriers are products of previous projects. Barrier replacement is considered to be the restoration of infrastructure • disturbed by construction. Therefore, the feasibility and reasonableness of replacement barriers was not evaluated for this project. 3.6.4.2 NON-BARRIER TRAFFIC NOISE MITIGATION EVALUATIONS CDOT guidelines require the evaluation of several mitigation options other than noise barriers. For reasons described below, barriers appear to be the only viable mitigation action and were the only mitigation evaluated through modeling. Traffic management measures, such as lane closures or reduced speeds, could reduce noise but do not appear to be reasonable for the roads of primary interest to the project. One of the reasons for the road improvements in the regional study area is to enhance intra-regional and inter-regional traffic flow. I-25 is a major regional and national highway and closing lanes would conflict with its function. While reducing vehicle speeds could reduce traffic noise, it would not be consistent with the function of an interstate highway. Changes in horizontal alignments of the roads near the impacted receivers could reduce noise but have limited possibilities. This action would require snaking 1-25 around current developed areas; however, removing unnecessary curves that reduce the safety of a high-speed interstate highway is one of the project goals for 1-25. Also, many of the impacted Category B receivers are in areas that are developed on both sides of 1-25, limiting possible horizontal realignments. Moving 1-25 horizontally away from some impacted receivers could reduce traffic noise in those areas but could transfer the impacts to other neighboring areas or require disruptions of adjoining property uses. Wholesale relocation of 1-25 from its current corridor would have profound cost, environmental, and functional ramifications, so horizontal relocation 411 of 1-25 for noise reduction is neither feasible nor reasonable. Noise and Vibration 3.6-26 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Changes in vertical alignments could reduce noise. Changes in vertical alignments were included for some parts of some alternatives in the project area. For example, the current elevation profiles would be reversed at the SH 56 and SH 402 interchanges with 1-25. However, wholesale changes in corridor road elevations could have secondary impacts on connecting or adjoining roads that would not be reasonable or desirable. In summary, vertical elevation changes were evaluated, but vertical realignments just to reduce traffic noise are not practical. Noise buffer zones could reduce noise. Many of the newer developments along 1-25 include these, but many of the older residential areas do not. Often, past development has occurred purposely near the roads for access, which left little or no space for a buffer. In many places, there generally is little available undeveloped land along the project roads that could be used for a noise buffer zone or a vegetative planting area that would provide substantial noise benefit. Pavement types and surfaces can affect traffic noise. Research efforts to learn more about the long-term noise benefits of different pavement types and surface treatments are ongoing. Quieter pavement types could be preferred for the project if and when the requirements for safety, durability, and other considerations are met. However, they cannot be used as a mitigation action under the noise reduction evaluation because they are not a "permanent" solution to tire noise. 3.6.4.3 TRAFFIC NOISE BARRIER EVALUATIONS In addition to the existing barriers, noise barriers in some new areas could be appropriate for an alternative. To permit the evaluation of potential noise barriers, computer models of barriers • protecting the impacted areas were developed and the models were re-run to assess barrier effectiveness (FHU, 2008a). Each potential barrier was assessed for effectiveness and feasibility. CDOT's goal for noise barrier benefits is a reduction of 10 dBA with a minimum reduction of 5 dBA. If the minimum parameters for an effective barrier were met and the barrier was feasible, the barrier was evaluated through a reasonability assessment according to CDOT guidance (CDOT, 2002). The feasibility and reasonableness of each barrier determined whether the barrier has been recommended for the project. The locations evaluated for new noise barriers are shown in Figure 3.6-12. Typical barrier locations would be on road right-of-way, but off right-of-way locations (farther away from 1-25 and on someone else's property) were also evaluated where physical conditions warranted additional investigation (FHU, 2008a). In instances where only part of a neighborhood would be impacted by noise, barriers benefiting the entire neighborhood were evaluated for thoroughness. It is important to note that the noise barriers could be either earth berms or constructed walls because either material could be effective. Berms can be very effective but occupy considerably more space than comparable walls. Throughout the project area, the impacted receivers tend to be rather close to the project roads. This usually makes earth berms impractical or impossible choices for the noise barriers. Barriers more than 25 feet tall were not considered due to the impractical structural requirements. The topography of the corridor plays a very important role in the overall noise environment and in noise mitigation results. Physical placement of a barrier is a consideration. The preferred barrier location is on CDOT right-of-way for several reasons. In some places in the project area, the land adjoining CDOT right-of-way may be generally incompatible to convert to noise mitigation uses, • such as a park or wildlife area. Also, there would be long-term ownership, access, maintenance, and cost concerns for CDOT if a barrier is placed on someone else's property or if more property Noise and Vibration 3.6.27 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-12 Locations of Traffic Noise Barriers Evaluated I c LEGEND - ;Wellington_East Potential New Barriert��a,_ Existing Barrier i�•- \•,�o 1 0 Cities & Towns `\+ in 1 Regional Study Area i — I Pi ace . w Study Corridors ! Fort Colhiu: :\v_. // /�/ Highways i Au ' I '`� I asizi /�/ Arterial Roads 257 i \ 41 City Boundaries i - I Tim path 0 n iayerance \ f I . 287 . l 1 d - -._� MOllntain r!rtE ;1 392jRange Shadows I\I : lam_ !- _- aie; R� j.l �"1'` --Loveland I � _�_ G..ienCit; i 34S — - L..f _ la Salle ; , ° Campion Qlchnstwen / j r1 60 / �: Berthoud ' 0 85 / t 56 '-. / 6ilcr est le / IIIMead , • • I - ' • I %are.11e ;-' I -_ I 1 Lonrgmonl r: ne- d— I /.. Vclhr:a 0 -- -- ' _ __ IL nestca4 j$WOt .•yr. O `tede :k 1 -- C'Aw*� Fat luoat 1 -i�' Gutt Gutter'ill I / • 1Natt itlwni - • I7 i Boulder _v ti_a_ I �0 W I e / ' latapene N ---. I 7 • i lwisille - s'1/4.., \ Sv .t. ( i 1 1, [ ' . '---,. - r e. Thorncreek \•; Broomfield •" fa nral t' n—Thi r '-\t Stone Mountain , .' 93 F'\; rill-. 361 l —"°ru1s'N;� Greens of Northglenn) .. _ 1 Acri t ' ---�- - ti--. Badding Reservoir -- `-- \ I r- - 72 - ; �, Brittany Ridge • ."t _ I I _ t Denver— 0 2 4 6 8 10 S " -r It /"" I I ' ' Miles North • L.11 N,_,,ti , Source: FHU project data, 2007. 411 Noise and Vibration 3.6-28 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • needs to be acquired just for a barrier. Nevertheless, placement of traffic noise barriers off CDOT right-of-way may be possible in select situations (FHU, 2008a). CDOT guidelines state that a traffic noise mitigation action is unreasonable if the cost-benefit is more than $4,000/receiver/decibel of noise reduction (CDOT, 2002). This is based on an assumed cost of$30/square foot of barrier. However, cost-benefit is not the only consideration for reasonableness (CDOT, 2002). Isolated receivers (e.g., dispersed homes) are a special case worth noting. For a barrier protecting a single receiver to be reasonable, the barrier size could be no more than about 670 square feet if it reduces noise by 5 dBA or no more than about 1,300 square feet if it reduces noise by 10 dBA. It is a rare situation where barriers of such small sizes provide that much noise reduction. Therefore, it is usually not reasonable to construct barriers for isolated receivers. There would be approximately 60 isolated Category B receivers, primarily north of SH 7, in the project area and barriers for two example locations were evaluated to represent the entire group (Table 3.6-9). Results of the feasibility and reasonableness evaluation are shown in Table 3.6-9. The noise barriers summarized below were located on CDOT property, generally at the edge of the road right-of-way. Some but not all of the barriers evaluated are recommended for construction for some of the alternatives at this point in time (Table 3.6-9). Traffic noise barriers were assessed to be feasible and reasonable for the following locations and are therefore recommended for • construction (Table 3.6-9): ► Wellington East— Packages A and B ► Mountain Range Shadows — Packages A and B ► Thorncreek Village — Package B only ► Stone Mountain Apartments — Package B only ► Greens of Northglenn — Package B only ► Badding Reservoir extension — Package B only ► Brittany Ridge extension — Package B only The locations for these recommended noise barriers are illustrated in Figure 3.6-13 through Figure 3.6-18, respectively. The design requirements for noise barriers in a given location may vary by alternative because of differences in road designs. These recommendations are based on the current project road designs. The recommendations are all for barriers within road rights-of-way. If the final designs in the future differ from that assumed in these evaluations, corresponding adjustments to the mitigation evaluations may be required. More details on the noise barriers can be found in Traffic Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FHU, 2008a). • Noise and Vibration 3.6.29 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.6-9 Traffic Noise Mitigation Barrier Summary r :, Q c.- 2 Noise f 'En y 0.. c•- Noise d Impacted a) « v ; A 01 m c Category B = °' °0 c > o 76 c °' Comment Area d � a) 0 0 to ra o r° r° O v LL 0 U CO m o a X K Wellington East 10-12 1,000 1,900 3-12 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Packages A and B. Mountain 12 2,500 2,400 3-7 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Packages A Range and B. Shadows Near LCR 20E 14 470 18,000 0-11 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to be prohibitive. Johnsons 10 675 11,200 3-9 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to Corner be prohibitive. Campground Margil Farms 16 2,200 7,000 3-6 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to be prohibitive. Singletree 16 3,200 41,000 3-5 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to Estates be prohibitive. St.Vrain State 14 2,700 75,000 5 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to Park be prohibitive. Near WCR 22 12 550 16,500 6 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to be prohibitive. • Near WCR 16 675 27,000 6 Yes No No Cost-benefit was calculated to 2050 be prohibitive. Thorncreek 14 1,850 3,800 3-7 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Package B Village only. Stone Mountain 14 1,300 1,300 3-10 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Package B Apartments only. Greens of 10-12 600 1,100 3-8 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Package B Northglenn only. Badding 12 900 4,100 3-8 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Package B Reservoir only. extension Brittany Ridge 12 1,300 3,000 3-7 Yes Yes Yes Recommended for Package B extension only. Isolated 10 720 31,000 7 Yes No No An example of an isolated receiver#1 receiver. Cost-benefit was (Wellington) calculated to be prohibitive. Isolated 8-12 550 24,000 7 Yes No No An example of an isolated receiver#2 receiver. Cost-benefit was (SH 7) calculated to be prohibitive. Source:FHU project data,2007. *Assumes cost of$30/square foot of barrier surface. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-30 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ipFigure 3.6-13 Recommended Noise Barrier near Wellington y LEGEND ' `f j,i a Recommended Barrier 4 1•�i • Alternative Road Layout .• /,, / ,., '''' • 1' ' a ,1 1 _ F,. 1 -`� II- ' I it ittl3e. . f . iii lit . 1. et. %v. t _Jo,. !.. so I PI jt' Weiiington ''` t� tif 4 als, .. ' , . h•� Y ,.. _�� m:. ;..� 1 �- tro hi t • ,-; 4.-1 ...,I �; 4` ! • • i RC --iiilL' '4\LI ... .—..... 4 r -- . Ili - kR j s? [. R } _4 0 250 500 v\ �.I fiy' • ,e . I Feel Mn .,l I • _ a, .. ei a aiirSi Si' - . ain , Source: FHU project data, 2007. Figure 3.6-14 Recommended Noise Barrier near Mountain Range Shadows � i . LEGEND ' -- -. la. a Recommended Barrier r ill� I: 4Alternative Road Layout f ' 44, t •, �. •;a �, +*` + \IA pig �. ll Ili • *;as _a q�. 14 #4, 4 1 •q. •I{ - . if.-. •MOM\I Ire; ze et #,• a r � M•unt. inI 44 + ` 0.n• •- _ 0••• '1rs •. l . , • a Sh - • •WS Au t •. — ar '1� I' 4. v •w f ■ l 's il;I Oairtr •_ I I ROAD a„ w w I: I Q f. pi I II I • • 4114 • 0 250 500 Feet -' Source: FHU project data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-31 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.6-15 Recommended Noise Barrier near Thorncreek Village I LEGEND - .•I '` -• I a Recommended Barrier . i , iir As ` I - 4 Alternative Road Layout ,„ ' `' • `4y. --- 1 , Itk ? l ‘ sto 4: • 1 I • a \--\Zik ; Finish — • a'` " . 4,1 i ' lib Ale* . ,re: I, 0 250 500 77. .. = 128th Ave Lti Feet North - _• IIIIIIIILJI " ' t i•c IN .# ,._.,,,, .,,,. 1,. _ - 35 Source: FHU project data, 2007. I 36 37 Figure 3.6-16 Recommended Noise Barriers near Community Center Drive a r . — ♦ - i - .O..• •i._-. "o - ' r ici ts LEGEND ;�-. `` y. ,. i •. a Recommended Barrier -« -� :; �� • q ` el '� �� Existing Barrier r _ , .as a ss i ,. F I _116.Alternative Road Layout ` • ,- + '4: ae: , - ' , .u 1 / . • '. - - • Stone N I ' vt-i - M Y _ Mountain /1. ► '4..c _ .R - } 1 _ Apartments «� I ;; ■iii _ _ i_ �; ��, 1��'1^ '1 A • + 'i ; < .. • Q lit :2., _ 1 • RL '^;:t.i., e• ,,... . ef ?RNA. C----4• ‘. r Y \, .-•— Veit I -" ---..._r • :., r 12112k. : I i Gr.. ns •f. t , LI ,. , N:rrth•I- n t i it n d � G p�Tl, �, 0 250 500 AN 4. ry r frrTrr4*-„�..�-"• I i I Feet ' .___ _, ,....-r / N ,a. 70 Source: FHU project data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-32 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation.• Figure 3.6-17 Recommended Noise Barrier near Badding Reservoir ti \• , f LEGEND a ' iim Recommended Barrier •\ s.• �r i - ae, � isom Existing Barrier A -4 4 • ' Alternative Road Layout ' ' ' t 1 k .v ` S .\ t` .�" 3 a.,r. ,'Lt 3r As f c.5(4 pg - , 8/ ., . - , ,,i I ./-, le. te> •, .. f..4 P. 'a- -- ; Litt1 r L.PLYfS►. . t as I . t_ t 1 ;• t ' 4 .--:: ..*rne 4t te • ' '1 .4 .-c•z ;:w:.: . • --,,P. - • \c-. .3 • r 98th Ave: ._;. • -n._:.. `•Y• �1. �s ay. a '_ `, 4 ` • :•/� — a L Badding 1 )s .,",-• .. Reservoir I - .0., . � , > ,.> • �� II • ' r •, • ii.0 250 500 N it►` - N` , . i =i Feet Iii--',,,,b .� . % 7" 0 , ' Source: FHU project data, 2007. Figure 3.6-18 Recommended Noise Barrier near Brittany Ridge r-', • 1-_ 1 I Al 1 "0,,1 - I LEGEND : t f� i `� ',:i ' • '' I Iti ' i soar3 ?. 1 fit. I illi Recommended Barrier f&R rL l ti"'1r r - 3t ''l- - . , dna Existing Barrier 4 i V A ,. 1..•� � t • '. 1, a r� 1« Alternative Road Layout • i % 111"3211 ll 1562 • 4 J j ocis i7�r .4 Tit tf t` ;rr . 9 * - ♦ r - �1 F A r ci, :ti- -. .cal (.=__., 4 ;.. -4 1 it I Is, 4 _. ! t ^L .% •. I ' [ t ', {rr�i;kit41■rf if trr ITV r:rr'� .4 n �.,f. • �'T .P .I -`L. AMVPrrrr . r•A AZ SRI• ,1 YS� ' �' ` . r y _ ll r l - . -2130 -4 tr . fie tea 16 , 1 \, .. ;, , siiil If lot', a1! iirk 0 250 500 n ' ,; , 7 , • ,, • at IS=1 Feet N.,,. i kIt I , r a Source: FHU project data, 2007. Noise and Vibration 3.6-33 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.6.4.4 RAIL NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION EVALUATIONS . Potential mitigation measures for reducing commuter rail noise and vibration impacts are described below. Rail Noise Possible rail noise mitigation actions include the following: ► Limiting Use of Train Horns. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has issued new regulations (FRA, 2006) regarding safety at railroad crossings, which would apply to the portion of the North 1-25 alignment shared with BNSF freight operations. These regulations may affect noise impacts to sensitive receptors near grade crossings. An option for reducing such impacts under the FRA regulation would be to establish "quiet zones" at grade crossings. In a quiet zone, train operators would sound warning devices (e.g., horns) only in emergency situations rather than as a standard operational procedure because of safety improvements at the at-grade crossings. Establishing a quiet zone requires cooperative action among the municipalities, CDOT, and FRA. The municipalities are key participants as they must initiate the request to establish the quiet zone through application to FRA. To meet safety criteria, major improvements are typically required at grade crossings. These may include modifications to the streets, raised medians, warning lights, four-quadrant gates, and other devices. The current assumptions for Package A are that these safety devices would be included to allow local municipalities to apply for a quiet zone if they desire. The FRA regulation also authorizes the use of automated wayside horns at crossings with flashing lights and • gates as a substitute for the train horn. While activated by the approach of trains, these devices are stationary at the grade crossings, thereby limiting the horn noise exposure area to the immediate vicinity of the grade crossing. In the event that it is not possible to eliminate the train horns, reduced sound emission horns can be considered. Although the establishment of quiet zones or the use of wayside horns would be very effective noise mitigation measures, considerable design analysis and coordination efforts with the BNSF Railroad and local communities along the corridor would be required. ► Noise Barriers. This is a common approach to reducing noise impacts from surface transportation sources. The primary requirements for an effective noise barrier are that: (1) the barrier must be high enough and long enough to break the line-of-sight between the sound source and the receiver, (2) the barrier must be of an impervious material with a minimum surface density of 4 lb/sq. ft., and (3) the barrier must not have any gaps or holes between the panels or at the bottom. Many materials meet the requirements, so the barrier type is usually dictated by aesthetics, durability, cost, and maintenance. Noise barriers for commuter rail systems typically range in height from 8 to 12 feet. ► Building Insulation. Sound insulation of residences and institutional buildings has been widely applied around airports but has seen limited application for transit projects. Although this approach has no effect on exterior noise, it may be a choice for sites where noise barriers are not feasible or desirable, and for buildings where indoor sensitivity is of most concern. Substantial improvements in building sound levels (e.g., 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved by adding an extra layer of glazing to the windows, • sealing any holes in exterior surfaces that act as sound leaks, and providing forced ventilation and air-conditioning so that windows do not need to be opened. Noise and Vibration 3.6.34 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► Special Trackwork at Crossovers and Turnouts. Because the impacts of rail wheels over rail gaps at track-turnout locations increases airborne noise by about 6 dBA, turnouts can be a major source of noise impact. If turnouts cannot be located away from sensitive areas, special rail treatments, such as spring-rail, flange-bearing, or moveable- point frogs may be used in place of standard rigid frogs. These devices allow the flangeway gap to remain closed in the main traffic direction and reduce rail wheel noise. FTA guidelines state that in implementing noise impact criteria, severe impacts should be mitigated if at all practical (FTA, 2006). At the moderate impact level, more discretion can be used and other project-specific factors should be included in considering mitigation. These factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor-to-indoor sound insulation and the cost- effectiveness of mitigating the noise. However, FTA also states that there is a stronger need for mitigation if a project is proposed in an area currently experiencing high noise levels (e.g. with Ldn above 65 dBA) from surface transportation sources. Areas along the project corridor from Fort Collins to Longmont meet this condition. In these areas, the existing noise exposure is dominated by existing freight train and horn noise, with Ldn levels typically ranging from 65 dBA to 75 dBA. In such cases, FTA indicates that impacts predicted in the moderate range should be treated as if they were severe in terms of mitigation. In view of the above considerations, most, if not all, of the predicted rail noise impacts should be mitigated. The results of the noise analysis suggest that the most effective mitigation measure would be to eliminate all train horn noise near residential areas by establishing quiet zones. It is estimated that this mitigation measure could eliminate noise impacts at all but one • residence along the project corridor, so quiet zones are the preferred mitigation for train noise. Package A includes enhancing each at-grade crossing such that an application for a quiet zone could be made by the local government. A less effective approach is the use of wayside horns or reducing train horn sound levels. If reducing horn noise by any of these methods is not feasible and reasonable, noise barriers to shield residences may be considered. As shown in Table 3.6-10, it is estimated that a total of 15,100 lineal feet (i.e. about three miles) of noise walls could potentially reduce or eliminate noise impacts at all but eight residences along the project corridor. Potential noise mitigation measures will need to be further evaluated during later project design to determine approaches that are both feasible and reasonable. Vibration Beyond ensuring that the vehicle wheels and track are well maintained, there are several approaches that can be considered to reduce ground-borne vibration from commuter rail operation, as described below: ► Ballast Mats. A ballast mat consists of a pad made of rubber or rubber-like material placed on an asphalt or concrete base with the normal ballast, ties and rail on top. The reduction in ground-borne vibration provided by a ballast mat is strongly dependent on the frequency content of the vibration and design and support of the mat. ► Tire Derived Aggregate (TDA). Also known as shredded tires, a typical TDA installation consists of an underlayment of tire shreds or chips wrapped with filter fabric, covered with ballast. Tests suggest that the vibration attenuation properties of this • treatment are midway between that of ballast mats and floating slab track. While this is a low-cost option, it has only recently been installed on two U.S. light rail transit systems (San Jose and Denver's Southeast Corridor) and its long-term performance is unknown. Noise and Vibration 3.6-35 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.6-10 Potential Rail Noise Barrier Mitigation Locations • Side of Barrier Length Number of Location along Alignment Track (ft) Residences Protected E. 23rd St— Mountain Ash PI (Loveland) East 1400 7 35th Street SW (Campion) East 400 1 21st Avenue—23rd Avenue (Longmont) West 900 9 17th Avenue— 19th Avenue (Longmont) West 1300 14 17th Avenue—21st Avenue (Longmont) East 2500 47 15th Avenue— 17th Avenue (Longmont) East 700 5 Mountain View Av— 15th Av (Longmont) East 1300 9 11th Av— Mountain View Av (Longmont) East 1500 15 9th Avenue— 10th Avenue (Longmont) East 600 7 8th Avenue—9th Avenue (Longmont) East 600 2 7th Avenue—8th Avenue (Longmont) East 500 8 5th Avenue—6th Avenue (Longmont) East 500 8 4th Avenue—5th Avenue (Longmont) East 500 7 3rd Avenue—4th Avenue (Longmont) East 500 6 CR 8 (Dacono) East 1500 14 TOTAL: 15,100 159 • Source:HMMH project data, 2007. ► Under-Tie Pads. This treatment consists of resilient rubber pads placed underneath the ties. Although tests using the Amtrak Acela high-speed train indicated that such pads under the concrete ties provided significant vibration attenuation over a wide frequency range, experience with this treatment is limited. ► Floating Slabs. Floating slabs consist of thick concrete slabs supported by resilient pads on a concrete foundation; the tracks are mounted on top of the floating slab. Most successful floating slab installations are in subways, and their use for at-grade track is rare. Although floating slabs are designed to provide vibration reduction at lower frequencies than ballast mats, they are extremely expensive. ► Special Trackwork at Crossovers and Turnouts. Vehicle wheels hitting rail gaps at track turnout locations increases ground-borne vibration by about 10 VdB, so they are a major source of vibration impact when located in sensitive areas. If turnouts cannot be located away from sensitive areas, an alternative is to use special rail treatments, such as spring-rail, flange-bearing, or moveable-point frogs in place of standard rigid frogs at turnouts. These devices allow the flangeway gap to remain closed in the main traffic direction and reduce vibration. ► Property Acquisitions or Easements. Additional options for avoiding vibration impacts (and noise impacts) are to purchase residences likely to be impacted by train operations or to acquire easements for such residences by paying the homeowners to accept the future train vibration conditions. These approaches are usually taken only in • isolated cases where other mitigation options are infeasible, impractical, or too costly. Noise and Vibration 3.6-36 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Vibration impacts that exceed FTA criteria are considered to be significant and to warrant mitigation, if mitigation is reasonable and feasible. To evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation for the project, typical vibration reductions for the potential mitigation measures were applied, on a one-third octave frequency basis, to the projected ground vibration spectra at locations where vibration impact is anticipated. The results indicate that the installation of 7,700 lineal feet of TDA (shredded tires) beneath each of the tracks at the locations listed in Table 3.6-11 could eliminate all of the projected vibration impacts, so this is the preferred mitigation action. It is also estimated that under-tie pads could eliminate all but 13 of the vibration impacts. These • measures will need to be further investigated during project design to evaluate their true feasibility. Table 3.6-11 Potential Ground-Borne Vibration Mitigation Locations Location along Alignment Survey Station Length (feet) Location Mountain Ash PI (Loveland) 1926— 1930 400 E. 23rd Street(Loveland) 1916— 1922 600 Jackson Avenue (Loveland) 1888— 1892 500 10th St— Eisenhower Blvd 1865— 1885 2000 (Loveland) W. 1st Street(Loveland) 1830— 1836 600 • E. 15th Avenue (Longmont) 1043— 1046 300 E. 15th Ave— E. 21st Ave 1053— 1086 3300 (Longmont) TOTAL: 7,700 Source:HMMH project data, 2007. 3.6.4.5 IMPACTED RECEIVERS AFTER RECOMMENDED MITIGATIONS For a noise or vibration mitigation action to be recommended, it must be both feasible and reasonable according to the evaluation guidelines. In many of the areas with traffic noise impacts, effective noise barriers were not feasible or the cost-benefit value for an effective barrier was prohibitive (Table 3.6-9). Therefore, not all impacted areas have been recommended for noise mitigation. The recommended mitigation actions would serve to reduce noise and vibration impacts for each of the EIS build alternatives (Section 3.6.3). The results differ between the alternatives for a number of reasons, including: ► Different road designs within the same alignment ► Different traffic volumes and speeds ► Different vertical road profiles • ► Inclusion of transit rail impacts The recommended mitigation actions would not eliminate all of the calculated noise impacts; some noise impacts would remain. These remnant noise impacts are described below for each of the Draft EIS alternatives. Noise and Vibration 3.6.37 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. No-Action Alternative • The No-Action Alternative does not include any new noise mitigation actions, so there would be no change in the traffic noise impacts (Section 3.6.3.1). The same 505 Category B receivers and 121 Category C receivers would still be impacted by traffic noise. It should be noted that noise levels at 85 unmitigated Category B modeled locations would be at or above the severe impact level of 75 dBA (CDOT, 2002). Package A Alternative Several highway traffic noise mitigation actions are recommended for Package A along 1-25 north of SH 7 (Section 3.6.4.2). The recommended mitigation measures would remove the traffic noise impact from these receivers: ► Wellington East— 16 Category B receivers ► Mountain Range Shadows — 37 Category B receivers An estimated 450 Category B receivers and 120 Category C receivers would still be impacted • by traffic noise. It should be noted that noise levels at 18 unmitigated Category B modeled locations would be at or above 75 dBA, 67 fewer locations than the No-Action Alternative. Package A also includes transit rail noise and vibration impacts. The preferred mitigation actions of quiet zones and TDA (Section 3.6.4.3) would remove rail noise and vibration impacts from: ► Noise — 166 receivers • ► Vibration — 87 receivers An estimated one receiver would still be impacted by rail noise and no receivers would be impacted by rail vibration. Package B Alternative Several noise mitigation actions are recommended for Package B (Section 3.6.4.2). The recommended mitigation measures would remove the traffic noise impact from these receivers: ► Wellington East— 16 Category B receivers ► Mountain Range Shadows — 37 Category B receivers ► Thorncreek Village — 5 Category B receivers ► Stone Mountain Apartments — 32 Category B receivers ► Greens of Northglenn — 16 Category B receivers ► Badding Reservoir extension — 9 Category B receivers ► Brittany Ridge extension — 17 Category B receivers An estimated 491 Category B receivers and 133 Category C receivers would still be impacted • by traffic noise. It should be noted that noise levels at 17 unmitigated Category B modeled locations would be at or above 75 dBA, 68 fewer locations than the No-Action Alternative. Noise and Vibration 3.6-38 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.6.5 Construction Noise Adjoining properties in the project area could be exposed to noise from construction activities from the build packages. Construction noise differs from traffic and rail noise in several ways: ► Construction noise lasts only for the duration of the construction event, with most construction activities in noise-sensitive areas being conducted during hours that are least disturbing to adjacent and nearby residents. ► Construction activities generally are of a short-term nature and, depending on the nature of the construction operations, could last from seconds (e.g., a truck passing a receiver) to months (e.g., constructing a bridge). ► Construction noise is intermittent and depends on the type of operation, location, and function of the equipment, and the equipment usage cycle. Construction noise is not assessed in the same way as operational traffic noise; there are no CDOT NACs for construction noise. Construction noise would be subject to relevant local - regulations and ordinances, and any construction activities would be expected to comply with them. Construction noise impacts would be somewhat limited because the majority of the corridors do not abut residential areas. To address the temporary elevated noise levels that may be experienced during construction, standard mitigation measures would be incorporated into construction contracts, where it is feasible to do so. These would include: • ► Exhaust systems on equipment would be in good working order. Equipment would be maintained on a regular basis, and equipment may be subject to inspection by the project manager to ensure maintenance. ► Properly designed engine enclosures and intake silencers would be used where appropriate. ► New equipment would be subject to new product noise emission standards. ► Stationary equipment would be located as far from sensitive receivers as possible. ► Most construction activities in noise-sensitive areas would be conducted during hours that are least disturbing to adjacent and nearby residents. • Noise and Vibration 3.6-39 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.6.6 Summary • A number of noise and vibration impacts were calculated for the alternatives (Section 3.6.3). Potential mitigation actions for Package A and B impacts were evaluated (Table 3.6-9, Section 3.6.4, and Table 3.6-11). From the feasibility and reasonableness evaluations for the barriers, traffic noise barriers are recommended for the following locations: ► Wellington East— Packages A and B ► Mountain Range Shadows — Packages A and B ► Thorncreek Village— Package B only ► Stone Mountain Apartments — Package B only ► Greens of Northglenn — Package B only ► Badding Reservoir extension — Package B only ► Brittany Ridge extension — Package B only The preferred mitigation measures for Package A transit rail impacts are quiet zones at the rail crossings and 8,400 lineal feet of TDA. These results are preliminary and based on specific project designs and assumptions. If the • designs in the future differ from those used in these evaluations, corresponding adjustments to the mitigation evaluations may be required. The analysis and recommendations will be reviewed following identification and refinement of a preferred alternative for the project. Consideration of the placements of noise barriers will continue through the final design of the selected alternative. Mitigation actions for transit rail will also require further consideration if Package A is selected because the preferred mitigation actions will require the involvement of several local governments. These recommended mitigation actions would not eliminate all the predicted impacts, therefore, some residual noise impacts would remain (Section 3.6.4.5). This is due primarily to the closeness of many receivers to 1-25 and to the presence of many isolated receivers for which mitigation is not feasible and reasonable. Somewhat similar traffic noise results were produced by the alternatives because the road alignments share several existing roadways; however, only Package A has rail impacts. In the order of increasing noise and vibration impacts, the ranking of the alternatives (without mitigation) are: No-Action Alternative, Package B, and Package A. • Noise and Vibration 3.6.40 • NORTH I-25 EIS LIMI information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 7 Water Resources 0 • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.7 WATER RESOURCES This section discusses water resources in the North 1-25 regional study area. Numerous streams, tributaries, canals, ditches, reservoirs, and lakes in the regional study area watersheds are either - adjacent to or cross 1-25 and the other major corridors (US 85, Union Pacific Railroad What's in Section 3.7? (UPRR), and Burlington Northern Santa Fe 3.7 Water Resources Railway (BNSF) in the project area. 3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations Surface waters contribute to the quality of life 3.7.1.1 2 Clean af Wate Act 3.7.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act for residents within the regional study area 3.7.2 Affected Environment because they provide water supply, 3.7.2.1 South Platte River Basin recreation opportunities, and aesthetic value. 3.7.2.2 Watersheds The aquatic and riparian habitats that the 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences surface waters provide are vital for a wide 3.7.3.1 Surface Water - variety of species within the project area. 3.7.3.2 Groundwater P P 1 3.7.3.3 Water Quality Impacts Methodology Increased urbanization and mixed land use 3.7.3.4 No-Action Alternative practices within the regional study area and 3.7.3.5 Package A project area are progressively contributing to 3.7.3.6 Package B degraded water quality. Accordingly, 3.7.3.7 Summary of Consequences protecting the integrity of water resources 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures 3.7.4.1 Surface Water Quality within the project area is a critical piece of this project, which is legally mandated by 3.7.4.3 Groundwater Quality • 9 g 3.7.4.3 Drainage federal, state, and local regulations. This section provides an overview of the existing conditions of surface water in the project area and assesses impacts that the build packages (Packages A and B) and the No-Action Alternative would have on water quality due to project activities. Impacts to groundwater wells are also addressed in this section. Permanent best management practices (BMPs) have been incorporated into the roadway and rail design for both packages to ensure MS4 compliance and reduce the majority of impacts from stormwater. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve when compared to the existing conditions in areas where no water quality treatment is currently provided. 3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations Water resources within the regional study area are managed through federal, state, and local regulations that establish the standards and management actions necessary to protect their physical, chemical, and biological integrity. The primary regulations governing surface water and groundwater resources in the project area are the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has the authority to establish and enforce water quality standards within the state. The primary water quality concern associated with the project results from the discharge of stormwater to receiving waters (See Section 3.7.3). As part of the CWA, entities with stormwater discharges are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) • permit program. Water Resources 3.7.1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) that are owned and maintained by municipalities is and CDOT are required to obtain Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) permits for stormwater discharges. The permit requires Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to develop and implement a stormwater management program to maintain and protect water quality conditions from their stormwater discharges. A major program element is the development and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are defined as activities, procedures, and other practices that prevent or reduce water pollution. As part of the MS4 program, CDOT is required to design, construct, and maintain permanent BMPs to protect aquatic resources. As part of the stormwater management program, CDOT also is required to develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff for any construction activity that would result in a land disturbance greater than or equal to one acre. While the entire project must comply with CDPHE-WQCC rules and regulations, the MS4 permit requirements are only applicable in designated MS4 areas. Because of the size of this project, the - build packages cross 11 MS4 areas (including municipalities and portions of counties). The CDOT MS4 requirements described above are generally only applicable in these MS4 areas. An analysis was conducted using the 2000 census data to define the permit coverage for portions of Adams, Larimer, and Boulder counties based on population density. Because the regional study area is rapidly growing, the projected 2030 population used in the traffic model was utilized to predict what ' areas might be within an MS4 area in 2030. The project should also comply with additional requirements of local municipal MS4 programs. The final coordination of these permit issues is typically completed during the design phase of the project. The CDOT MS4 requirements and specifications comply with the FHWA regulation "Erosion and Sediment Control on Highway Construction Projects". More detailed information on CDOT MS4 permit requirements are provided • in the Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report(FHU, 2008b). 3.7.1.1 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS Two main regulations have been established by the CDPHE-WQCC that classify the designated uses and water quality standards that apply to the surface water bodies within the project area. ► Regulation 31 - Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water ► Regulation 38 - Classification and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin; Laramie River Basin; Republican River Basin; Smoky Hill River Basin Colorado has four designated uses for surface water bodies: agriculture, water supply, recreation, and aquatic life. These designated uses have their own unique water quality standards that are either numeric (quantitative thresholds) or narrative (visual/aesthetic). Surface water classifications do not apply to water that is conveyed in man-made structures such as ditches. Streams that do not meet established water quality standards ("impaired streams") are placed on the Colorado 303 (d) List and are required to go through a process to help improve water quality. The process results in the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is a total amount of pollutant loading that a surface water system can assimilate without exceeding water quality standards. Surface waters that require additional monitoring and evaluation to determine if water quality standards are being met are placed on the Colorado 303(d) Monitoring and Evaluation List. The watersheds within the project area contain numerous canals and ditches that transport water for irrigation and domestic drinking water supply. However, canals and ditches do not have designated uses as do natural watercourses. According to State of Colorado code (C.R.S. § 25-8- • 203(2)(f)), "Waters in ditches and other man-made conveyance structures shall not be classified Water Resources 3.7-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • with designated uses, and water quality standards shall not be applied to them but may be utilized for purposes of discharge permits" [CDPHE, 2003]). The designated uses for the surface water bodies within the project area and impaired segments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Impaired stream segments are included in Figure 3.7-3. Stream segments on the Monitoring and Evaluation List for potential highway-related constituents are included in Table 3.7-1 and Figure 3.7-3. The TMDL status for impaired streams is included in the Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report (FHU, 2008b). 3.7.1.2 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT Public drinking water supplies (systems serving more than 25 people) from both groundwater and surface water sources are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. These sources include lakes, rivers, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Congress established national health-based standards for drinking water contaminants specified as having known adverse human health effects. As with the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA has delegated regulatory authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act to the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division (WQCD). Section 3.7.3 includes information about public water supply wells in the project area. 3.7.1.3 SENATE BILL 40 Colorado Senate Bill 40 (SB40) requires that projects that affect waters of the state and their associated riparian areas comply with its provisions. These provisions are aimed at preserving wildlife • habitat in streams for fish and aquatic species and terrestrial species that rely upon riparian areas. Compliance with SB40 provisions is documented in a permit obtained through the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Section 3.7.4 includes information about SB40 guidelines that will be followed in the project area. 3.7.2 Affected Environment 3.7.2.1 SURFACE WATER The regional study area lies in the transition zone between the Rocky Mountain Front Range in central Colorado and the Great Plains of eastern Colorado and is situated entirely in the South Platte River basin (see Figure 3.7-1). The South Platte River basin, which is one of eight major river basins in Colorado, occupies approximately 13 million acres in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. • Water Resources 3.7.3 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.7-1 South Platte River Basin I f -_ 1 I I Ki/1.R tNIOMT Yctla tans nun WET '°' North 1-25 Regional Study Area White-Yampa! —� __II , - - — River Basin 1--- ---1 _ -- I South Platte MO KI „ A,NO 4 W""" "A rRiver Basin W""" ,._ — Republican sal - awn: River Basin r- - Z. --- 'Colorado Headwaters Whir River Basin / - x — wEus musr awl rrtl II un fau — - NIt MO Kul , { a MO CETIaf CILL(fff 1 � IIIWt _ ,_ _ _I ------1Gunnison _.- ---, Upper Arkansas en" River Basin ^�IO River Basin Imo. a.ur wtlr r-------- J. assn ��_ -_ NMI =M. Us II a0K ( WaAG7[ 'rC T MOILS ' an ring- -_ - MI- WI U — - malo Y / "41 . Rio Grande Headwaters- -- River Basin , KOK - moat KI i '' fCMS / Upper San Juan ' -'-u�.•. . � - maw" Ytl III.L.II River Basin W�Y�t aai s 1 2 Six main watersheds occur in the regional study area: the South Platte River, Clear Creek, Big Dry 3 Creek, St. Vrain Creek/Boulder Creek, Big Thompson River, and Cache la Poudre River. 4 Numerous streams, tributaries , canals, ditches, reservoirs, and lakes in these watersheds are 5 either adjacent to or cross 1-25 and the other major corridors (US 85, UPRR, and BNSF Railway) in 6 the project area (see Figure 3.7-2). 7 Hydrology and stream flow regime characteristics of the six watersheds in the regional study area 8 are very similar. The majority of stream flow originates as snowmelt, creating high-flow conditions 9 from May to July, with peak flows in June , and lower flows from October to March . Natural 10 hydrologic conditions in the basin's watersheds have been altered because of extensive in-basin 11 and trans-basin water diversions, reservoir construction , and discharges from publicly-owned 12 treatment works ( POTW) (USGS, 1998). 13 Numerous man-made surface water drainage features are also present within the project area and 14 include culverts, inlets, and open channels . Most of the existing drainage structures in the project 15 area were built during the 1960s . At that time, the adjacent areas were rural , and flood damage 16 was limited to agricultural land . The sizes of many of these drainage structures were based on 17 limited rainfall data for what was estimated to be a 25- or 50-year storm event. The 100-year storm 18 is now used for drainage design in urbanized areas and for floodplains under the jurisdiction of the 19 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . Many of the existing drainage structures 20 constrict stormwater flows, cause flooding , and overtopping of the adjacent highways. In order to a 21 conform to newer criteria and control flooding , most drainage structures in the project area will be 22 replaced with larger structures. Water Resources 3.7-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • - Figure 3.7-2 Watersheds in the Regional Study Area LEGEND Ijil Regional Study Area 0 Cities 8 Towns in Regional Study Area --____ • ^/ Study Corridors .......- `� WellingtonWellington \.'.4%,, A/ tS53 Highways + •, \ / !1.—"< \ . Arterial Roads .... ••\ City Boundaries �� ® CACHE LA POUDRE rti""''I 1 i WATERSHED Ii,.` . _, Fort•Collins I I- kit 4 / �' 1. .- _ nncath n Severance Eaton l '"/287 S i lu erre ` 392 Cache la Poudre River 1 Greeley . 263 3 � Loves — �,, i i&.ED _ BIG THOMPSON`-W'� i `�' WATERSHED t n 45° La save . Campion rruto�rn et t9�.porn r { 60 '4 Berttraud 0 Milliken 85 % , I • : Gila,/ I SSOUTH PLAJIT S m0 WATERSHHED ! c' ! i j titEaA �1 0 1 / 66 • .� I m I I onginont i / r . ST. VRAIN VoIIr 0 I /. WATERSHED 0 rlestone r„ u t` Niwat 28� ° f tedeiek • \ �— it b ' .-_./ `" rr�� 0 E w BIG Fat Lupton t. ' R- Erie DRY CREEK j ',� --s — }--I WATERSHED° 76 r-' ( otIt(Ir j tr I I r Iatayette. l 7"�" � Louisvillei Sighta I 7 7 \ SLpt3tia' Si �, . ea-vitYR11,..:.:F .ak �' Bonifield `peg O He '_ ' • '•� co• II Nutt('.:T iv- . /. - - - i 36 287 -- ---!� • - , ° DUI PI , 'S"' I .! — CLEAR CREEK 1 , 11\..W1ATERSyHHED 1 ;- i J \.+ 'leek 4 ,/ — j:. �/teat Denver—:-� • 0 2 4 6 8 10 [ \ j -1 s • I ' ' ' ' ' Miles North '•I s j i/ Water Resources 3.7-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.7.2.2 WATERSHEDS • This section describes the surface water designated uses and water quality impairments within the project area. Stream segments on CDPHE's Monitoring and Evaluation List for potential highway-related constituents are also included in this section. Water bodies that cross or are present within 100 feet of the existing 1-25 or US 85 edges-of-pavement or the edge of the rail lines were considered to be within the project area. However, in certain cases, water bodies outside the project area were also included if they are: 1) downstream from the project area, 2) designated water supplies, or 3) impaired and close to the project area. Existing contaminant loading from the current highway configuration for each watershed was estimated using an FHWA water quality model (Driscoll Model). This model is discussed later in this section. Five contaminants were modeled for the project area (chloride, copper, phosphorus, total suspended solids (TSS), and zinc) because of their water quality implications in the project area. They are assumed to be an indicator of overall contamination in runoff. South Platte River Watershed The South Platte River watershed occupies 45,560 acres in the southern portion of the regional study area (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for approximately 110 acres of impervious surface within the project area (USGS, 2000). The E-470 to US 36 (H4) component crosses this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any • impairments are listed in Table 3-7-1. The main stem (Segments 15, la, and 1b) is also - included because it has water supply designations and all streams within the project area eventually discharge into the South Platte River. It is important to consider downstream segments to ensure that upstream project activities do not adversely affect those receiving water bodies. Segment 15 is the only segment with water quality impairments. This portion of the main stem has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for an E. Coll impairment (see Figure 3.7-3) (CDPHE, 2006a). E. coli is not generally associated with roadway runoff. • Water Resources 3.7-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.7-1 Surface Water Segments, Designated Uses, and Impairments within the Project Area Designated Uses I Impairments South Platte River Watershed Segment 15 Recreation 1 a, Class 2 warm water aquatic life, agriculture, and water E. Coll supply Segment 16c Recreation 1 a, Class 2 warm water aquatic life, and agriculture N/A Segment la Recreation 1a, Class 2 warm water aquatic life, agriculture, and water N/A supply Segment 1 b Recreation 1 a, Class 2 warm water aquatic life, agriculture, and water N/A supply Clear Creek Watershed Segment 15 Class 1 warm water aquatic life, recreation la, agriculture, and water E. co/i, aquatic life supply use, and organic sediment Big Dry Creek Watershed Segment 1 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation 1 b, and agriculture E. coli and Selenium;Total Recoverable Iron (M & E List) St.Vrain/Boulder Creek Watershed Segment 3 Class 1 warm water aquatic life, recreation la,and agriculture E. Colt, aquatic • life use Segment 6 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation 1 a, and agriculture E. Colt(Dry Creek Only), Selenium Segment 10 Class 1 warm water aquatic life, recreation la, agriculture, and water E. Colt supply. Big Thompson River Watershed Segment 4b Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation 1 a (from 5/1 to 10/15 N/A annually), and recreation 2 (10/16 to 4/30, annually) Segment 4c Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation la (from 5/1 to 10/15 N/A annually), and recreation 2(10/16 to 4/30, annually) Segment 5 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation 1 b(from 5/1 to 10/15, Selenium, annually), recreation 2(10/16 to 4/30, annually), and agriculture Ammonia Segment 6 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreationla,and agriculture N/A Segment 9 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation la,and agriculture Selenium, E. Coll Segment 10 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation 1 a, and agriculture Selenium (Big Hollow) Cache la Poudre River Watershed Segment 11 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation la, and agricultural uses N/A Segment 12 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation 1 a, and agricultural uses E. Coll(below Eaton Draw), Selenium Segment 13a Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation 1a,and agricultural uses Selenium • Segment 13b Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation 1 b (5/15 to 9/15, annually), Selenium recreation 2(9/16 to 5/14, annually), and agricultural uses Source:CDPHE,2007 Water Resources 3.7-7 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.7-3 Impaired Streams in the Project Area i I LEGEND `., Seg. 13b -Boxeider Creek from 303(d) Impaired Streams _ source to the Cache la Poudre Rive -�-- Impairment - Selenium i o Cities & Towns in Regional Study Area i • bit S L4-_i Regional Study Area i'�• / N.''‘,,al 1V Study Corridors 287 / I _.., •�` iv., ^/ Highways 1' '� Piece /\./ Arterial Roads , Fort Collins y I tCC'i�' City Boundaries i —" j alt ; 27 1 I `i .21_. ' wI, Timm n Seg. 12 -Cache la Poudre River, O Severance)Box Elder Creek to S. Platte \t\„.‘ /�Impairment -Selenium 257 l ■.� Seg. 13a - Fossil Creek Tributary . n�Nindso__��---. - to the Cache la Poudre j / Lucerne 1 392 Impairment - Selenium i f `ri t '� L J' 34 "-�_I . ( s Loveland Seg. 12 -Cache la Poudre 'arden City• 34 I i' _ River, Below Eaton Draw to ' p r i S. Platte - Impairment - E. Coll i Seg. 5 -Big Thompson River, - 'I-25 to the S. Platte River y I - - Impairment -Ammonia, Selenium Cam ion ■•�`.. - a 60 • 85 ei Berthoud O MillikenSeg. 10 - BigHollowTributary LI _ _ -- Seg. 9 -Little Thompson River, - Culver Ditch to To the Little Thompson River j Big Thompson River Impairment-Selenium - impairment - E. coil, Selenium"� , eg 6 -Tributaries to St. VraiA _`_ Creek -Impairment - Selnium'1 f atteville 66 ti Seg. 6 -DryCreekTributary[ ,_ iirTn4 onyr nt To St. Vrain Creek i9 t-pairment - E. coil. Selenium N i1Vol nial a 1-Boulder Creek, Coal j o Fesrone 1 Seg. 1 -MainstemofBigDryCreek, Including all tributaries, lakes,eek to St. Vrain Creek Impairment - E. coil _ Niwot O Frederick T reservoirs and wetlands, from the source to the confluence with the '�� -= O • South Platte River r- Fort L : ' v Gunlxu 7 rel i l -ir Impairment - E. toll, Selenium \ l 1 —�40- t 76 i -1 7 INattenberg I I\Bo der I I _.. )'. .yeller Nu — /� \i!ghtcri ..„,,./T -, i n;.� � I i Emendield • V S r % Seg. 1 -Big Dry Creek . 3 ....... .�.- N trial ;, / Below York St. f : ._ 36 - Impairment- Iron Seg. 15 -Clear Creek, Youngfield 1--' _1- • / - St. to South Platte River - ;�_ Seg. 15 - South Platte River, Impairment - E. cola,Aquatic -.'T - ,, / Burlington Ditch to Big Dry Creek Life Use, Organic Sediment ___ -=_ 1 -I - / Impairment -E. coil i 1 Denver t 1 ® I • T' , / r -r 0 2 4 6 B 10 1 t-- cc, / - -' i I ' ' ' ' ' Miles North rik •-- \‘. k‘bk :::-I i f--7---* 411 Water Resources 3.7-8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event from the existing 1-25 conditions in the South Platte River watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. Table 3.7-2 Mean Contaminant Loading Per Storm Event From The Driscoll Model (Pounds per Event) in the South Platte River Watershed Watershed Chloride Copper Phosphorus Total Suspended Zinc (pounds/event) (pounds/event) (pounds/event) Solids (TSS) (pounds/event) (pounds/event) South Platte 78.4 0.058 3.7 2,600 0.52 River Clear Creek 14.5 0.011 0.68 481 0.097 Big Dry Creek 125 0.093 5.8 4,150 0.83 St.Vrain 265 0.20 12.4 8,800 1.8 Creek Big Thompson 181 0.13 8.4 6,000 1.2 River Cache la 266 0.20 12.4 8,800 1.8 Poudre River Clear Creek Watershed • The Clear Creek watershed occupies 14,787 acres in the southern portion of the regional study area (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for approximately 20 acres of impervious surface within the project area (USGS, 2000). The E-470 to US 36 (H4) component crosses this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Clear Creek Segment 15 is located downstream of the project area and has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for E. coli, aquatic life use, and organic sediment (CDPHE, 2006a). Constituents causing the stream impairments near the project area are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the existing 1-25 conditions in the Clear Creek watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. Big Dry Creek Watershed The Big Dry Creek watershed occupies 65,055 acres in the southern portion of the regional study area. The watershed lies south of the St. Vrain Creek watershed and north of the South Platte River watershed (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for 171 acres of impervious surface area within the project area (USGS, 2000). The E-470 to US 36 (H4) component and the SH 60 to E-470 (H3) component cross this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments • are listed in Table 3.7-1. Big Dry Creek (Segment 1) is within the project area and has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for E. Coli and selenium (CDPHE, 2006a). E. Coll and selenium are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Water Resources 3.7.9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. A portion of Segment 1, located approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the project area, has also • been placed on the 2006 Monitoring and Evaluation List for total recoverable iron (CDPHE, 2006b). Iron is a constituent that can be associated with roadway runoff due to auto body rust, steel highway structures, and vehicle engine parts. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the existing 1-25 conditions in the Big Dry Creek watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. St. Vrain Creek Watershed The St. Vrain Creek watershed occupies 204,664 acres in the middle portion of the regional study area. The watershed lies north of the Big Dry Creek watershed and south of the Big Thompson River watershed (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for 350 acres of impervious surface area within the project area (USGS, 2000). The SH 60 to E-470 (H3) component crosses this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Segment 3 has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for E. Coll (CDPHE, 2006a). Segment 6 has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for selenium and E. Coll(CDPHE, 2006a). Boulder Creek (Segment 10) is also included because it is located close to the project area, has a designated water supply designation, and has an impairment for E. Coll(CDPHE, 2006a). E. coli and selenium are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the • existing 1-25 conditions in the St. Vrain Creek watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. Big Thompson River Watershed - The Big Thompson watershed occupies 122,523 acres in the northern portion of the regional study area (see Figure 3.7-2). The watershed is located north of the St. Vrain Creek watershed and south of the Cache la Poudre River watershed. Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for approximately 223 acres of impervious surfaces within the project area (USGS, 2000). The SH 14 to SH 60 (H2) component and SH 60 to E-470 (H3) component cross this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Segments 5, 9, and 10 have been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for selenium (all segments), ammonia (Segment 5), and E. Coll(Segment 9) (CDPHE, 2006a). Ammonia, E. coli, and selenium are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the existing 1-25 conditions in the Big Thompson River watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. Cache la Poudre River Watershed The Cache la Poudre River watershed occupies 264,736 acres in the northern portion of the project area. The watershed lies north of Big Thompson River watershed (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for approximately 337 acres of impervious surfaces • within the project area (USGS, 2000). The SH 1 to SH 14 (H1) component and SH 14 to SH 60 (H2) component cross this watershed. Water Resources 3.7.10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Segments 12, 13a, and 13b have been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for selenium. Segment 12 has also been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for E. Coll (CDPHE, 2006a). E. coli and selenium are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the existing 1-25 conditions in the Cache la Poudre River watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. 3.7.2.3 GROUNDWATER Numerous groundwater wells are located within the regional study area. The regional study area is situated above the consolidated bedrock aquifers of the Denver basin and Dakota-Cheyenne group (aka South Platte Formation) and the unconsolidated shallow alluvial aquifers associated with the South Platte River and its tributaries (Colorado Geological Survey, 2003). Groundwater from the aquifers can be brought to the surface with wells and provide water supply for multiple uses. The Denver basin aquifers primarily supply domestic and municipal water. The Dakota-Cheyenne group primarily supplies domestic, livestock, and industrial water. The South Platte Valley-Fill alluvial aquifer primarily supplies irrigation and municipal water. 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences This section describes the potential consequences of the No-Action Alternative, Package A, and Package B with regard to water quality and stormwater drainage for the six watersheds within the • project area. Permanent BMPs, consisting of water quality ponds, have been incorporated into the roadway and rail design for both packages to ensure MS4 compliance. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve when compared to the existing conditions in areas where no water quality treatment is currently provided. 3.7.3.1 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS METHODOLOGY Surface Water If stormwater is left untreated, water quality impacts are generally correlated with the addition of paved impervious surfaces that alter the volume, velocity, and quality of stormwater runoff discharged into nearby surface water bodies. The impacts common to all alternatives that affect water quality in the absence of BMPs are listed in Table 3.7-3. • Water Resources 3.7-11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.7-3 Common Highway-Related Surface Water Quality Impacts • Direct Impacts Typical Mitigation' Sediment Harmful to aquatic life. Sedimentation directly degrades o Water Quality Ponds aquatic habitat. Suspended sediment increases turbidity and o Riprap reduces aquatic plant life productivity. Suspended sediment o Nonstructural BMPs can be fatal to aquatic species by reducing dissolved oxygen (continued decreasing levels (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). use of salt and sanding) Anti-Icing/ Potentially harmful to aquatic species, including plants. o Nonstructural BMPs De-Icing CDOT is conducting research to better understand the aquatic (continued decreasing Chemicals life effects. use of salt and sanding) (Salt-Based Deicers) Metals Toxic to aquatic life. Bio-accumulation. Metals that bind to o Water Quality Ponds suspended solids and decaying organic matter can persist in o Well Abandonment the environment for long periods of time. Contamination of o Nonstructural BMPs drinking water supplies. (Spill prevention plan during construction) Nutrients Toxic to aquatic life. Excessive nutrients, primarily nitrogen o Water Quality Ponds and phosphorus, can cause extreme algal growth, which is toxic to certain aquatic organisms. Algal blooms and die-off causes large swings in dissolved oxygen levels and in extreme cases fish kills. Alters aesthetics. Can cause designated use impairments. General Erosion. Harmful to aquatic life. Vegetation removal at o Construction BMPs2 • Construction construction sites increases stormwater runoff velocity and • Minimize in-stream Activities volume causing accelerated erosion. Riparian vegetation activities removal reduces stream bank stability, accelerates erosion, • Stormwater alters aquatic habitat and shading, and causes in-stream Management Plan (silt temperature changes. Construction vehicles deposit sediment fence, inlet protection, onto surrounding roads, which is later mobilized during storm containerization of events. wastes, etc.) • Revegetation and replacement of site, including riparian areas • Spill Prevention Plan • Construction Phasing Construction Erosion. Harmful to aquatic life.Alters streamflow within o Riprap of new piers, channel. Erosion/sedimentation upstream and downstream of o Construction Phasing culverts, etc. structures. Reduces quality and quantity of aquatic habitat. Increased Erosion. Harmful to aquatic life. Increased stormwater runoff o Water Quality Ponds Stormwater velocity and volume causes stream channelization (i.e., o Riprap Velocity& straightening). Channelization increases surface water velocity Volume and exacerbates erosion and sedimentation. Reduces quality and quantity of aquatic habitat. Notes: 1.See Section 3.7.4.1 for a description of proposed mitigation measures. • 2.Activities CDOT currently undertake at construction sites and is required by permit. Water Resources 3.7-12 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • If stormwater is left untreated, the project alternatives would cause indirect impacts later in time or at some distance downstream of the project area. These indirect impacts include alterations to natural channel movement processes (i.e. meandering, channel incision) and the continual degradation of aquatic habitat. For each build alternative and the No-Action Alternative, surface water quality impacts were determined by evaluating the total impervious surface area, estimating the total areas of roadway that will be treated by BMPs, by comparing projected traffic volumes, and applying the Driscoll model. Impervious Surfaces. The total impervious surface area of each alternative was evaluated as a way to estimate water quality impacts in the absence of BMPs. In addition, the impervious surface area treated by BMPs was also used to estimate overall water quality impacts from each build alternative and the No-Action alternative. Generally, if roadway runoff is passed through a BMP, the post-BMP runoff will have better quality than untreated runoff. This was quantified by comparing the impervious surface area associated with an alternative to the percent of that area being treated, or passed through, a BMP. Therefore, an alternative with a higher percentage of treatment will have a lesser impact to the water quality in the project area when compared to levels of existing BMP treatment (see Table 3.7-4). Areas of proposed water quality treatment were estimated based on current and future MS4 areas, the presence of sensitive waters, and the available area for BMPs within the right-of-way. Table 3.7-4 Summary of Total and Treated Impervious Areas Alternative Total Impervious Area Area Treated %of Area Treated' (acres) (acres) (acres) • Existing 1,212 29 2.4% No-Action 1,257 141 11.2% PackageA 1,946 1,765 90.7% Package B 2,001 2,509 125% ' -The percent of area treated through BMPs can be greater than 100 percent because the size of the ponds and/or depth of ponds are bigger/deeper to account for unknown constraints that may be identified in final engineering. Driscoll Model. The Driscoll model (FHWA, 1990), an FHWA-developed method, was applied as part of the impacts evaluation for the highway components. The modeling approach described herein is consistent with FHWA guidance and is used as a screening tool to compare predicted pollutant mass loading for existing conditions and predicted mass loadings from project alternatives (No-Action, Package A, and Package B) before the application of BMPs. The constituents analyzed in the Driscoll model were selected based upon their relation to roadway runoff and/or their sensitivity in the regional study area. Stormwater runoff concentration data for the constituents analyzed using the Driscoll model were obtained from the 1-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (I-70 PEIS) (CDOT, 2004b) because stormwater runoff data is not available for the project area. The results of the Driscoll model are presented in Table 3.7-5 by component. The components typically cross several watersheds; therefore, a watershed could be affected by multiple components. Figure 3.7-4 and 3.7-5 graphically presents the Driscoll model results by component and by watershed. Figure 3.7-4 and Figure 3.7-5 presents predicted dissolved copper loading by • component and watershed, respectively, because copper is a common roadway heavy metal pollutant. Water Resources 3.7.13 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.7-5 Driscoll Model Results for Each I-25 Highway Component • Highway Component SH1 -SH14 SH14-SH60 SH60 - E-470 (Cache la (Cache la (Big Thompson E-470 -US 36 Contaminant Alternative Poudre Poudre River, River, St. Vrain (Big Dry River) Big Thompson Creek, Big Dry Creek, South Total t River) Creek) Platte River, Loading Clear Creek) (H1) (H2) (H3) (H4) Existing 107 292 373 157 930 Chloride No-Action 107 292 413 157 970 (pounds per event) Package A 149 483 522 166 1,320 Package B 149 568 537 183 1,440 Existing 0.079 0.22 0.28 0.12 0.689 Dissolved No-Action 0.079 0.22 0.31 0.12 0.718 Copper (pounds per event) Package A 0.11 0.36 0.39 0.12 0.978 Package B 0.11 0.42 0.40 0.14 1.07 • Existing 5.0 13.6 17.4 7.3 43.4 Total No-Action 5.0 13.6 19.3 7.3 45.3 Phosphorous (pounds per event) Package A 6.9 22.5 24.4 7.8 61.6 Package B 7.0 26.5 25.1 8.6 67.1 Existing 3,550 9,700 12,400 5,220 30,900 Total Suspended No-Action 3,550 9,700 13,700 5,220 32,200 Solids (pounds Package A 4,940 16,000 17,300 5,510 43,800 per event) Package B 4,960 18,900 17,800 6,080 47,700 Existing 0.71 1.95 2.5 1.05 6.20 Dissolved No-Action 0.71 1.95 2.8 1.05 6.46 Zinc (pounds per event) Package A 0.99 3.2 3.5 1.11 8.80 Package B 1.0 3.8 3.6 1.22 9.59 • Note: Results presented in this table indicate modeled total pounds of contaminant discharged per component per event. ' -Total loading values have been rounded to three significant figures. Water Resources 3.7.14 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.7-4 Driscoll Model Results by I-25 Highway Component for Dissolved Copper 0.45 - 0.40 - 0 Existing _ 0.35 - II No-Action • 0.30 - ❑ Package A Package 0 .25 - ❑ 6 0 a e 0.20 - J i W a 0.15 0 v 0 .10 - - —' 0.05 -' 0.00 I SH 1 - SH 14 SH 14 - SH 60 SH 60 - E-470 E-470 - US 36 (H1 ) (H2) (H3) (H4) • 1-25 Component Figure 3.7-5 Driscoll Model Results by Watershed for Dissolved Copper 0.35 O Existing 0.30 .- B No-Action • 0.25 O Package A co 0.20 - — O Package B 10 c0.15— — _J L a 0.10 - 0.05 — — 4iii I I 1 0.00 I 1 I I Cache la Big St. Vrain Dry Creek South Clear Poudre Thompson Platte Creek • Watershed Water Resources 3.7-15 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Constituent loading is measured in pounds of constituent leaving the roadway per a median rainfall event. The relationship between the alternative's loading is the same for every constituent analyzed the Driscoll model, only the magnitude of the loading changes. The loads for the existing conditions - are used as a "baseline" comparison for each build package. The No-Action Alternative has the lowest predicted constituent loading of all of the project alternatives. Since the Driscoll model is a screening tool that differentiates impacts among alternatives, the results should not be used to determine if water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The loading information from the Driscoll model is used to comparatively estimate which alternative may have more water quality impacts. It can be assumed that an alternative with a higher predicted load (i.e., a greater quantity of constituent leaving the road) would have more water quality impacts than another alternative. Alternative-specific discussion of the Driscoll model results are presented in the following sections. Traffic. Water quality impacts were also assessed by comparing the projected annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes. Several research studies have suggested that a correlation exists between stormwater runoff quality and annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes (FHWA, 1990; Kayhanian and others, 2003). In general, urban areas with greater than 30,000 AADT have been shown to have higher pollutant concentrations of certain constituents when compared with non- urban areas with AADT less than 30,000. However, the correlation between AADT and pollutant concentrations is not consistent for all pollutants found in highway runoff. Pollutants related to transportation activities, such as zinc and copper, are expected to increase with AADT, while certain pollutants, such as total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, and ammonia, which are commonly found in highway runoff but generally associated with a non-urban setting are not expected to increase with AADT (FHWA, 1990; Kayhanian and others, 2003). Therefore, if left • unmitigated, it can be assumed that an alternative with an AADT greater than 30,000 would have higher concentrations of certain constituents in runoff than an alternative with an AADT less than 30,000. Table 3.7-6 presents the projected traffic volumes for the alternative components on 1-25. The majority of the existing traffic volumes and all of the proposed traffic volumes are greater than 30,000 AADT. However, traffic volumes can still be used to compare alternatives from a water quality perspective. For example, an alternative with a higher traffic volume would be expected to have a higher amount of pollutants from vehicles being washed from the roadway; however the magnitude of difference may not be significant. In general, the projected traffic volumes are relatively similar between the project alternatives and range from nearly two to three times the existing traffic volumes. The greatest travel demand is generated in the southern portion of the project area between E-470 to US 36 (H4) followed by SH 60 to E-470 (H3), SH 14 to SH 60 (H2), and SH 1 to SH 14 (H1). • Water Resources 3.7.16 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . Table 3.7-6 Projected Traffic Volumes (AADT) from the North I-25 Project Alternatives Package SH 1 to SH 14 SH 14 to SH 60 SH 60 to E-470 E-470 to US 36 (H1) (H2) (H3) (H4) 19,100-40,800 40,800-65,100 65,000-96,700 87,200- 180,700 Existing 34,500-80,700 80,700- 108,400 104,400- 174,200 153,400-232,100 No-Action 35,400-82,700 82,700- 132,500 118,100- 187,300 157,400-234,500 Package A 35,800-85,500 85,500- 114,500 105,600- 185,200 165,300-245,600 Package B Construction and Drainage. Water quality impacts from construction activities are discussed qualitatively based upon the current state of practice for construction within CDOT. Impacts to the - drainage system are briefly discussed in this section; however, the detailed analysis of the drainage system is presented in the Section 3.9 Floodplains. Groundwater Groundwater quality impacts were evaluated by estimating the number of groundwater wells within - the proposed right-of-way (see Table 3.7-7). The number of groundwater wells located within the • proposed right-of-way was evaluated because active groundwater wells would need to be relocated, and existing wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. For wells located • within the proposed right-of-way, the status of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify the necessary course of action. For example, if a well is still active, the relocation would be required, while inactive wells can be abandoned. Table 3.7-7 Summary of Groundwater Wells within the Project Area SH 1 to SH 14 to SH 60 to E-470 to Stations and Package SH 14 SH 60 E-470 US 36 Maintenance Total (H1) (H2) (H3) (H4) Facilities' Package Wells within Proposed 13 47 26 19 0 105 A Right-of-way Package Wells within Proposed 13 47 28 21 2 111 B Right-of-way Note: '—Includes all transit stations and associated parking lots and COOT maintenance facilities and associated parking lots. 3.7.3.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes safety and maintenance improvements that would need to be constructed if the build packages were not implemented. Major and minor structure maintenance activities are expected to occur on I-25 from US 36 to SH 1. Safety improvements are anticipated at selected locations from WCR 34 to SH 1. See Chapter 2 for additional description of the No- Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative does not include transit components. • Water Resources 3.7.17 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Surface Wafer • Impervious Surfaces. Direct effects on surface water quality from increases in impervious surface area would be negligible under the No-Action Alternative. This is because the No-Action Alternative has relatively minor contributions of impervious surface area from any structure upgrades, such as interchange improvements or bridge replacements. The quality of stormwater runoff would be dependent on the implementation of BMPs associated with No-Action Alternative activities within MS4 areas. Projects over one acre in size associated with the No-Action Alternative that are located within MS4 areas will require BMPs, thereby reducing impacts from increased impervious surface area. The percentage of the impervious surface area treated by BMPs for the No-Action Alternative is substantially less than either of the package alternatives. This means that the majority of stormwater runoff from 1-25 would continue to not be treated prior to discharging to water bodies. Under the No-Action Alternative only 11.2% of the impervious surfaces within the project area are currently being treated. This area is within the SH 60 to E-470 (H3) component and the majority of increased pollutants deposited from vehicles would not pass through a BMP prior to discharge to receiving water bodies. Driscoll Model. As previously mentioned, the results of the Driscoll model are presented as a screening tool to differentiate impacts among alternatives and not to determine if water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The No-Action Alternative has the lowest estimated contaminant loading of the three alternatives (see Table 3.7-5). The only component with an increase in loading greater than the existing conditions is the SH 60 to E-470 (H3) component. This• component crosses the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, and Big Dry Creek watersheds. The remaining components have the same estimated loading as the existing conditions. Traffic. While the amount of impervious surfaces for the No-Action Alternative is approximately 689 to 744 acres less than the build package alternatives, the increase in future traffic volumes should also considered. Chemicals and other pollutants deposited along 1-25 within the project area and mobilized within stormwater runoff would continue to increase as traffic volumes continue to increase along the 1-25 highway corridor over time. The largest potential increase in traffic would likely occur in the SH 60 to E-470 (H3) component. This component currently has the greatest impervious surface area (see Table 3.7-4) and crosses the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, and Big Dry Creek watersheds. Construction. Major and minor structure maintenance activities, such as demolition and construction of bridges and interchange improvements would have construction-related impacts at all stream crossings if left unmitigated. These impacts and the proposed mitigation to minimize these impacts are included in Table 3.7-3. • Drainage System. Major drainage impacts that result from cross drainage are addressed in Section 3.9 Floodplains. Minor drainage features includes storm drainage pipes, inlets, open channels, and other facilities that are used to convey local storm drainage. Drainage improvements associated with the No-Action Alternative would occur in several areas where roadway improvements are currently planned. Anticipated drainage improvements for the No-Action Alternative would include a more efficient storm drainage system of pipes, inlets, open • channels, and water quality facilities. There would be no drainage improvements for the E-470 to Water Resources 3.7.18 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • US 36 (H4) component in the No-Action Alternative and impacts from an inadequate drainage system would occur in this area. Groundwater - Groundwater impacts are not expected as a result of major and minor structure maintenance activities associated with the No-Action Alternative. 3.7.3.3 PACKAGE A Package A contains four highway and four transit components. The package includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25 and implementation of commuter rail and commuter bus service. Construction of associated elements, such as commuter rail and bus stations, carpool lots, bridges, interchanges, and queue jumps, also was considered in this analysis. This package is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. For purposes of this analysis, impervious surface areas include 1-25 and associated interchanges, transit stations, maintenance facilities, and carpool lots. Rail lines were not included as impervious surfaces as part of this analysis because rail ballast material is relatively permeable. Surface Water Impervious Surfaces. Direct effects on surface water quality that are common to all Package A components would result from the addition of paved impervious surfaces, primarily from highway widening for additional general purpose lanes and associated interchanges, bridges, and carpool • lots. Package A would result in more impervious surface area (1,946 acres) than the existing impervious area (1,212 acres), and the No-Action Alternative (1,257 acres). At the component level, impacts to water quality due to the addition of impervious surface area are expected to be the greatest as a result of highway widening from SH 14 to SH 60 (A-H2) (635 acres). This component crosses the Cache la Poudre River and Big Thompson River watershed. To fully understand the impacts from impervious surface area for an alternative, it is important to consider the greater area surrounding the project. There are approximately 159,223 acres of total impervious surface area that exists within the regional study area from commercial and residential developments and other infrastructure. This gives context to the total impervious surface of Package A in relation to its surroundings that the impervious surface area associated with Package A is a small fraction (1.2 percent) of the overall impervious areas in the regional study area. Driscoll Model. As previously mentioned, the results of the Driscoll model are presented as a screening tool to differentiate impacts among alternatives and not whether or not water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The Package A estimated contaminant load for the northern and southern components (SH 1 to SH 14 [A-H1] and E-470 to US 36 [A-H4], • respectively) are slightly greater than the existing conditions. The estimated loadings from the two middle components are considerably greater than the existing conditions. The Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson watersheds have the highest increased load from existing conditions, both approximately a 50 percent increase. These watersheds show the greatest increase in loading because of the SH 14 to SH 60 [A-H2] and SH 60 to E-470 [A-H3] components are within these watersheds. The Package A components estimated loadings are less than the Package B components.• Traffic. In general, the projected traffic volumes are relatively similar between the project alternatives and range from nearly two to three times the existing traffic volumes (See Water Resources 3.7.19 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.7-6). Therefore, Package A would cause an increase in the amount of pollutants being • washed from the roadway due to increased traffic volumes. All of the proposed traffic volumes for the Package A components are greater than 30,000 AADT. The greatest predicted travel demand is generated in the southern portion of the project area between E-470 to US 36 (A-H4) followed by SH 60 to E-470 (A-H3), SH 14 to SH 60 (A-H2), and SH 1 to SH 14 (A-H1). However, the SH 1 to SH 14 (A-H1) component would be expected to have the most significant increase in pollutants because existing traffic in this segment is at times currently less than 30,000 AADT, which is generally characteristic of non-urban areas. Project activities in this segment would cause traffic to increase to levels characteristic of urban areas (i.e., greater than 30,000 AADT), which have higher pollutant concentrations of certain constituents when compared with non-urban areas with AADT less than 30,000 (see Section 3.7.3.1). If stormwater is left unmitigated, consequences from increased impervious surfaces and traffic would include an increase in water velocities and volumes, and an increase in the type and quantity of chemicals and other pollutants that are deposited along 1-25 (see Table 3.7-4). However, the incorporation of BMPs into the design will remove a large amount of the chemicals and sediment that could be deposited within surface water bodies within the project area. Under the Package A Alternative, water quality ponds will provide a volume sufficient to treat approximately 1,765 acres (90.7%) of the impervious surfaces within the project area. This is compared to the existing 2.4% of the impervious surfaces within the project area that are currently being treated. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve with Package A when compared to the existing or the No-Action Alternative conditions. Construction. The implementation of the Package A Alternative would result in construction- _ related impacts at all stream/ditch/canal crossings if left unmitigated. Other water bodies that may • - not cross 1-25, but are within the construction footprint (including staging areas) would also be affected. The majority of construction related impacts results from the demolition and/or construction of structures, rail lines, and highway lanes. Construction-related impacts and the proposed mitigation to minimize these impacts are included in Table 3.7-3. The proposed construction mitigation measures are summarized in Section 3.7.4 and are required by permit and policy on CDOT projects. Drainage. Major drainage impacts that result from cross drainage are addressed in Section 3.9 Floodplains. General purpose lanes on 1-25 for the SH 14 to SH 60 (A-H2) component and for the SH 60 to E-470 (A-H3) component would require that modifications be made to existing drainage systems or that a new drainage conveyance system be installed. By installing new drainage structures (e.g., storm drainage pipes, inlets, open channels and other facilities conveying local storm drainage), no additional impacts to the drainage system are anticipated. These structures could actually improve the drainage system when compared to the current and No-Action Alternative conditions. Groundwater The construction of the Package A Alternative could require addressing up to 105 wells that are within the proposed right-of-way (see Table 3.7-7). The status of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify the necessary course of action for each well. Active wells would need to be relocated, and all active and non-active wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. • Water Resources 3.7.20 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.7.3.4 PACKAGE B Package B contains four highway components and three transit components. The package generally includes the construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25 and implementation of bus rapid transit service. Construction of associated elements, such as bus stations, carpool lots, bridges, interchanges, and queue jumps, was also considered in the component-level analysis. This package is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. For purposes of this analysis, impervious surface areas include 1-25 and associated interchanges, transit station, maintenance facilities, and carpool lots. Surface Water Impervious Surfaces. Direct effects on surface water quality that are common to all Package B components would result from the addition of paved impervious surfaces, primarily from highway widening for additional tolled express lanes and associated interchanges, bridges, and carpool lots. Package B would result in more impervious surface area (2,001 acres) than the existing impervious area (1,212 acres), and the No-Action Alternative (1,257 acres). At the component level, impacts to water quality due to the addition of impervious surface area are expected to be the greatest from highway widening from SH 14 to SH 60 (B-H2) (773 acres). This component crosses the Cache la Poudre River and Big Thompson River watersheds. To fully understanding the impacts from impervious surface area for an alternative, it is important to consider the greater area surrounding the project. There are approximately 159,223 acres of total • impervious surface area that exist within the regional study area from commercial and residential developments and other infrastructure. This gives context to the total impervious surface of Package B in relation to its surroundings. Driscoll Model. As previously mentioned, the results of the Driscoll model are presented as a screening tool to differentiate impacts among alternatives and not whether or not water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The Package B estimated contaminant load for the northern and southern components (SH 1 to SH 14 [B-H1] and E-470 to US 36 [B-H4], respectively) are slightly greater than the existing conditions. The estimated loadings from the two middle components (SH 14 to SH 60 [B-H2] and SH 60 to E-470 [B-H3]) are considerably greater than the existing conditions. The Cache la Poudre River and Big Thompson River watersheds have the highest increased load from existing conditions, approximately a 68 and102 percent increase, respectively. Package B has the greatest estimated loadings of all alternatives. Traffic. In general, the projected traffic volumes are relatively similar between the project alternatives and range from nearly two to three times the existing traffic volumes (See Table 3.7-6). Therefore, Package B would cause an increase in the amount of pollutants being washed from the roadway due to increased traffic volumes. All of the proposed traffic volumes for the Package B components are greater than 30,000 AADT. The greatest predicted travel demand is generated in the southern portion of the project area between E-470 to US 36 (B-H4)followed by SH 60 to E-470 (B-H3), SH 14 to SH 60 (B-H2), and SH 1 to SH 14 (B-H1). • If stormwater is left unmitigated, consequences from increased impervious surfaces and traffic would include an increase in water velocities and volumes, and an increase in the type and quantity of chemicals and other pollutants, such as sediment, that are deposited within the project area (See Table 3.7-3). However, the incorporation of BMPs into the roadway design will remove a large Water Resources 3.7.21 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. amount of chemicals and sediment deposited within surface water bodies within the project area. • Under the Package B Alternative, water quality ponds will provide a volume sufficient to treat approximately 2,509 acres (125%) of the impervious surfaces within the project area. This is compared to the existing 2.4% of the impervious surfaces within the project area that are currently being treated. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve when compared to the existing and No-Action Alternative conditions. Construction. The implementation of the Package B Alternative would result in construction- related impacts at all stream/ditch/canal crossings if left unmitigated. Other water bodies that may not cross 1-25, but are within the construction footprint (including staging areas) would also be affected. The majority of construction related impacts results from the demolition and/or construction of structures and highway lanes. Construction-related impacts and the typical mitigation to minimize these impacts are included in Table 3.7-3. The proposed construction mitigation measures are summarized in Section 3.7.4. Drainage. Major drainage impacts that result from cross drainage are addressed in Section 3.9 Floodplains. The roadway improvements associated with Package B would require existing drainage system modifications or a new drainage conveyance system. By installing new drainage structures (e.g., storm drainage pipes, inlets, open channels and other facilities conveying local storm drainage), no additional impacts to the drainage system are anticipated. These structures could actually improve the drainage system when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Groundwater The construction of the Package B Alternative could require the relocation of up to 111 wells that • are within the proposed right-of-way (see Table 3.7-7). The status of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify the necessary course of action. Active wells would need to be relocated, and all active and non-active wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures This section summarizes the BMPs that have been incorporated as water quality mitigation measures into the alternative packages. 3.7.4.1 SURFACE WATER QUALITY If stormwater runoff is left unmitigated, the No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B would have water quality impacts due to changes in stormwater characteristics from the addition of impervious surface area and increases in traffic levels. Other impacts would result from the demolition and construction of roadways and structures (e.g., bridges, culverts, piers, retaining - walls) near surface water bodies. To reduce the impacts to water resources, a combination of mitigation measures consisting of permanent structural, nonstructural, and temporary construction BMPs will be implemented in the project area, in compliance with the Clean Water Act and CDOT's MS4 permit requirements. BMPs will include water collection and passive treatment of stormwater, which is currently being directly discharged into existing water systems. In addition, the BMPs may also provide protection to receiving waters from chemical spills that could occur in the project area. Structural BMPs Permanent structural BMPs have already been identified and sited for major stream systems in the • project area. Permanent structural BMPs will be constructed with the project and maintained to ensure Water Resources 3.7-22 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • their functionality. Water quality ponds and riprap outlet protection are examples of structural BMPs. Consistent with CDOT's MS4 design criteria identified in the New Development and Redevelopment Program (CDOT, 2004a), the performance criteria that have been selected for permanent structural - BMPs within the project area are 100 percent water quality capture volume (WQCV) or 80 percent total suspended solids (TSS) removal. The removal efficiencies for these types of BMPs (e.g., extended detention basin) are 50 percent to 70 percent (TSS), 10 percent to 20 percent (total phosphorus), and 30 percent to 60 percent (total zinc) (CDOT, 2004a). Water Quality Ponds. Extended detention/retention ponds have been identified as the primary structural BMP for this project. Maintenance personnel have requested that water quality ponds be used rather than vaults. This is primarily because water quality ponds are much easier to maintain, whereas vaults often require extra time to clean out. Also, maintenance personnel are required to obtain Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) confined space entry certification for vault maintenance activities. The No-Action Alternative has only 2 areas with BMPs (water quality ponds), which are associated with the No-Action improvements. Additional water quality ponds have been incorporated into the design of Packages A and B. Physical design constraints, adjacent property uses, and right-of-way requirements were analyzed and considered during the design process. It is anticipated that types and sizes of BMPs could be modified in the future. When possible, passive BMPs (e.g., grass swales or natural infiltration) will be used for ephemeral streams along the corridor that could reasonably discharge pollutants into perennial stream systems. The preliminary drainage design for Packages A and B is based on the CDOT Drainage Design Manual (CDOT, 2004a) and • Volume 3 of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (UDFCD, 2001). The locations for water quality ponds have been identified throughout the project area for Packages A and B. The placement of these BMPs was determined using a rating system that was based on existing and likely future MS4 areas, locations of sensitive surface water systems and/or irrigation canals, and physical design opportunities. More detailed information on BMP placement is provided in the Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report(FHU, 2008b). Figures 3.7-6 and 3.7-7 show the areas along the 1-25 corridor where water quality ponds are proposed. They also show the reason why ponds were included in each particular stretch of the corridor. As previously discussed, Package A would provide ponds with a capacity to treat 90.7 percent of the total impervious surface area, while Package B would provide ponds with a capacity to treat 125 percent of the total impervious surface area. A percentage greater than 100 indicates that the volume provided is greater than the defined water quality capture volume, which is equal to one- half inch of rainfall times the impervious area. Capture volumes greater than 100 percent can sometimes be used to offset other locations on the highway system where 100 percent capture cannot be achieved. These are dramatically greater than the existing conditions (2.4 percent) and the No-Action Alternative (11.2 percent). Water quality ponds are only proposed along the 1-25 corridor. No roadway improvements are - proposed along the US 85 corridor, except for the addition of five very small impervious areas for bus queue jumps at select intersections. The Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for these queue jumps is less than 0.1 acre-feet. To ensure 100 percent WQCV, the queue volume • impervious surfaces area has been accounted for in the ponds along 1-25. It is not practical to place water quality ponds along the US 85 corridor because a new drainage system would be required to carry the water to a BMP. Water Resources 3.7-23 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.7-6 Package A - Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments I LEGEND ` Package A %t Study Corridors ",/ Highways �,.ai� w.atiaa, /\/ Arterial Roads v- 'N., S J 1/4k I Regional Study Area14 ' �- \'•\\k / (` City Boundaries / CACHE LA POUDRE Place a Cities & Towns in Project Area I ' C WATERSHED �, -Current tre Area � I rn1•Collins, '- aN4 , . tom, I / �� Major Streams & Rivers - ,�,,, i I 1 II malt .0 Seveance Fat.n 1 t T I 287-r—_1_ -Nlin It dscf Future MS4 Area — 34 ac treated - Lucenx -, ) ptrhe la Poodle River , • t- �reeley , `s • � ---� 34 "'I'`..-.'. / i sx cn, l - -•Lovelan — 34 _ -,.: i-J :G THO --ON L. r, i ✓ RSHED tt p rnpAr La Salie Campion f I ..� a'rionm18i9� rger / • R . - 60- 85 , Sensitive waters 1 L Berthoud O Milliken / (Little Thompson) • —114 ac treated t k ui la est Additional I SOUTH PT►TE / 111^- 196 ac treated i et WATERSHED V .1. % due to transit i "mod - ,� components 66 - i ..-.••.5 's Platteville I M m ongmnnt p ! Available Area 1 (WCR 34 Interchange) / —108 ac treated f / ST. VRAIN v�llR,� v 1 / WATERSHED o r I Future MS4 Area -- " %got 0 Ftedeick I —50 ac treated / } � % — c_Y v 0 ea2.c DInliG fat tut. s,tttk,tte • 119 ca bie ` DRY CREEK ' j Sensitive Water I WATERSHEDo (st vraln) r 'A,;r er7 —190 ac treated I Boulder 7 _ ' ) 4 * t w1 � i ' + laiayette Y� ` Latsvillel r '� mn Brighton /Sureiis- r ly�L`•.\- - / f l \ +.. 0•E `: a trs•lake / sraxn}ieltj 1 • \, j /_ r . \ Current MS4 Area 0 mtn, f 1 treated T t. %CLEAR CR: K / ,! i___149ac • I PT__ -; WATjERSH :e . I� �! - •fie: L., . Denver^� i 79 0 2 4 6 8 10 / Jt 1• i )---------- ..\\, I ' ' ' ' I Miles Norcn • se , ,,,,,.,, Il Water Resources 3.7-24 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.7-7 Package B - Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments I ) LEGEND Package B Al Study Corridors - \ A/ Highways I /.\/ ' .� . ,°`�, �''` CD �/ Arterial Roads ' .,CD , Regional Study Area �� -' 1 , ® tit City Boundaries /� - CACHE LA POUDRE Fierce Current MS4 Area 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area I ' WATERSHED - 1036 ac treated Fr,rt-Collins -%f\ ^- Major Streams & Rivers I . i — A, t 14 s , . T.T kith 0 CtvRa,re Ealu Future MS4 Area - 35 ac treated 287 lurvii .;_ , ,,.... 392 la Poudre RtY5. Cache ; Greeley d i ..� • - 34 -_, t '% 1, 263 ii..... �` 'xrdalCity I - ' Lovelan. 34 : GTH = SON - -- Evans RSHEDmpson LaSle . t , imrion . � ... j " id 0 Milliken 85 / la Sensitive waters I 6 A— ,(Little Thompson) -114 ac treated f tilt�eSI • Additional SOUTH PLACE / I WATERSHED 70 ac treated . `' .1-, I Mead ae i due to transit j l b I Available Area components2 ' : (WCR 34 Interchange) fi Longmont , 9 I —121 ac treated lot ,�t ST. VRAIN , '1atat`o t -, , WATERSHED _'0 Firestone \'' 1 Future MS4 Area -- .Q Frederick —69 ac treated Mimi • Cocoa I c-. E�;r,,,, Waters 0 Gmbarrel BI� _ Sensitive i ; 119 i o - . DRY CREE� ' 1. E. WATERSHED o \�` '76 ac treated "� -L Watterbe g I • Ti' :oulder �� i'1� I I Future MS4 Area rletfayette • k „ - ' I 7 —136 ac treated. t Lotr sville �w� a iyl to ; 'SUperi i e ''. % / . 95'10419i se< L) r 1 I. . i ' J. 9 •� r _ \ 36 ` + , _/ Current MS4 Area `� H s ton % �� —852 ac treated CLEARR I\ 11'; - Ic s �, -- II„ ,_WATiERSH , i �_ ' ' \tee ft.'• . �% 1 �- S enver i o 1771 , i 1 r - -, _ ...... 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 �` y- �_ l•._._� .III . { t t t ' i Miles North y _ Water Resources 3.7-25 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The application of water quality ponds as part of Package B is expected to reduce the amount of • iron discharged from the roadway to Segment 1 of Big Dry Creek, which is on CDPHE's Monitoring and Evaluation list for Iron, by approximately 50 to 60 percent (FDEP, 1999). The improvements in - the E-470 to US 36 (B-H4) segment of Package B, where Segment 1 of Big Dry Creek lies, are expected to increase all pollutant loadings including iron by approximately 30 percent (see Table 3.7-10). This demonstrates that the water quality ponds can improve the water quality conditions at Big Dry Creek over the existing conditions. However, Package A does not have any roadway improvements in the E-470 to US 36 (A-H4) component and therefore no water quality ponds would be provided to reduce the current iron loadings from the No-Action conditions. Dissolved copper removal in water quality ponds is less than that of iron. Dissolved copper in Packages A and B are estimated to increase by 42 and 59 percent, respectively, over the existing conditions. Data from the USEPA shows that dissolved copper in extended dry detention basins ranges from 1.4 to 38 percent removal (USEPA 2008). While this is a wide range, it does show that there is potential for the proposed water quality ponds to remove dissolved copper to a level close to existing conditions. As previously stated, removal efficiencies of 50 to 70 percent for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 10 to 20 percent for total phosphorus, and 50 to 60 percent for iron are expected for the proposed water quality ponds. Riprap. Riprap will be placed at bridge abutments, piers, and at critical portions of a channel or floodplain to avoid progressive or catastrophic failure of a structure. Riprap reduces water quality impacts by protecting stream systems from accelerated erosion and sedimentation processes that could occur from structures (see Table 3.7-8). The most effective method of stabilization at bridge • abutments and piers is the use of riprap. Riprap that is correctly sized, is angular, and placed on a granular material or fabric, has a better record for erosion and scour protection than other methods such as vegetative cover. Despite its reliability, riprap must still be monitored and maintained. More detailed information on riprap layout and aesthetics is provided in the Water Quality and Floodplains - Technical Report(FHU, 2008b). Energy dissipation devices or materials, such as riprap, will control post-construction erosion near the bridge. According to SB40 Guidelines, riprap used above the ordinary high water level of the river that is not directly under a bridge must be covered with topsoil and vegetated. Nonstructural BMPs (Construction and Post-Construction) Nonstructural BMPs reduce or eliminate pollutant mobilization within stormwater runoff. Street sweeping, snow storage, and spill containment measures are examples of post-construction nonstructural BMPs. Project construction phasing is another nonstructural BMP to be implemented to minimize water quality impacts. Phasing construction activities minimizes the effects associated with large areas of exposed ground and with soil compaction from heavy machinery use, both of which are commonly associated with transportation projects. Construction nonstructural BMPs include mulch/mulch tackifier, soil retention blankets, vegetated buffer strips, and preservation of mature vegetation. • Water Resources 3.7.26 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • , Temporary Structural BMPs (Construction) There is also potential for impacts to surface water bodies during the demolition and construction of roadways and structures (e.g., bridges, culverts, piers, retaining walls). A Stormwater Management Plan and Notebook will be prepared in accordance with the current CDOT practices to ensure that temporary construction impacts are avoided or minimized. Temporary structural BMPs are implemented to reduce erosion associated with areas of ground disturbance while construction activities take place. These measures remain in place until CDOT determines they are no longer needed at the construction sites, such as when soil stabilizing vegetation has been reestablished. Silt fences, straw bale barriers, and temporary check dams are examples of temporary structural BMPs used during construction. CDOT's specifications for managing stormwater at a construction site (currently specifications 107.25, 208, 212, 213, and 216) will be followed. When put into practice, the actions identified below will help avoid construction impacts: ► If lead paint is present, this material must not be allowed to flake off and enter receiving waters. (Section 402, Clean Water Act, CDPHE Regulation 61). ► If cranes and other equipment are used for bridge demolition within a river or streambank area, the equipment will be kept out of the river, and all work shall minimize temporary impacts to the river. The creation of a crane pad is necessary if cranes or other equipment cannot be kept out of the river. ► There is a potential for sediment to enter streams from land disruption and subsequent erosion. • Therefore, BMPs such as protecting existing vegetation, placing structural BMPs, and limiting access areas will be implemented in compliance with the CDPHE general construction permit. Stormwater management plans must be developed during design and implemented during construction, and updated as needed to keep the project in compliance with the CDPS-SCP permit for the site. ► Caissons used to create bridge piers could require groundwater dewatering. A discharge permit and a treatment strategy will be needed before dewatering activities can occur. ► If other regulated materials are present within or on structures, they must be removed and appropriately recycled or disposed of prior to demolition activities. Typical materials include containerized regulated liquids such as paints, solvents, oil, grease, chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides, and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) containing equipment (equipment must be emptied before equipment is removed) [Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations (6 Colorado Code of Regulations [CCR] 1007-3)]. ► A Senate Bill 40 (SB40) permit from the CDOW is required when construction occurs in "any streams or its banks or tributaries". This permit will include measures to protect existing riparian areas, such as mitigating stormwater runoff or replacing riparian vegetation (on a 1:1 basis for trees and a square footage basis for shrubs). Permanent structural BMPs, nonstructural BMPs, and temporary construction BMPs must be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure functionality and efficiency. This includes inspections of proper BMP operation, outfall discharges and erosion protection, and detention pond sediment removal. • Water Resources 3.7.27 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.7.4.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY • The status of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify if active wells are present. Active wells in the final right-of-way will need to be relocated and non-active wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. All wells that lie within the proposed right-of-way will be included in all project specifications and plan drawings. If any of these wells are affected by project activities, coordination with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety will be required. If necessary, wells must be plugged, sealed, and abandoned according to CDOT Section 202.02 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and in conformance with the State Engineer well abandonment procedures. If groundwater is encountered during activities associated with excavations for caisson/retaining walls, the discharge of groundwater is authorized if the following conditions are met. ► the source is groundwater and/or groundwater combined with stormwater that does not contain pollutants in concentrations exceeding the State groundwater standards in Regulations 5 CCR 1002-41 and 42; ► the source is identified in the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP); ► dewatering BMPs are included in the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and ► these discharges do not leave the site as surface runoff or to surface waters. If these conditions are not met, then a separate Clean Water Act Section 402 Construction • Dewatering Permit or Individual Construction Dewatering Permit will be required to be obtained from the CDPHE - WQCD. In addition, if dewatering is necessary, groundwater brought to the surface will be managed according to Section 107.25 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for . Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005). 3.7.4.3 DRAINAGE - Approximate locations of water quality ponds are shown in the DEIS design plans. Higher flows will be allowed to pass off of the right-of—way and into a drainageway. Storm drainage should be separated from irrigation facilities, wetlands, and sensitive areas. Drainage at bridges, super elevation transitions, ramp gores, and low areas will be analyzed and coordinated into the design. Detailed storm drainage for the Preferred Alternative will be determined during final design. The implementation of commuter rail or bus service will require similar drainage improvements. The CDOT Drainage Design Manual, the CDOT Erosion Control and Storm water Quality Guide (CDOT, 2002), and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual will be consulted for guidance during design. • Water Resources 3.7.28 • N oRrx U5 IL EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 8 Wetlands • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.8 WETLANDS In recognition of the importance of clean water and the ecological value of wetlands, in 1977 the What's in Section 3.8? • U.S. Congress passed the Clean Water Act 3.8 Wetlands (CWA) to protect the physical, biological, and 3.8.1 Affected Environment chemical quality of waters of the U.S., including 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences adjacent wetlands. Section 404 of the CWA 3.8.2.1 No-Action Alternative defines waters of the U.S. as all traditional 3.8.2.2 Package A navigable waters and their tributaries, all 3.8.2.3 Package B 3.8.2.4 interstate waters and their tributaries, all Indirect Impacts Common to wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all Both Packages J 3.8.2.5 Wetland Functional impoundments of these waters. The US Army Values Corp of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures Program administers, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces, Section 404 of the CWA. The definition of waters of the U.S. under USAGE jurisdiction does not include wetlands that lack a surface connection to, and therefore are isolated from, regulated waters. In projects with federal funding or oversight, a second piece of legislation, Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands, directs the lead federal agencies, in this instance Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Authority (FTA), to protect isolated wetlands by • avoiding direct or indirect support of construction in wetlands when a practicable alternative is available. For the purpose of this wetlands Section 3.8, here after, Waters of the U.S. will be referred to as jurisdictional open waters. Consultation with USAGE, EPA, Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW), and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has occurred and is documented in Appendix B Agency Coordination. • Wetlands 3.8-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 3.8.1 Affected Environment I Wetlands are ecosystems where soils are L " 3 saturated with water for long periods during the r k `'y ; \ Ri . - „p ii 4 growing season and therefore generally c :� .' �r• m = 5 support plant species adapted for very wet �s i .„,.1 6 environments . In Colorado, wetland areas ' ' �• ' . 4 " i4'" ;-: R ;. 7 cover approximately 2percent of the land b x�',. ' # } p p Y _ � 8 surface but provide a wide variety of 'tiK =1 ,i. ,. . , ,r;,� % , . w,:. c economically and ecologically important ..r. .4.444 - .. 10 functions . Wetlands provide water quality u .- ' �, A ' A • - :. ,. •�=r ,': ,t • 11 improvement, groundwater recharge/ ,. i!,1=4 :.,..t . 12 discharge, bank stabilization , flood protection , - _ _ = - --., •.„ _t- 13 food chain support, fish and wildlife habitat, y,\ :-. �� :, s� 08/16/2005 14 rare species habitat, education and research , ' i` y.. Y : , 15 and recreation . Big Thompson River 1E' Wetlands in the project area were delineated 1- iori 17 during late spring through the early fall 2006 . `rlk 1E seasons of 2005 and 2006 (Ecotone, ) ,,y,y V ':4, r 19 Wetland determinations were based on '' t,. r 4 *. " ° >, fi _ -- 20 documenting the presence of diagnostic �`` ., • - 21 environmental characteristics for vegetation , ' 4I w �1.►f` '. . ;- • --` • ,. 22 hydrology, , Y -:(.1116,v,:..,‘,j � ,, • { ,ti — y gy, and soils as outlined in the Corps ofs . , , : � 4 � ; 23 Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual �, .;,;, b , I:fie: �` .. � ° �_ �.*-, 2L (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). • r, � ,%i 4‘\ . ' `ti, t • rr - �6 ` * Y 1 ) . _ .. : :�_ ' %; 7:i*if` .i•1 :Ylt44 f cr--. s '"+.t _ Typical Roadside Ditch II Wetlands 3.8-2 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. • 1 As the accompanying photos depict, wetlands in the project area generally occur along streams, 2 roadside ditches , irrigation ditches and canals, and at pond margins. Major streams in the project 3 area are Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River, Box Elder Creek, Cache la Poudre River, Clear Creek, Fossil Creek, Little Dry Creek, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, South Platte 5 River, and Spring Creek. These water resources are shown in Figure 3.8.1 6 Wetlands are the transition zone between aquatic and upland habitats and are defined 8 by the USACE as, "those areas inundated or 9 saturated by surface or groundwater at a . . , .�� . 10 frequency and duration sufficient to support „: . '1'�^"�R _ . 11 and under normal circumstances do support, ' .- A- -• 12 a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted I. . x1S-f!,= 13 for life in saturated soil conditions." Based on , 14 the classifications of waters and wetlands 1 15 developed by Cowardin and others (USFWS , 16 1979), wetland types present include 1 : . .4 - 17 palustrine emergent systems with persistent _ 18 vegetation and palustrine scrub-shrub -4 =` - - ,. _ - - - - . �. :10 005 19 systems with broad-leaved deciduous shrubs . 20 Common wetland species include cattail 21 ( Typha sp. ), reed canarygrass (Phalaris Typical Irrigation Canal 2L arundinacea), sedges ( Carex sp. ), rushes • 23 (Juncus sp. ), and narrowleaf willow (Salix 24 exigua). ` 25 A Wetland Assessment Form was used to 26 rate wetland functions (Jacobs, 2006). 2-r Wetland functions typically include water 28 quality improvement, groundwater - ` � ` ,S` 4 • . 29 recharge/discharge, bank stabilization , flood =r 30 protection , food chain support, and/or wildlife 31 habitat. . ' #.... = .. • 09/08/2005 • 32 Wetland acreage and type is summarized ` f ` 33 below. Detailed information on wetland types, yp , Typical Ponded Area 34 locations, functions, and probable 35 jurisdictional status is provided in the North 1-25 Wetland and Waters of the U. S. Technical 36 Report (Jacobs, 2008d ). • Wetlands 3.8-3 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.8-1 Water Resources in the Project Area I , s , 4 H LEGEND Al Study Corridors . . s _ t� '_.�• 1. /s / Highways �= Wellington " ..' .. L "/ Arterial Roads , ' •‘• L.J Regional Study Area 287 its/ I 0 �'� C Rene , City Boundaries dchP4d p 76 O .\ 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area ! Fort Co a ,P4, m .. i a Streams and Rivers Ault ; 14 Lakes 257 1 I , ' Lmnath 1 """"'"""'� O Severance Eat I 1 i 287 FQssvcreet Wirtdsnr _ .- _ - ------ Lucerne ',. 392' I 1 i Greeley •I 1 �"_,'`,I 34 263 I"•"`''' 4 Garden City• r ei Loveland Di. + ! I gh - � .os Evans ' i �,p. / r • ` u•i iLa Salle / . Campion c o'n60 Set `�'-1 85 Li IBerthoud tnontr 0 Milliken I. Ellto &crest t I ® /1 � ., Meat / I y r Flattevdle ss_i-- - v to creek C I t4 Q Longmont Sat^ I I r . ` 3 . yI rur ' /1 Volln'ar 0 I i 0 Firestone I Niwot @it0 Frederick 1 / 0 Bacono Fort Lupton 152 moo...__..- 0 Gunbarrel R/ 0� i `/ /, 0 No Off` ,,rte i 76 0 Valmont �0 Cr 0 , / �'.` O�Wattenberg i Boulder 7 C5' '/ 0 Ealay.""I_,� �.— ' • Louisville '�-- Brighton • i_ 7 • •• ,• SuperiorE' l `yam , At ..../ N Eastlake �• Broomfield 0 ['wide,son•N — f .N. t/ 93 Nurttglenrr / tca 0 Thornton , , / / ice - t Denver-1 70 I. r pa yr1 0 2 4 6 8 10 I fl /1 f ' I Miles North �� .` i `-., I, .\ Map Doumwv.Cia lVty Y_Af. .s mid 2.22.2%? Wetlands 3.8-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.8-1 summarizes wetland acreage and type in the project area by location, size, and type of vegetation. Table 3.8-1 Total Wetland Acreage Existing within the North I-25 Project Corridors Location Size (acres) Vegetation Type BNSF right-of-way from 128 acres Emergent, scrub-shrub, and Fort Collins(SH 14)through combination of emergent and Longmont and FasTracks scrub-shrub vegetation North Metro Corridor US 34- 1-25 to Greeley 1 acre Emergent and scrub-shrub vegetation. US 85—Greeley to Denver 1.61 acres Emergent and scrub-shrub Union Station and DIA(E-470) vegetation. North I-25 Corridor— 308 acres Emergent, scrub-shrub, and Fort Collins(SH 14)to combination of emergent and intersection with US 36 scrub-shrub vegetation Table 3.8-2 Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Waters Existing within the North I-25 Project Area by Package Wetland Type/Terrain Package A (acres) Package B (acres) Palustrine Scrub/Shrub • Existing 83.71 66.80 Palustrine Emergent Existing 315.30 234.38 Other waters Waters of the U.S. Existing 13.8 14.8 Open Water Existing 25.7 28.9 Total Wetlands and Other 438.51 344.88 Waters Existing *Other waters include perennial and intermittent waterways,or bodies of water including irrigation canals,ponds,lakes, and reservoirs,which may be considered as jurisdictional by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. _ Wetland Jurisdiction On June 5, 2007, the EPA and USAGE issued agency guidance, effective immediately, regarding jurisdiction of the CWA following the Supreme Court decision in Rapanos vs. United States. The guidance has been issued to ensure that jurisdictional determinations under the CWA are consistent with the Rapanos decision and provide efficient protection for the nation's water resources. Further information regarding jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional open water is presented in the North /-25 Wetland and Waters of the U.S.Technical Report(Jacobs, 2008d). The USAGE would make a final . determination of jurisdictional status for wetlands and jurisdictional open water within the project area following receipt of the North /-25 Wetland and Waters of the U.S Technical Report(Jacobs, 2008d). • Typical wetland vegetation occurring in emergent wetlands in the project area include cattail species, common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), arctic rush (Juncus arcticus), reed canarygrass, Emory's sedge (Carex emoryi), smooth horsetail (Equisetum laevigata), Wetlands 3.8.5 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. bluejoint (Calamagrostis candadensis), clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis), foxtail • barley (Hordeum jubatum), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Typical vegetation occurring in scrub-shrub wetlands in the project area include various mixes of emergent wetland vegetation in the understory and an overstory primarily dominated in part or combination of narrowleaf willow , boxelder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica), crack willow (Salix fragilis), and plains cottonwood saplings (Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera). Riparian zones/buffers are present next to a majority of wetlands occurring along streams, irrigation ditches and canals, and at pond margins. These riparian zones provide important ecological assistance to the existing wetlands and surrounding ecosystem. Typical roles associated with riparian zones include soil/floodplain stability, sediment trap, pollutant filter, wildlife habitat and migration corridors, and water quality improvement. Typical vegetation occurring in riparian zones along wetlands in the project area include silver maple (Acer saccharinum), Woods' rose (Rosa woodsii), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), crack willow (Salix fragilis), boxelder , narrowleaf willow , green ash, and a mixture of various emergent wetland vegetation. 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes the effects to wetlands that would occur under the No-Action • Alternative and under the two build packages (Packages A and B). Potential effects on wetlands were evaluated according to: ► Direct impacts (acreage) by project alternatives and component ► Indirect impacts ► Changes in wetland functions and values Environmental consequences are presented in this document as they are anticipated to occur in the Year 2030. While each resource is assessed for impacts related to all improvements within an alternative (e.g. interchanges, structural improvements, safety upgrades, carpool lots, feeder bus, maintenance facilities), only those areas where impacts would occur are discussed. As a result, not every element of an alternative is discussed. Mitigation measures are also described. Direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and other aquatic environments are described for each of the three alternatives in Sections 3.8.2.1 through Section 3.8.2.3. Direct wetland impacts from Package A components are summarized in Table 3.8-3 and direct wetland impacts from Package B components are summarized in Table 3.8-4. Indirect impacts common to both of the build packages (Package A and Package B) are described in Section 3.8.2.3. Impacts to wetland functional values are discussed in Section 3.8.2.4. 3.8.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes major and minor structure rehabilitation, replacement or • rehabilitation of existing pavement, and minor safety modifications by 2030. These actions Wetlands 3.8-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • would take place regardless of whether any of the proposed improvements in Packages A or B occur. The No-Action Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. The No-Action Alternative would generally not affect existing wetland resources, except those associated with development activities and rehabilitation of major and minor structures. Existing conditions, described in Section 3.8.1, would continue. With increasing traffic volumes and continuing commercial and residential development in the project area, some effects to wetland resources would be expected. Effects from existing or increasing development volumes on wetland resources could result in wetland loss to permanent fill areas, increased sedimentation, waterway channelization, wetland habitat fragmentation, and mortality from vehicle collisions with wildlife species utilizing wetland habitats. 3.8.2.2 PACKAGE A Components of Package A include safety improvements, construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25, structure upgrades, and the implementation of commuter rail and commuter bus service. Development of these components would result in impacts totaling 17.48 acres of wetlands and 1.86 acres of jurisdictional open water (see Table 3.8-3). Table 3.8-3 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Water from Package A Components Package A PEM* PSS** Other Waters (acres) Totals (acres) (acres) Open Waters of (acres) • Water the U.S. Safety Improvements A-H1 ISH1toSH14 0 0 0 0 0 General Purpose Lanes A-H2 SH 14 to SH 60 7.00 1.42 0.57 0.85 9.84 A-H3 SH 60 to E 470 4.07 0.77 0 0.42 5.26 Structure Upgrades A-H4 I E 470 to US 36 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail A-T1 Ft. Collins to Longmont 0.51 0.23 0 0 0.74 A-T2 Longmont to North Metro 1.28 2.20 0 0.02 3.50 Denver Commuter Bus A-T3 Greeley to North Metro 0 0 0 0 0 Denver A-T4 Greeley to DIA 0 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail Stations 0 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 Package A Totals: 12.86 4.62 0.57 1.29 19.34 Note:Jurisdictional status of impacted wetlands will be determined by a USACE official as part of a jurisdictional determination;totals account for both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland impacts.All totals are considered as areas of unavoidable/permanent wetland impact. 'PEM=Palustrine emergent wetland "PSS=Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland Safety Improvements • . Safety improvements proposed in Package A would have no direct or indirect impacts on wetlands or jurisdictional open water. Wetlands 3.8.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. General Purpose Lanes • Under Package A, one additional northbound and one additional southbound general purpose lane would be constructed between SH 14 and SH 60 (A-H2) and SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3). Implementation of the general purpose lanes for Package A would affect 15.10 acres of • wetlands and jurisdictional open water. The majority of impacts associated with this component would be associated with construction activities requiring clearing, grading, or vegetation removal adjacent to and in the floodplains of perennial waterways. Impacts are primarily anticipated to occur along Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Fossil • Creek, Little Dry Creek, Little Thompson River, South Platte River, and St. Vrain Creek. Wetland types that would be impacted are palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetland communities with associated riparian buffers. The construction of general purpose lanes proposed under Package A would have direct impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open water within the alternative footprint as a result of fill placement caused by construction of transportation improvements, such as roadway widening • and realignment, new alignments, and intersection improvements. Wetland types that would be • impacted are palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetland communities with associated riparian buffers. Structure Upgrades Package A would provide structural upgrades between E-470 and US 36. Due to a lack of wetlands within construction areas, the proposed structure upgrades under Package A would have no direct or indirect impacts on wetlands or jurisdictional open water. • Commuter Rail Package A includes the construction of a commuter rail line from Fort Collins to Longmont, continuing from Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Corridor. Commuter rail installations and stations associated with components A-T1 and A-T2 would have direct impacts to 4.24 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open water within the alternative footprint as a result of fill placement caused by construction of railway components, such as track installation and alignment, maintenance facilities, and station locations. The great majority of these impacts would occur as a result of component A-T2. The majority of impacts for these components would occur along Big Thompson River, Boulder Creek, Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, and Big Thompson River. Wetland types that would be impacted are palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetland communities with associated riparian buffers. Commuter Bus Package A includes the addition of commuter bus service and associated stations between Greeley, Denver, and Denver International Airport (DIA). The commuter bus lines would operate on existing roadways and would have no direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or jurisdictional open water. Stations are immediately adjacent to the roadway and would have no direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or jurisdictional open water • Wetlands 3.8.8 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • , 3.8.2.3 PACKAGE B - Components of Package B include safety improvements, construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) service and associated stations. Development of these components would result in impacts totaling 18.11 acres of wetlands, and 2.27 acres of jurisdictional open water (Table 3.8-4). Table 3.84 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Water from Package B Components Package B PEM* PSS** Other Waters (acres) Totals (acres) (acres) Waters of Open (acres) the U.S. Water Safety Improvements BH-1 I SH 1 to SH 14 0 0 0 0 0 Tolled Express Lanes BH-2 SH 14 to SH 60 9.78 1.90 1.04 0.71 13.43 BH-3 SH 60 to E 470 4.25 0.81 0.43 0 5.49 BH-4 E 470 to US 36 0.53 0.32 0.09 0 0.94 Bus Rapid Transit B-T1 Ft. Collins/Greeley to 0 0 0 0 North Metro Denver B-T2 Ft. Collins to DIA 0 0 0 0 BRT Stations Ft. Collins to Greeley 0.52 0 0 0.52 • Ft. Collins to North 0 0 0 0 Metro Denver Metro Denver to DIA 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Facilities 0 0 0 0 Package B Totals: 15.08 3.03 1.56 0.71 20.38 Note:Jurisdictional status of impacted wetlands will be determined by a USAGE official as part of a jurisdictional determination;totals account for both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland impacts.All totals are considered as areas of unavoidable/permanent wetland impact. • 'PEM=Palustrine emergent wetland "'PSS=Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland Safety Improvements Safety improvements proposed in Package B would have no direct or indirect impacts on • wetlands or jurisdictional open water. Tolled Express Lanes Under Package B, a northbound and southbound tolled express lane would be constructed from SH 14 to SH 60 (B-H2), SH 60 to E-470 (B-H3), and E-470 to US 36 (B-H4), except between Harmony Road and SH 60 where two tolled express lanes would be added in each direction. The construction of tolled express lanes would affect 19.86 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open water. The majority of impacts associated with this component would be associated with construction activities requiring clearing, grading, or vegetation removal adjacent to and in the floodplains of perennial waterways. Impacts are primarily anticipated to occur along Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Little Dry Creek, Little Thompson River, South Platte River, and St. Vrain Creek. Wetland types • - that would be impacted are palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetland communities with associated riparian buffers. Wetlands 3.8.9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Bus Rapid Transit • Package B includes the addition of BRT from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver and to DIA. BRT would operate on existing roadways or share the tolled express lanes and would not result in direct or indirect impacts on existing wetland resources; however, installation of BRT stations would impact 0.52 acre of emergent wetland. The proposed BRT project activity would have direct impacts to wetlands within the alternative footprint as a result of fill placement caused by construction of BRT stations. Impacts for this component would be associated with two minor, stand-alone depressional areas. Wetland types that would be impacted are palustrine emergent wetland communities. 3.8.2.4 INDIRECT IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH PACKAGES Both Package A and Package B would cause indirect effects to wetlands located within and adjacent to areas of construction. The following indirect effects are common to build components for general purpose lanes, commuter rail, commuter rail stations, commuter bus, tolled express lanes, BRT stations, and maintenance facilities. Most indirect effects would result from the increase in impervious surfaces caused by additional lanes or added road shoulders. The greater area of impervious surfaces would be expected to increase roadway runoff, surface flows in adjacent streams, erosion, and the creation of channels in wetlands that were previously free of channelization. New flows could contain pollutants associated with roadway runoff. Sediment from winter sanding operations, especially with additional roadway lanes, would likely accumulate in wetlands and drainages. De-icers, petroleum • products, and other chemicals, would likely reduce water quality, thus impacting wetland plants and wildlife. Sediment and erosion control would be required to be placed during all phases of construction and would remain in place until all disturbed areas have reached 70% of preconstruction vegetative cover. Other indirect wetland effects include the decrease or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway/rail corridor and adjacent wetlands. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes as well as provide habitat for wildlife. Because proposed roadway and/or rail alignments primarily follow existing lines, many wetlands currently receive indirect effects from general activity and maintenance practices. However, the magnitude of indirect effects would increase with increased area of roadway and rail corridors. Indirect impacts resulting from project induced growth, transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1.5. 3.8.2.5 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES Functions and values of wetlands located within the North 1-25 project area include wildlife habitat and travel corridors, production of export/food chain support, sediment/nutrient removal and retention, streambank stabilization, flood flow attenuation and storage, water quality improvement, ground water discharge/recharge, and recreation/education potential. Wetland functions are addressed in detail within the North /-25 Wetland and Waters of the U.S. • Technical Report(Jacobs, 2008d). In general, loss of functions in wetlands would be greater for wetlands occurring along perennial streams and established water bodies in comparison to Wetlands 3.8-10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • wetlands occurring along roadside ditches, due to perennial and established water bodies containing more naturally occurring conditions. For both Package A and Package B, wetland locations with higher functions and values are located along the banks and within floodplains of perennial waterways such as the Cache la Poudre River, Little Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek. The majority of these high value wetlands are located adjacent to 1-25 and would be impacted with either package that requires widening of 1-25. Package B, which includes a longer stretch of widening along 1-25, would affect a greater volume of high value wetlands than Package A. Wetland locations determined as having moderate to high function and value ratings have been identified and coordinated with project design activities. Special attention was paid to avoid and minimize any potential impacts or disturbances to these wetlands. 3.8.2.6 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Several federal, state, and local regulations can apply to wetlands. Agencies having jurisdiction over wetlands include the USAGE, the CDOW, and the USFWS. Wetland determinations are subject to verification and approval by agencies. Wetland regulatory decisions and permitting determinations can only be made by the regulatory agencies. The USACE regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into wetlands and jurisdictional open water through Section 404 of the CWA as amended in 1977. If a proposed • project involves temporary or permanent filling of wetlands or other water bodies, which can include intermittent drainages, a USACE Section 404 permit may be required. The USAGE makes the final determination as to whether the area meets the definition of a jurisdictional wetland and whether the wetland is "isolated" from or "adjacent" to other water bodies. The USAGE and EPA have amended their permit regulations defining discharges of dredged material and fill material (58 FR 45008, August 25, 1993). The regulations now include excavations of wetlands where incidental discharge occurs. The USACE has established two types of permit programs under Section 404 of the CWA which apply to wetland fill proposals - nationwide permit or individual permit (IP)- in accordance with the nature of the proposed fill activity and the amount of impact. The NEPA/404 merger process shall be required when a project is expected to be processed using an EIS and an IP, which is the case with this project. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required in conjunction with an Individual 404 Permit (dredge and fill permit) for any transportation construction project or maintenance activity where work occurs below the ordinary high-water line or adjacent to wetlands. The 401 Certification must be obtained from the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. If a 404 Nationwide or General Permit is issued for the project, a 401 Certification is not required. A Senate Bill (SB) 40 Certification would be required by CDOW for the crossing of streams or adjacent streambanks to avoid adverse effects to waterways, streambanks, or associated tributaries. This legislation is designed to protect fishing waters and to recognize the importance of the entire stream ecosystem, including wetland and riparian areas. As required • by SB 40, an SB 40 wildlife certification application would be submitted to CDOW prior to 60 days before construction. Wetlands 3.8-11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Wetlands occurring on private land are subject to the same federal and state jurisdictional . authorities as those within public land. 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures • Per Section 404 of the CWA, impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open water must be avoided, minimized, or mitigated (in order of preference). Although the Act requires compensatory mitigation only for those wetlands and jurisdictional open water considered jurisdictional by the USACE, it is FHWA and CDOT policy to mitigate all wetlands impacts (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) at a 1:1 ratio. All impacted wetlands and jurisdictional open water will be mitigated in accordance with the USAGE mitigation policies, and the conditions of the USACE Section 404 Permit. All mitigation plans will be developed in coordination with the USACE and other appropriate agencies during the Section 404 permitting process. In addition, all mitigation for the wetlands as a result of the North 1-25 project will be done in accordance with CDOT, FHWA (23 CFR 777). Impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open water will be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible during preliminary and final design through the use of established and approved best management practices (BMP's). During this conceptual design phase, roadway improvements, rail alignments, and retaining walls were located to reduce fill in wetlands where practicable. To facilitate proper coordination and development of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, an on-site field meeting was held in April 2007 that included representatives from • USAGE, EPA, USFWS, CDOT, CDOW, and the project team. At the field meeting the agencies requested that CDOT investigate the option of narrowing the rural median at the Big Thompson River crossing. Preliminary investigations indicate this design option will be feasible. This is a design option that will minimize impact. It will be examined in more detail between the DEIS and the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative. For federally funded transportation projects, TEA-21 provisions state a preference for the use of wetland mitigation banks to compensate for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional open waters, including wetlands. There are three wetland mitigation banks in the North 1-25 DEIS project area that could serve the project. They are Mile High Wetland Mitigation Bank, South Platte Wetland Mitigation Bank, and the Riverdale Wetland Mitigation Bank. Impacts south of Hwy 66 are within these banks' primary service areas and can provide mitigation credit at a 1:1 ratio. Project impacts north of Hwy 66 are generally within the secondary service area and provide mitigation credit at a higher ratio. Acceptance of mitigation bank credit as compensation for impacts depends on the banks' ability to replace the impacted wetland functions and agreement from regulatory agencies, primarily the Omaha District of the USACE and EPA. Where wetland functions can not be replaced by banking, potential mitigation sites have been identified on pubic lands within the study area. They include the St. Vrain State Park, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Reserve and a CDOT-owned former rest area site north of the Cache de Poudre River. For example, if impacted wetland functions include floodplain • attenuation or wildlife habitat, these public lands located along a regional river corridor would provide functional replacement unavailable at the three wetland mitigation banks. • Wetlands 3.8.12 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • During construction, BMPs will be used to avoid indirect construction impacts to wetlands. Materials and equipments will be stored a minimum of 50 feet from wetlands, drainages, and ditches that could carry toxics materials into wetlands. Construction fencing and appropriate sediment control BMP's will be used to mark wetland boundaries and sensitive habitats during construction. EPA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines require that impacts to wetlands be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable. The USACE compensatory mitigation guidelines will be considered only when it is shown that the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) was selected to meet the project's purpose and need. A substantial effort has already been undertaken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. These have been discussed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife in meetings held in 2007. Approximately 438 acres of wetlands were identified within the Package A project area. Of that total, 19.34 acres of wetlands are anticipated to be impacted from project construction activities. Approximately 345 acres of wetlands were identified within the Package B project area. Of that total, 20.38 acres of wetlands are anticipated to be impacted. A Preferred Alternative that is made from a blend of components between Package A and Package B may be chosen, in which case the wetland impacts will be calculated and the determined acreage of impacts would be used in the Section 404 Permit. Final determination of USAGE jurisdiction over the delineated wetlands will be made by the USACE based on • new guidance from the national headquarters of USACE and EPA offices in response to the recent Supreme Court decision. All of this information will be submitted to the USACE concurrent with the public release of the FEIS. Once wetland impacts are avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible, compensatory wetland mitigation will be considered. Mitigation is required for both wetlands under USACE jurisdiction and non-jurisdictional wetlands, per CDOT and FHWA directive. The following mitigation goals are appropriate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands within the build packages project areas: 1. Wetland mitigation banks offer wetland mitigation credit for purchase to cover unavoidable impacts from construction of the Preferred Alternative. There are three wetland mitigation banks that could serve the project area: the Middle South Platte, the Mile High, and the Riverdale. These banks have wetland credits available for purchase. 2. Impacted wetlands will be replaced with in-kind wetland plant communities with same wetland functions on-site or on nearby public lands within the same drainage basin, if practicable. Both the physical source of water and the legal availability of the water supply will be considered when evaluating wetland mitigation sites. St. Vrain State Park, the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, and the former CDOT 1-25 rest stop near the Poudre River are three potential wetland mitigation sites to explore with CDOW and USACE. • For CDOT/FHWA mitigation, final site selection will be based on the installation of groundwater monitoring wells for the purpose of assessing groundwater flow in the area. The wells would be monitored for a minimum of one year. Well data should be collected Wetlands 3.8.13 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. weekly during the growing season. The well data will be used to determine if the site is • suitable and, if needed, the wells could be monitored during final design. Once a mitigation site is selected and final impacts are known, a detailed mitigation plan will be developed. The plan will describe all phases of wetlands mitigation, including site layout, shallow groundwater monitoring well installation, construction details, and success monitoring. Specifically, the plan will include: • A detailed base map outlining the exact location of the site(s). • A detailed grading plan based on the well data collected. • A detailed planting plan that shows different planting zones and includes the placement of herbaceous plant stock (collected on-site if possible), willow cuttings (collected on-site if possible), trees, and other shrubs. • A detailed seed and plant mix including an upland seed mix with grasses, forbs, and shrubs to be used in adjacent areas. • Direction to collect and direct transplant of wetland plugs will be utilized for the mitigation area. • Information on the sources and quantities of seed and plants to be used. • Details on the source(s) of wetland hydrology. • • Details on construction methods, timing, and sequencing. • A detailed success monitoring plan. The mitigation success monitoring for any site will include the requirements defined by the USACE and details for the short- and long-term management and maintenance of the site. The success of the site is typically determined by the USACE and is based on the compliance with the success criteria written into the Section 404 Permit. Non-jurisdictional wetland mitigation will fall under the same criteria for success as the jurisdictional wetlands. 3. All appropriate BMPs to prevent damage to adjacent wetlands will be followed during project construction. • Wetlands 3.8-14 • N oRni I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 9 Floodplains • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.9 FLOODPLAINS The regional study area for the proposed action includes many major and minor drainage What's in Section 3.9? crossings in six watersheds to the South Platte River. These watersheds (from north to south) 3.9 Floodplains include the Cache la Poudre River, Big 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework Thompson River, South Platte River, St. Vrain 3.9.2 Affected Environment Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Clear Creek (see 3.9.2.1 Cache la Poudre Watershed Figure 3.9-1 in Section 3.9.2). This section 3.9.2.2 Big Thompson Watershed summarizes floodplain resources and 3.9.2.3 South Platte Watershed evaluations presented in the Water Quality and 3.9.2.4 St.Vrain Watershed Floodplains Technical Report (FHU, 2008b), 3.9.2.5 Big Dry Creek Watershed which should be referred to for additional 3.9.2.6 Clear Creek Watershed information, details, and references. 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework 3.9.3.1 2 No-Action Alternative 3.9.3.2 Package A Various governmental policies guide the actions 3.9.3.3 Package B for construction in or near floodplains. These 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures include: ► Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, which requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, long-term and short-term adverse impacts associated with the • modification of floodplains and to avoid floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. ► FHWA 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, which provides guidelines for floodplain and construction interaction. ► U.S. DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, which prescribes policies and procedures for ensuring that proper consideration is given to the avoidance and mitigation of adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions, planning programs, and budget requests. ► FEMA policy, which is administered in the regional study area by Denver, Boulder, Adams, Weld, and Larimer counties, along with most cities and towns, which are responsible for regulating development in FEMA-designated floodplains. ► Additional floodplain and drainage design policies required to be followed are outlined in the CDOT Drainage Design Manual (CDOT, 2004), and the CDOT Erosion Control and Storm water Quality Guide (CDOT, 2002b). An inspection of current FEMA flood insurance rate maps was completed for the regional study area. All major drainageways are in FEMA zones AE, A, or X, which define boundaries of floodplains by varying degrees of detail. Smaller drainages are not defined by FEMA. Each floodplain zone and a list of major drainages in each specific zone is described below. Zone AE. Zone AE is part of the FEMA 100-year flood hazard area where base flood elevations have been determined. Zone AE floodplain areas in the regional study area include Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River at the BNSF Railway, Boxelder Creek Overflows, Clear Creek, Grange Hall Creek, South Fork to Grange Hall Creek, and Tanglewood Creek. AE Zone areas • that also have a floodway delineated are Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River at the BNSF railway, Grange Hall Creek, South Fork to Grange Hall Creek, and Tanglewood Creek. The new Cache la Poudre and Boxelder Creek Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) has a Floodplains 3.9.1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. delineated floodway. A floodway is an area of the floodplain that should be reserved (kept free of obstructions) to allow floodwaters to move downstream. Zone A. Zone A is part of the FEMA 100-year flood hazard area where base flood elevations have not been determined but a shaded, generalized floodplain is shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Zone A areas in the regional study area include Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, McKay Lake Drainageway, Mustang Run, Niver Creek, Quail Creek, Sack Creek South, St. Vrain Creek, Shay Ditch, and the South Fork of Preble Creek. US 85 Zone A areas include Second and Third creeks. FEMA's April 1995 publication, Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas, states that although base flood elevations are not shown in Zone A areas, the community is still responsible for ensuring that new developments in these areas are constructed using methods that will minimize flood damage. This often requires obtaining or calculating base (100 year) flood elevations at the development site. - Zone X. Zone X is part of the FEMA 500-year flood area, 100-year flood area with average depths of less than 1 foot, or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Zone X areas in the regional study area include an unnamed tributary to Grange Hall Creek. 3.9.2 Affected Environment The following sections address flood history, floodplains, drainage, and floodplain functions in the six watersheds. Figure 3.9-1 delineates the watersheds within the regional study area. 3.9.2.1 CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED The Cache la Poudre River has experienced major flooding seven times since 1844. The most • damage was caused by the 1904 flood. The 100-year flood width is about 1,300 feet near 1-25. The Boxelder Creek and Cache la Poudre River floodplains are complicated and interconnected in the 1-25 area. Recently, portions of these drainages were re-mapped by FEMA to better reflect the current extents of flooding. Flooding occurs in the 1-25 right-of-way at Boxelder Creek, the Cache Ia Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Swede Lake Outlet, and several minor crossings. Spring Creek overtops the BNSF railway in Fort Collins where the proposed commuter rail route would cross. The Spring Creek floodplain at the BNSF railway has a width of 2,000 feet. The Cache Ia Poudre Bridge at 1-25 is undersized, causing 33 percent of the 100-year flows to split and pass south toward Harmony Road. The master plan for the City of Fort Collins is to keep this split flow intact, since the entire 100-year flow cannot pass into the main channel without exceeding FEMA's allowable rise. Fort Collins has future plans to raise Harmony Road and install a culvert or bridge to pass these overflows. South of Harmony Road, the overflows eventually spill east over 1-25 and return to the Cache la Poudre River. Other physical limitations included a large bridge span, sedimentation problems, and regulatory limitations for no rise in the water surface west of 1-25. • Floodplains 3.9-2 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. 0 : Figure 3.9-1 Watershed Boundaries 1,) LEGEND r t Regional Study Area v Cities & Towns in Regional Study Area ~ Study Corridors �� , - weuepm 3/4 ia / , Highways li erN,. .VArterial Roads ! ..... •�C BoundarleS / ® �ity PuceJ - - - 1 CACHE LA POUDRE i WATERSHED •, , Hrt•"ulhns i \-FFI 29 ,, • • i _ . TV:natit - O Severrce :aril 1 1 287 �W'indsor • ' 392 ——� lucerne. 1 ~` Cache la Poutirr. Rrvcr 1 Greeley I i = � �' �N 1 . _ 263 Loveland •c..y, l„"I`' ` I 34 BIG TAiOMPSON`--' Lv..,I ' • I � ! _- _ WATERSHED Thompson La lle . / nno�;�, ..� lnhnstnnnvBi i:). t / 60 i RI.,it'd a (Milliken / 56 ,ril. ' SOUTH PLAFf E / i ! WATERSHED ( � i S I I n,>F.;o �, o OM. I - _. . - 4; aree ille 66 d � , I LongmontE. , m ' � lone ST. VRAIN �t�, o 1 / / i WATERSHED 0 rn�, d Niwot 87 0 trtdera' - - �' Q r — 0 CsecorrBlG Fat Lupton ` �� .x ibanel le / _ i i F ;≥ DRY CREEK ' j I",• i. . _ t WATERSHED° - _.: wa'ttllbetg i Boulder . 0 Lamm" Nat __� i• _, t 1- i-wisville- /j , -- •� : DightQ1 ' 7 c ,tla4 e <— ,`' ;:il- `. Boonrfleld `�V O He i I ,._ I rot 4enn\ . 36 287 0 Thorn((.) .9I LL_ ; ,` ./ " ; 1 CLEAR CREEK. _ ,� r t -C-- -- I WATERSHED , ` /, /1e . / penver s'— p > 4. ICI I i V V _ , 1. I 0 2 4 6 8 10 ' , . . , - 4 - _...., I ' ' ' ' ' 1 , Miles North E '--- Floodplains 3.9-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Boxelder Creek improvements include two separate projects that are being considered to better • convey Boxelder Creek flows and control much of the existing flooding. The Boxelder Creek Regional Alliance proposes to build a new Boxelder Creek conveyance channel east of 1-25. The second plan, which may occur later, is being sponsored by Fort Collins. It would direct Boxelder flows along the west side of 1-25. Even though the Alliance improvements would occur first, the two projects are complimentary. The conveyance channel to be built as part of the Alliance project is also needed to collect and convey localized stormwaters from the areas north of Timnath. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for agriculture, recreation, and warm- water aquatic life. Additional uses include conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.2 BIG THOMPSON WATERSHED The Big Thompson River has experienced major flooding eight times since 1864. The worst flooding occurred in 1976 when a cloudburst caused extensive flooding and took 139 lives. At 1-25, Big Thompson River has a 3,100-foot wide floodplain and Little Thompson River has a 700-foot wide floodplain. Bridges at either location are not expected to be overtopped during a 100-year storm. The Little Thompson frontage road bridge on the east side of 1-25 is a steel-truss bridge, which was built in 1938. Along the BNSF railway corridor, there is a crossing of Big Thompson River where a 3,600-foot wide floodplain exists and one at Little Thompson River where an 800-foot wide floodplain exists. Flooding occurs at eight tributary crossings in this watershed. An un-named tributary to Big Thompson River crosses under US 34 on the east side of 1-25. The Centerra development at the • northeast corner of this interchange has increased the flows in this tributary and is relying on detention located in the CDOT right-of-way. The detention area has served as inadvertent detention in the past and the developer wants to take advantage of this area for additional development detention. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for agriculture and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.3 SOUTH PLATTE WATERSHED Second and Third creeks have had five recorded floods since 1948. During these floods, most damage was limited to crops and livestock. A severe flood during 1984 resulted in one death. US 85 is overtopped by Second Creek at 136th Avenue, and by Third Creek at 144th Avenue. Floodplains for these two drainages are interconnected and have a combined 6,800-foot width at US 85. Both areas are in FEMA Zone A. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for agriculture and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.4 ST. VRAIN WATERSHED St. Vrain Creek has experienced major flooding 10 times since 1864. The worst flooding occurred in 1941 when a cloudburst and snowmelt combination caused extensive flooding. The 100-year flood width is about 3,700 feet near 1-25 and 7,000 feet wide where it crosses the • commuter rail corridor along SH 119. 1-25 flooding also occurs at seven tributary crossings in this watershed. St. Vrain Creek riprap channel drops were built near the east and west right-of-way Floodplains 3.9-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. • lines of 1-25 to improve the stream's conveyance. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has concerns that these drops are too steep and fish migration is impaired. A total of 7,000 feet of SH 119 is overtopped by the combined flooding from the St. Vrain Creek and Idaho Creek. Existing structures are absent adjacent to SH 119 where the proposed commuter rail route would cross these drainages. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for recreation and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.5 BIG DRY CREEK WATERSHED Big Dry Creek has few records of flooding due to its numerous reservoirs and recent agricultural past. The 100-year flood width is about 1,500 feet near 1-25 and 574 feet wide near the commuter rail corridor. The Big Dry Creek crossing at 1-25 is marginally adequate for passing stormwaters. Flooding occurs at the tributaries at Little Dry Creek and the Tributary to Little Dry Creek, McKay Lake Drainageway, Mustang Run, Preble Creek and South Fork Preble Creek, Sack Creek South, Shay Ditch, and Tanglewood Creek. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for recreation and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.6 CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED • Clear Creek has experienced major flooding 12 times since 1864. The worst flooding occurred in 1965 when a cloudburst and snowmelt combination caused extensive damage. The 100-year flood width is about 3,700 feet near 1-25. 1-25 is not overtopped by Clear Creek. Tributary crossings at Niver Creek and Niver Creek Tributary L have flooding within the 1-25 right-of-way. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for agriculture and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences This section describes the consequences of the No-Action Alternative and two build packages with regard to floodplains. For Packages A and B, consequences are discussed by component to allow for the possibility that the Preferred Alternative could include components from each of these packages. Specific floodplain impacts are identified and mitigation measures to address adverse impacts are described. Additional measures to mitigate impacts associated with bridge construction and roadway fill encroachment on flood fringe areas are discussed in Section 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures. None of the crossings would have a significant encroachment on the floodplain. A significant encroachment is defined by FHWA as a transportation encroachment, and any direct support of a likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following construction or flood related impacts: ► A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route. • ► A significant risk. ► A significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Floodplains 3.9.5 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.9.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE • The No-Action Alternative would impact floodplains in areas where currently planned roadway improvements are planned. Existing conditions, described in Section 3.9.2, would continue. - Probable improvements in floodplain areas are shown on Figure 3.9-2. In summary, probable No-Action Alternative improvements in floodplain areas would include: ► SH 1 to SH 14 (H1) improvements: rehabilitation of one drainage structure. ► SH 14 to SH 60 (H2) improvements: rehabilitation of three drainage structures. ► SH 60 to E-470 (H3) improvements: rehabilitation of two drainage structures. ► E-470 to US 36 (H4): no drainage improvements are planned. 3.9.3.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative was described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.9-1 summarizes the consequences to floodplains of each component of Package A and provides a comparison with Package B floodplain impacts. Highway Components Package A highway components would impact floodplains. Most drainage crossings are too small to pass the required flows under 1-25 and would need to be replaced. In areas where the structures are sufficient to pass the required flows, the increased width of 1-25 would necessitate their being lengthened. The specific components that would result in the greatest encroachment • on floodplains are general purpose lane (GPL) improvements from SH 14 to SH 60 (A-H2) (4.9 acres) and GPL improvements from SH 60 to E-470 (A-H3) (4.6 acres). Any replacement or lengthening of a drainage structure, whether it is a bridge of culvert, would impact the floodplain. Specific consequences related to each highway component are shown in Table 3.9-1 and on Figure 3.9-3. • Floodplains 3.9.6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . Figure 3.9-2 Floodplain Impacts for the No-Action Alternative LEGEND C_J'J Regional Study Area 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area , ,,.�" !'�,.�, AV Study Corridors � ',y 1/ wt .. 85( .^/ Highways '� a ---_'Rehabilitate One \ \ ^/ Arterial Roads \ i ® Drainage Structure \ 0 City Boundaries #1 E - CACHE LA POUDRE Piece \ WATERSHED \ / Location of Impacted Drainage Structure , hi rl ;nllma: \ --.......// 1-25 Highway Components a„i. 14 i 257 \, 1 ir,urilh O Eatar 4 several.ice —1 — - Rehabilitate Three j 11 287 Drainage Structures kindsa • . _.........cio _ -, 392 Lwow \ Cache la Poudre Myer 1 Greeley I \ • �2 34 ---\--- ' Loveland d�+,u- I �34} BIG THOMPSON Evans i • i WATERSHED _�tt i t� omy� la.tIlr i I ampion o rovn,�Bi9 sires 160 �IL� Ei-�nc�x:l 0 Milliken 8J i 5 I I ;� I � uila�;� • i SOUTH PLAFTE 1 j WATERSHED ! af v� ialteville 66 m I original p.i , _i ._ Ima ST. VRAIN \aiti„a 0 a Rehabilitate Two WATERSHED 1 Drainage Structures �_ , ri PS1a,B i \iwrt frEd2tiGk - gl rflacon°BIG I , `,./:/1 : Sxrharrel 1 • O ' DRY CREEK + ' ••- ie 1 WATERS�IEDO 7.6 1 '� .nom Watt crd Pry i ..'! 'Boulder' —I - _ I ' L` 4_Laiisvuleld. '• �� ®ightm _ er / S � Superin• ■■. ' �'i��l -Eastlake _ I ' , !t Boonfieidt t� �l" E 's, o,O - No Floodplaln Impacts 93 yTct' ? Nan0 T / Li' CLEAR CREEK if T WATERSHED. . \ / t Reek % r I) I Denver• p-r t � IJ 9•)i-' - - ii? / • 0 2 4 6 8 10 +� i '- I l ' ' ' 1 Miles North -- ' e a Floodplains 3.9-7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.9-1 Estimated Area of Impacts to Floodplains • Package A Package B Impacted Impacted Component Component Area Component Component Area Description Description (a cres) (acres) Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components A-H1 Safety Improvements: 1.3 B-H1 Safety Improvements: 1.3 SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 A-H2 GPL Improvements: 4 9 B H2 Tolled Express Lanes: 6.0 SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A-H3 GPL Improvements: 4.6 B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: 5.0 SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A-H4 Structure Upgrades: 0 B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: 1.2 E-470 to US 36 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A Highway Impacts: 10.8 Total Package B Highway Impacts: 13.5 Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components Commuter Rail: B-T1 BRT: Fort Collins/ A-T1 Fort Collins to Longmont 1.7 Greeley to Denver 0 Commuter Rail: B-T2 BRT: Fort Collins/ A-T2 Longmont to North Metro 0 2 Greeley to DIA 0 A-T3 Commuter Bus: Greeley 0.1 to Denver Commuter Bus: A-T4 Greeley to DIA 0 0 • Total Package A Transit Impacts: 2.0 Total Package B Transit Impacts: 0 Total Package A Impacts: 12.8 Total Package B Impacts: 13.5 BRT-Bus Rapid Transit GPL-General Purpose Lane Floodplains 3.9.8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3.9-3 Package A Floodplain Impacts LEGEND J L Regional Study Area 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area ,�--- ""1--�.. ` / ,ej - fW.I uton •��`', V Highways , 85 ^/ Arterial Roads j Rehabilitate One �LJJ ~ Component Corridors Pi City Boundaries % CACHE LA POUDRE c�'. \ 3 Location of Impacted Drainage Structure ! Fort•Colllns.l WATERSHED I. I -25 Highway Components -.r Ault `, 4—J Commuter Rail Components I 1 I— 2 1, 1 .L Timrath. ; t t O Seamy Eatcr 1 - --_-r Replace Four ti i 71 1 Drainage Structures t btin�isa l IF 1 .._ 392 - I lucarrxa \ I �� la 1'oudie River Greeley I\ I 1 1 —. --.----.-on X263 34 _...,�: 1F.....* I Lovely J i 34 --r... ' BIG T IOMPSON Evans i WATERSHED ( n / la sauu i I ( Cam ion Adm..BA • ,r / 60 Berd I dlw O Milliken 85 % L_I - /irk, ,_- II 1 56 - - I 1 • Six Floodplalns _ — -- � ! Impactedlfr 1I * SOUTH PL•AWE ;/ I WATERSHED,! 1 1 f I I a Mead ec c i' me h, �� 'atteville d 66 I t s-2. I Longmont m Cale e . ST. VRAIN vin„:-, ._ Replace Five ./ WATERSHED I II ) : Drainage Structures /� I I:f�:l(ne. l Five Floodplalns I //J Ni.hrl 87 1 • ► Fredai:k ' 1 Impacted _" _ t / 0 n I• 1 ' DacaxBIG Fat LuIII+` d ' 1 N : ilnbarrel -. I o DieDRY CREEK I ...•• o \WATERSf1EDo'� 76 1 1 UiarerLty 1 I Boulder n , 0 Lai avette "" ` -- I 7 J .-- . I(xii;vilie �\lI .. �. ' ^ / Wm Floodpiains SL�er a *♦ — Impacted Along US-85 '' . No Floodplain Impacts TV- - 1 r; * -�.. 36 r7 I i II 0 rrrowton L - - r I CLEAR CREEK / / I , WATtERSHE �! -i-; akcieek S ear ' Denver �p �- 0 2 4 6 8 10 - ► • • I " " ' Miles North _ , 1-1 Floodplains 3.9-9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Specific consequences related to each Package A highway component would be as follows: . ► Safety improvements involving floodplains from SH 1 to SH 14 (A-H1) would be limited to the No-Action Alternative improvements involving rehabilitation of one drainage structure. ► GPL improvements from SH 14 to SH 60 (plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60; A-H2) widening would encroach on to three floodplains and would require the replacement of four major drainage structures. ► GPL improvements from SH 60 to E-470 (A-H3) widening would encroach on to four floodplains and would require the replacement of five major drainage structures. ► Structure upgrades from E-470 to US 36 (A-H4) would be limited to the No-Action Alternative, which would have no floodplain impacts. Boxelder Creek floodplains are mapped from the northern project limits to its confluence with the Cache la Poudre River. The creek runs parallel to 1-25 to the east for several miles before it crosses under 1-25. There are several overflow areas along 1-25 before the Boxelder crosses l- 25. There are five structures at these locations. These structures would either be replaced in kind, extended in kind, or a new larger structure would be needed. These improvements would have the following floodplain impacts: ► Improving the capacity of the drainage structures would decrease the amount of ponding east of 1-25 but could increase the chance of downstream flooding to the west of 1-25. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. Boxelder Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 269, flowing from east to west. The current structure would be replaced in kind. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: • ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to the new structure, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structure would be disturbed during construction. The Cache Ia Poudre River crosses under 1-25 near mile post 266, flowing from west to east. The current bridge would be replaced with a wider one along the new alignment of 1-25 to match the new typical section. Determination of the replacement structure type would be made by CDOT, FEMA, and adjacent jurisdictions. These improvements would have the following impacts on the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to the new structure and new structure location, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed by the new structure location. The Cache Ia Poudre River 100-year flows split just west of 1-25. The majority of the 100-year flow heads east to the existing 1-25 bridge, causing overtopping of the interstate. The remaining flows pass to the south crossing Harmony Road before flooding 1-25 at the 1-25 and Kechter Road crossroads. There are no structures at this location currently. Four concrete box culverts (CBCs) would be added to this area, one in each quadrant of the crossroads. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: • Floodplains 3.9.10 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► The floodplain limits would change with the new structures. 1-25 should not be overtopped anymore and the flows would become more channelized. There could be an increase in downstream flooding due to the more concentrated flows. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the roadway would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands could be disturbed during construction. The Big Thompson River crosses under 1-25 near mile post 257, flowing from west to east. The current bridge would be replaced with a new wider bridge due to widening of 1-25. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to the widening of the bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the widening of the structure. The Little Thompson River crosses under 1-25 near mile post 250, flowing from west to east. The current bridge would be replaced with a new wider bridge and shifted to accommodate widening of 1-25 and a new alignment. These improvements would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be no or minimal changes to the floodplain. There may be local changes due to the widening and shifting of the bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. • ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the widening and shifting of the structure. North Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 245, flowing from west to east. The existing CBC would be replaced in kind, but it would probably be extended due to the new alignment of the ramps and frontage road. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to extending the CBC, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to extending the CBC. Little Dry Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 231, flowing from west to east. The existing CBC would be replaced in kind. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to replacing the CBC, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction. • Preble Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 229, flowing from west to east. The existing 60" reinforced concrete pipe is very inadequate for the 100-year flows. A larger structure is needed to pass these flows. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: Floodplains 3.9-11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ► Improving the structure at 1-25 would decrease the flooding west of 1-25 where the flow backs up. This could increase the chance of flooding downstream because of the improved structure capacity. The floodplain would change in this area because of a new larger structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction. Transit Components Package A transit components would impact floodplains where crossings occur and where the commuter rail and commuter bus routes require widening that encroaches on to floodplains. The commuter rail route from Fort Collins to Longmont would cross six floodplains and the route from Longmont to North Metro would cross five floodplains. Commuter bus service along the US 85 queue jumps would impact two floodplains between Greeley and Denver. Commuter bus service to DIA would cross four floodplains, but would not impact any of them. None of the bus stations, bus and commuter rail maintenance facilities, rail stations, or associated parking facilities would impact a floodplain. Spring Creek crosses under the BNSF railroad, the proposed alignment for the commuter rail, approximately 0.15 miles south of Prospect Road. The existing CBC is inadequate, but adding two 60" reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) would help pass the full 100-year flows. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The railroad is currently overtopped by the 100-year flows. Adding the pipes could alleviate this problem. However, there could be an increase in downstream flooding because the flows would be more concentrated through the pipes as opposed to spilling over the railroad. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. • Fossil Creek crosses under the BNSF railroad five times between Fossil Creek Drive and south of Trilby Road. The floodplain has been mapped by the City of Fort Collins in this area. At these crossings, three of the structures would be replaced with larger structures, and two new structures would be added. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► At three of the five crossings, Fossil Creek overtops the railroad. The new structures could alleviate this problem. They could also reduce ponding on the upstream sides of the railroad. Increasing the capacity of the crossing structures could cause more flooding downstream however. Because Fossil Creek snakes back and forth around the railroad, more detailed study would be needed to determine the full changes to the floodplain. Channel improvements and downstream studies may be needed in the future. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Current mapping only shows wetlands at two locations. At both of these locations, the wetlands would be disturbed during construction. Dry Creek crosses under the BNSF railroad near the Loveland Plaza Mobile Home Park. The existing CBC is inadequate. This could be solved by adding several 96" RCP or replacing the CBC with a larger structure. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► A larger structure or the added pipes could decrease ponding upstream of the railroad but could increase the chance of flooding downstream of the railroad. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. • ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction. Floodplains 3.9-12 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The Big Thompson River crosses under the BNSF railroad approximately 1/3 of a mile south of West 1st Street. The existing bridge is not overtopped and would be extended in kind. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to extending the existing bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and could possibly be destroyed due to the bridge extension. The Little Thompson River crosses under the BNSF railroad approximately 1/3 of a mile south of County Road 6c. The existing bridge is not overtopped and would be extended in kind. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to extending the existing bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and could possibly be destroyed due to the bridge extension. Spring Gulch crosses under the BNSF railroad just south of 17th Avenue. The new commuter rail would cross Spring Gulch again along SH 119. The existing pipe at the railroad is inadequate. A • larger structure is needed to pass the 100-year flows. At the new crossing, a bridge is proposed as well. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► A larger structure at the railroad crossing and an adequately sized structure at the new commuter rail crossing should maintain or improve the floodplains at these locations. There could be a chance of increased flooding between these two bridges in Longmont, but this area is only mapped to a Zone X level of detail currently. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. The St. Vrain Creek would cross under the proposed commuter rail approximately 1.5 miles west of 1-25 along SH 119. The proposed bridge would be very wide because of the wide, shallow floodplain in this area. This improvement would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The new commuter rail bridge would be adjacent to the older SH 119 bridge. The SH 119 structure would have to be replaced to limit flooding at the new rail crossing. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the new bridge. • , Floodplains 3.9-13 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Idaho Creek would cross under the proposed commuter rail approximately 0.66 miles west of I- 25 along SH 119. A wide bridge is proposed for this crossing as well, because the St. Vrain floodplain encompasses Idaho Creek. This improvement would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► Adding a bridge at the commuter rail crossing at the St. Vrain floodplain and at Idaho Creek could change the floodplain upstream of SH 119. The current wide shallow floodplain may split into two flows that join together again downstream of SH 119. More detailed study would be needed in the future to determine the full extent of the changes to the floodplain. There would probably not be an increase in the flooding downstream of the proposed commuter rail due to the new bridges. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. Little Dry Creek would cross under the proposed commuter rail approximately 0.15 miles south of Weld County Road 8 and 0.8 miles east of 1-25. A new bridge is proposed at this crossing. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to the new structure, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the new bridge. Big Dry Creek crosses under the UPRR approximately 0.5 miles north of SH 7 and 2.33 miles east of 1-25. The current bridge is not overtopped and it is recommended that this structure be • extended in kind. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to extending the existing structure, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the new bridge. Second Creek has floodplains with designation Zone A at the intersection of US 85 and East 136th Avenue. This is a location of a proposed queue jump for the commuter bus. Tapers and a shoulder would be added to northbound US 85 turn and to eastbound 136th. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The additional pavement could increase flows and cause some local changes to the floodplain limits. ► Vegetation would be disturbed and destroyed during construction. First Creek has floodplains with designation Zone A at the intersection of US 85 and East 104th Avenue. This is a location of a proposed queue jump for the commuter bus. Tapers and a shoulder would be added to southbound US 85 and to westbound 104th. This would • have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The additional pavement could increase flows and cause some local changes to the floodplain limits. ► Vegetation would be disturbed and destroyed during construction. • Floodplains 3.9.14 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.9.3.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. This alternative was described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.9-1 summarizes the consequences of each component of Package B and provides a comparison with Package A. Highway Components Package B highway components would impact floodplains. Most of the drainage crossings are too small to pass the required flows under 1-25 and would need to be replaced. In areas where the structures are sufficient to pass the required flows, the increased width of 1-25 would necessitate their being lengthened. The specific component that would result in the greatest encroachment on floodplains includes the tolled express lanes from SH 14 to SH 60 (B-H2) (6.0 acres). Areas along the bus routes would not require new drainage structures. Any replacement or lengthening of a drainage structure, whether it is a bridge or a culvert, would impact the floodplain. Specific consequences related to each Package B highway component are shown on Figure 3.9-4 and would be as follows: ► Safety improvements involving floodplains from SH 1 to SH 14 (B-H1) would be limited to the No-Action Alternative, which includes the rehabilitation of one drainage structure. ► Tolled express lanes from SH 14 to SH 60 (B-H2) would encroach on to three floodplains and would require the replacement of four major drainage structures. ► Tolled express lanes from SH 60 to E-470 (B-H3)would involve widening that would • encroach on to four floodplains and require the replacement of five major drainage structures. ► Tolled express lanes from E-470 to US 36 (B-H4) would involve widening that would encroach on to five floodplains and require the replacement of six major drainage structures. Floodplain impacts to the floodplains of Boxelder Creek, the Cache la Poudre River, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, North Creek, St. Vrain Creek, Little Dry Creek and Preble Creek would be slightly greater than those for Package A due to the wider highway section. St. Vrain Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 242. The existing bridge would be replaced with a new wider bridge to match the widening of 1-25 in this area. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to the widening of the bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the widening of the structure. The South Fork of Preble Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 229, flowing from west to east. The existing CBC would be replaced with a larger CBC. This would have the following floodplain impacts: • ► A larger structure might eliminate some of the spreading of the floodplain upstream of I- 25. Flooding could be increased downstream of 1-25, however, due to the increased capacity of the structure. Floodplains 3.9.15 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. • Mustang Run crosses under 1-25 near mile post 227, flowing from west to east. The existing structure is an 18" corrugated metal pipe that would be replaced with a CBC. This would have the following floodplain impacts: ► A larger structure would probably reduce upstream ponding behind 1-25. Immediately downstream of the structure ponding could increase behind a levee at Bull Canal. It is unlikely that flooding would increase downstream of the Bull Canal levee. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. - ► Surrounding wetlands could be disturbed during construction. Shay Ditch crosses under 1-25 near mile post 227, flowing from west to east. The existing pipe would be replaced with a CBC. This would have the following floodplain impacts: ► Ponding upstream of 1-25 would probably be reduced, but there could be an increased chance of flooding downstream of 1-25. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands could be disturbed during construction. • • Floodplains 3.9.16 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • I Figure 3.9-4 Package B Floodplain Impacts LEGEND i r_I Regional Study Area a Cities & Towns in Project Area --- -..�. �.. �Ndwraa •�'-•�,• /� Highways �.�0" �,, ,/� Arterial Roads !! r �'• • �- j t Rehabilitate One \ ` ^/ Component Corridors �,. ® Drainage Structure •\',� k• CACHE LA POUDRE Pi`'` ; City Boundaries /' � '� ` WATERSHED . Location of Impacted Drainage Structure Forl•Collins IO �� , , .• 4 rn / si I-25 Highway Components I A,r' 14 - ; 257 t ' . 1 rn:,[lath O Farr, 1 Severarca i P —�.Replacement of Four j 1287 I Drainage Structures I, windsa.�I -- a' c' Licari)? 3' la Poudre Hive' i If Cache � — - - Greeley .� I 1 F7 34 .�t I _-.,._. y ram _ Ga fir: ny ' � Lovelandy i `-- 34 - 1 . I ' BI\ vcfAnisH[DI ' ....sc.r ' ;' { I Tarn ion 1 �is'taim�Bi9rn vet , I so yI' I Beitha id . 0 Milliken 6 '" I Gilts r/ . I SOUTH PLATTE . e j �0 WATERSHED ! / I rA r .._ I _ - 4.. TR ;a _. / tte ale 66 -;. 1u I ' . iii Longmont m I { i RL ate i r p /r� ST. VRAIN Replacement of Five voiimar 0 "/ r Drainage Structures >L WATERSHED - - Firestone J._. I err tftwot -i r Fresleick �.,..1� 1 I II -j a. 1 — ..r—dC --e. ./ ,.1� Ga tar el 1 t � CBIG Fcrt Lumen. " ? 1 ' 0 Erie DRY CREEK i 1 ..... ;, — —''.- ;me,. "� WATERSHED. 76 r- .-- -Th r ''r a ` Wana eig -rj _ Boulder r- " _ -I I i �►�� Lafayette.. N • W —i ille l ,--� B gtxm r{ 7 • kTii : i FdGi{31(f? r� •`, J 1 pe -- Replacement of Six Fkl N1• Os I i. Northgla.r^; „ Drainage Structures _1 NI 36 287 a I r • • / - . / `- I ' CLEAR CREEK J 'e-- - -'1 a it' WATERSHED i' _ ; L I rs. �� \� a cteBk —f r e it V�II _ 25 ��,� 0 2 4 6 8 10 / t\ , -. ei Ivi�r ___t• _ — :_ . .-. I ran ..... I ' ' ' ' I Miles North !!_ . ■ 0 •r 1 r . • Floodplains 3.9-17 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Big Dry Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 225, flowing from west to east. The existing • bridge would be replaced in kind and extended to match the widening of 1-25. This would have the following floodplain impacts: - ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to extending the bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the extension of the bridge. Niver Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 219, flowing from west to east. The existing CBC would be replaced and could be extended. This would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to possibly extending the structure, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and possibly destroyed due to extending the CBC. Transit Components Package B transit components would not have a floodplain impact that would be in addition to that described under highway components. None of the bus routes, bus stations, bus • maintenance facilities, or associated parking facilities would impact floodplains. Indirect Effects to Flood plains Improved structures at floodplain crossings can result in indirect effects to properties beyond the regional study area. Improved crossings convey floodwaters more efficiently because much of the original inadvertent detention caused by the highway embankment is removed. Greater flows _ pass through the new structure and are conveyed through downstream areas. These higher flows can cause increased flooding and potential damage to downstream properties. It is CDOT's policy that new structures are to be sized to pass the upstream flows through the highway right-of-way. The design flows are to be based on the current level of development, and are not to assume that any inadvertent detention facilities will lower them. Inadvertent detention facilities can include railroad embankments, irrigation canals, and ponds, which might be removed in the future. 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures Impacts to floodplains would occur with bridge construction or where roadway fill would encroach onto the flood fringe areas. Mitigation measures that will be employed include: ► The 100-year FEMA design flows will be used for freeboard determinations, scour design, and to ensure that flow velocities are acceptable. ► The 500-year design flows will be used to further assess the scour design and set the depths of piles or caissons. ► The design will consider the maximum allowable backwater as allowed by FEMA. ► Degradation, aggregation, and scour are to be determined. Adequate counter measures will • be selected using criteria established by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 568 (TRB, 2006) Floodplains 3.9.18 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► The design will be such that minimal disruption to the ecosystem will occur. ► The design will consider costs for construction and maintenance. ► A bridge deck drainage system that controls seepage at joints will be considered. If possible, bridge deck drains will be piped to a water quality feature before being discharged into a floodplain. ► The designs will comply with federal, state, and local agency requirements. Floodplain impacts would include increasing the sizes of bridges, culverts, and other drainage facilities in order to better convey floodwaters. In most cases, larger drainage structures would not disturb the existing low flow channel areas where riparian habitat is located. The overbanks adjacent to the low flow channels are generally expanded with the newer structures in order to pass the higher flows. Enlarged overbank areas are generally revegetated with a diverse planting in order to enhance the habitat. Upstream flood risks should decrease with an enlarged drainage structure. Downstream flood risks can increase due to the improved conveyance of the stormwaters. It is CDOT policy to size a drainage structure based on FEMA flows, to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado, and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, Sec.2.5.2 and 12.1.1). The standard flood for CDOT and FEMA is the 100-year flood. Impacts to downstream areas must be assessed at the time of preliminary and final design by using detailed hydraulic methods. All improvements are to follow the guidelines described in Section 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework. 3.9.4.1 PACKAGE A • Boxelder Creek floodplains east of 1-25 would be impacted. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► If wetlands are disturbed, the mitigation approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands will be followed. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Boxelder Creek floodplains at 1-25 would be impacted. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. . The Cache la Poudre floodplains at 1-25 would be impacted. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: Floodplains 3.9.19 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- • structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will be conducted in accordance with the mitigation approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Cache la Poudre River split flow floodplains at 1-25 would be impacted. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► If wetlands are disturbed, the mitigation approach described in Section 3.8 will be followed. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Big Thompson River floodplains would be impacted at I-25.The following measures will be • taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will be conducted in accordance with the mitigation approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Little Thompson River floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. North Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- • structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. Floodplains 3.9-20 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Preble Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. Spring Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. • ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Fossil Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. • ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Dry Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the • same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, Section 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. Floodplains 3.9.21 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- • structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Big Thompson River floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Little Thompson River floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. • ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Spring Gulch floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. • Floodplains 3.9-22 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Idaho Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Little Dry Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Big Dry Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- • structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Second Creek floodplains would be impacted at a commuter bus queue jump. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. First Creek floodplains would be impacted at a commuter bus queue jump. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards • and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Floodplains 3.9-23 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.9.4.2 PACKAGE B . Floodplain impacts and mitigation measures to the floodplains of Boxelder Creek, the Cache la Poudre River, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, North Creek, Little Dry Creek, - and Preble Creek would be slightly greater than those for Package A because of the wider highway section. The St. Vrain River floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The South Fork of Preble Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► The flows released downstream of 1-25 will not be more than the present 100-year flows. Downstream capacity should be designed for the present 100-year flow conditions according to CDOT. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering • state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Mustang Run floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► If wetlands are disturbed, wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Shay Ditch floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► The flows released downstream of 1-25 will not be more than the present 100-year flows. Downstream capacity should be designed for the present 100-year flow conditions according to CDOT. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- • structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. Floodplains 3.9-24 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► If wetlands are disturbed, wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Big Dry Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Niver Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards • and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. • Floodplains 3.9-25 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N oRrx h25 EL EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 10 Vegetation • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.10 VEGETATION 3.10.1 Affected Environment The North 1-25 regional study area is within the High Plains Ecoregion with the western portion What's in Section 3.10? located in the Front Range Fans sub-ecoregion and 3.10 Vegetation the eastern portion in the Flat to Rolling Plains and 3.10.1 Affected Environment Rolling Sand Plains sub-ecoregions (USGS, 2006). 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures The High Plains Ecoregion is characterized as a dry grassland, receiving 12 to 20 inches of annual precipitation. Smooth, irregular plains are the dominant characteristic of the High Plains Ecoregion, with a high percentage of land cover converted to cropland. The dominant native vegetation within the ecoregion are various grasses, such as blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Biological resource data for the regional study area were collected from existing sources, such as maps, databases, publications, and agency information. This information was used to provide context of the resource in the region and to assist in assessing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in the project area. Field studies were conducted in the project area and provide the basis for assessing common species present. Upland plant species common to the regional study area are listed in Table 3.10-1. Due to the geographical size of the regional study area and the scope of the vegetation assessments, impacts to general vegetation communities are described. • Impact acreages were calculated using existing CDOT right-of-way areas and evaluation of aerial photography. The regional study area consists primarily of urban, agricultural, and developed habitats. Native, undisturbed habitats in the regional study area are primarily fragmented areas of remnant native prairie and riparian corridors, which typically have an abundance of non-native plant species. There are also areas classified as ponderosa pine forests, xeric shrublands, and mountain grasslands. The distribution of vegetation communities in the regional study area is presented in Table 3.10-2. Most of the regional study area consists of agricultural land (irrigated or dryland) and urban and developed areas. Affected by rapid development, drought, and weed infestations, vegetation is dominated by non-native plants (Noxious weeds are discussed in Section 3.11). Weedy kochia (Bessie scoparia) and various species of native and non-native grasses such as barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) are the dominant species of roadsides. Many fields along project alignments appear to be fallow and dominated by kochia. Landscaped vegetation comprised of bluegrass lawns with ornamental trees and shrubs is present in many residential and business areas. Narrow bands of riparian vegetation are present along many streams and some irrigation canals. Wetlands also occur in many areas and the vegetation that exists in these areas is described in further detail in Section 3.8. Common trees along fence lines and upper riparian areas are native plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) as well as non-native Chinese elm (Ulmus pumila) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Wetland species typically include native sandbar willow (Salix exigua), cattail (Typha sp.), sedges (Carex sp.), and rushes (Juncus sp.) as well as non-native redtop • (Agrostis stolonifera)and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Vegetation 3.10-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.10-1 Common Plant Species of the North I-25 Regional Study Area • Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-native GRASSES AND GRASS-LIKES Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides Native Barnyard grass Echinoch/oa crus-galli Non-native Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Native Bluegrass Poa pratensis Non-native Buffalograss Bouteloua dactyloides Native Cattail Typha angustifolia, T. latifolia Native Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum Non-native Needle and thread grass Hesperostipa comata Native Redtop Agrostis gigantea Non-native Rush Juncus sp. Native Saltgrass Distich/is spicata Native Sedge Carex sp. Native Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Native Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus Native Smooth brome Bromus inermis Native Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithli Native Feather fingergrass Chlorisvirgata Non-native FORBS(BROAD-LEAVED FLOWERING PLANTS) Blueflax Linum perenne Native Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Non-native Clover Trifolium sp. Native Common mullein Verbascum thapsus Non-native • Common sunflower Helianthus annuus Native Curly dock Rumex crispus Non-native Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Non-native Golden aster Heterotheca sp. Native Kochia (burningbush) Bassia scoparia Non-native Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Non-native Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus albus Non-native Prickly lettuce Lactuca serrio/a Non-native Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Non-native Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Non-native Little sunflower Helianthus pumilus Native Yellow sweetclover Meli/otus officinalis Non-native SHRUBS Sandbar willow Salix exigua Native Tamarisk Tamarix sp. Non-native TREES Chinese elm Litmus pumila Non-native Plains cottonwood Populus deltoides subsp. monilifera Native Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Non-native Source:Nomenclature follows USDA Plants database, accessed at http://plants.usda.gov/. • Vegetation 3.10-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.10-2 Distribution of Vegetation Types County Primary Upland Vegetation Types Primary Riparian Areas Adams Urban Clear Creek Broomfield Urban, some irrigated and dryland agriculture None Mostly urban, irrigated agriculture, and native Boulder prairie; ponderosa pine, foothills and mountain None grassland Denver Urban South Platte River Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson Larimer Urban, some irrigated and dryland agriculture River, Little Thompson River Big Thompson River, South Platte Weld Urban, some irrigated and dryland agriculture River, St. Vrain Creek The following description of vegetation types was primarily derived from the Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) data, combined with field observations. Urban. These areas are characterized by high density commercial or high density residential development. Urban environments generally lack natural vegetative habitats, and vegetation present in these areas is comprised of landscaped and cultivated plants. Dryland/Irrigated Agriculture. These areas are characterized by row crops, irrigated pasture • and hay fields, and dry farm crops. Native Prairie. Prairie habitat is dominated by grasses and forbs such as crested wheatgrass, buffalograss, sideoats grama, blueflax, and golden aster. Prairie habitat in eastern Colorado is a valuable resource for wildlife, and is home to several endangered species of plants and animals (see Section 3.12 and Section 3.13 for further discussion). Two such endangered plant species are the Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana subsp. coloradensis) and Ute ladies'-tress orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). Much of this habitat has been converted to agricultural land or has been converted to residential and commercial areas. Native prairie habitat within the regional study area is fragmented and sparse. Ponderosa Pine. Stands of Ponderosa Pine are found along the western edge of the regional study area, and provide various important ecological functions. Ponderosa Pines are a valuable food resource to a variety of animals and provide shelter. Grasses like slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), and other wildflower species cover the floor of these forests. Mountain Grassland. Montane grasslands exist along the western edge of the regional study area along the Front Range and are dominated by native grasses such as western wheatgrass and blue grama. Mountain grasslands provide important habitat for grazing and serve as movement corridors for mountain wildlife. Riparian Woodland. Riparian habitats are those areas associated with streams and other water • bodies that have distinctly different vegetation due to the presence of surface water or groundwater. Riparian habitat supports a higher diversity of resident wildlife than any other habitat in the Front Range and many of the species that occur exclusively inhabit wetlands or riparian environments. Riparian habitats provide various important ecological functions for resident and Vegetation 3.10.3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. migratory wildlife species, such as nesting opportunities and travel corridors for populations of breeding and migratory avian species. Riparian corridors also link wildlife populations in areas of • high quality habitat, allowing movement through the urban environment. Amphibians and many reptile species occur most frequently in riparian habitats and corridors as well. Representative species include plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), sandbar willow, cattail, and various rushes and sedges. 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences This section addresses vegetation communities along North 1-25 that could be affected by the No- Action Alternative or either of the build packages. Native vegetation and riparian habitat along streambanks are protected under conditions of the Senate Bill (SB) 40 permit, regulated by the Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW). Special concern species that are listed as federally threatened and endangered are regulated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are documented in Section 3. Species of special concern in the State of Colorado are listed in a database maintained by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program at Colorado State University. Coordination with the USFWS would be necessary if any species of special concern were identified within the project area. 3.10.2.1 No-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes major and minor structure rehabilitation, replacement or rehabilitation of existing pavement, and minor safety modifications by 2030. These actions would take place regardless of whether any of the proposed improvements in Packages A or B occur. • The No-Action Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2. The No-Action Alternative generally would have only a minimal effect on existing vegetation resources. Existing conditions described in Section 3.8.1 would continue. With increasing traffic volumes and continuing commercial and residential development in the project area, some effects to vegetation would be expected. Effects from existing or increasing development on vegetation could include population fragmentation, reductions in riparian zones, and ground and soil disturbance which could promote increased germination of noxious weed populations. 3.10.2.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes safety improvements, construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1-25, structure upgrades, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2. Safety Improvements Under Package A, improvements would occur between SH 1 and SH 14 (A-H1). Safety improvements for Package A would generally affect agricultural and urban landscape vegetation communities. Direct Impacts—Implementation of safety improvements between SH 1 and SH 14 (A-H1) would result in removal of minor areas of irrigated and dryland pasture, and urban landscape vegetation. Impacts would not be anticipated to extend beyond the existing 1-25 right-of-way. • Vegetation 3.10.4 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Indirect Impacts—Safety improvements to the roadway and associated structures would have no indirect impact on existing vegetation communities. Temporary impacts could include ground and soil disturbance allowing for potential germination and invasion of noxious weed species. General Purpose Lanes Under Package A, one additional northbound general purpose lane and one additional southbound general purpose lane would be constructed between SH 14 and SH 60 plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60 (A-H2) and between SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3). Implementation of the general purpose lanes for Package A would generally affect riparian woodlands, emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands, agricultural, and urban landscape vegetation. Wetland impacts are further discussed in Section 3.8.2. Direct Impacts—Anticipated direct impacts from the development of general purpose and auxiliary lanes would include the removal of approximately 860 acres of riparian, woodland, agricultural, urban landscape, and various wetland vegetation communities. Impacts would be expected from fill placement during construction of transportation improvements and damage by construction equipment. These areas contain large trees along the roadside and various bodies of open water that lie within the alignment with associated emergent wetland habitat. Indirect Impacts—The addition of a highway lane on either side of the roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment could also create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or • elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Structure Upgrades Package A would provide structural upgrades between E-470 and US 36 (A-H4). Upgrades under Package A would generally affect urban landscape vegetation. Direct Impacts—Construction equipment and installation of upgrades could have minor impacts on existing vegetation located adjacent to and beneath existing structures. Direct impacts could occur in the form of clearing and grading within the proximity of the structure being improved. Indirect Impacts—The structure upgrades would have no indirect impact on existing vegetation communities. Temporary impacts could include ground and soil disturbance allowing for potential germination and invasion of noxious weed species. Commuter Rail Package A includes the construction of a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont (A-T1). Also included would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that connects this point to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton (A-T2). Commuter rail development would generally affect • native prairie, agricultural and urban landscape vegetation. Vegetation 3.10.5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Direct Impacts—Development of the proposed commuter rail would result in the removal of • approximately 107 acres of vegetation in fragmented parcels of native prairie, some of which is inhabited by prairie dogs. Native and non-native grasses, along with several species of flowering plants, would be affected, although these areas contain a larger amount of non-native and weedy species due to past and present land use practices. Vegetation most affected along this component would be that of landscaped trees in developed residential areas and agricultural lands that lie within the alignment. Indirect Impacts—The addition of a rail line would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment could also create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed alignment and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways and the potential introduction of weed species. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Indirect impacts resulting from project induced growth, transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1.5. Commuter Bus Package A includes the addition of commuter bus service between Greeley, Denver, and Denver International Airport (DIA) (A-T3 & A-T4). Because no widening of existing roadways is required, commuter bus service would not result in direct or indirect impacts to existing vegetation communities. • 3.10.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes safety improvements, construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2, Alternatives. Safety Improvements Safety improvements under Package B are the same as those associated with Package A. Therefore, impacts associated with this component would be the same under Package B as under Package A. Tolled Express Lanes Under Package B, a northbound and southbound tolled express lane would be constructed from SH 14 to SH 60 (B-H2), SH 60 to E-470 (B-H3), and E-470 to US 36 (B-H4); the exception being the section between Harmony Road and SH 60, which would include two tolled express lanes in each direction. Construction of tolled express lanes would generally affect riparian woodlands, emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands, agricultural and urban landscape vegetation. Wetland impacts are further discussed in Section 3.8.2. Direct Impacts—Anticipated direct impacts to this area include removal of approximately 774 acres of riparian woodland, agricultural, urban landscape, and various wetland vegetation communities. Impacts would be expected as a result of fill placement caused by construction of transportation improvements and damage by construction equipment. These areas contain some trees along thee roadside and various bodies of open water that lie within the alignment with associated emergent wetland habitat. Vegetation 3.10-6 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Indirect Impacts—The addition of a highway lane on either side of the roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment could also create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, • streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Bus Rapid Transit Package B includes the addition of bus rapid transit from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver and to DIA (B-T1 & B-T2). Bus rapid transit would not result in direct or indirect impacts on existing vegetation communities. 3.10.2.4 IMPACTS FROM INDUCED GROWTH Impacts to environmental resources as a result of induced growth caused by the construction of either build package including transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1.5.2. 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures CDOT revegetation best management practices (BMP) and guidelines will be followed to ensure adequate revegetation of the project area. All disturbed areas will be seeded in phases throughout construction. Although specific BMPs to be used will not be determined until final • design, mitigation measures will include: ► Minimize the amount of disturbance and limit the amount of time that disturbed locations are allowed to be non-vegetated. The project will follow CDOT standard specifications for the amount of time that disturbed areas are allowed to be non-vegetated. ► Avoid existing trees, shrubs, and vegetation to the maximum extent possible, especially wetlands and riparian plant communities. The project team will coordinate with the CDOT landscape architect before construction to determine the types of vegetation that will be protected during construction. ► Salvage weed-free topsoil for use in seeding. ► Implement temporary and permanent erosion control measures to limit erosion and soil loss. Erosion control blankets will be used on steep, newly seeded slopes to control erosion and to promote the establishment of vegetation. Slopes will be roughened at all times. ► Revegetate all disturbed areas with native grass and forb species. Seed, mulch, and mulch tackifier will be applied in phases throughout construction. ► Develop an acceptable revegetation plan with the CDOT landscape architect and with county personnel in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties. ► Senate Bill 40 (33-5-101-107, CRS 1973 as amended) requires any agency of the state to obtain wildlife certification from the CDOW when the agency plans construction in "...any stream or its bank tributaries...". In these areas, trees and shrubs are recommended to be • replaced on a 1:1 basis (trees) and square-foot basis (shrubs). Vegetation 3.10.7 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N oRai I-25 EIS a information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 1 1 Noxious Weeds • • Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.11 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.11.1 Affected Environment Noxious weeds are invasive, non-native plants introduced to Colorado by accident or which What's in Section 3.11? spread after being planted for another purpose and which result in lands with decreased 3.11 Noxious Weeds 3.11.1 Affected Environment economic and environmental value. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act of 2003 (35-5.5- 3.11.2 Environmental 3.11.2.1No-Action Consequences Alternative 101 through 119, C.R.S.) recognizes that, 3.11.2.2 PackageA "certain undesirable plants constitute a present 3.11.2.3 Package B threat to the continued economic and 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures environmental value of the lands of the state and if present in any area of the state must be managed." The legislation places all public and private lands in Colorado under the jurisdiction of local governments to manage noxious weeds. According to the Act, a noxious weed meets one or more of the following criteria: ► Aggressively invades or is detrimental to economic crops or native plant communities ► Is poisonous to livestock • ► Is a carrier of detrimental insects, diseases, or parasites ► Has direct or indirect effects that are detrimental to the environmentally sound management of natural or agricultural systems Under the revised Colorado Noxious Weed Act of 2003, state-designated noxious weeds are categorized as high (List A), medium (List B), or low (List C) priority, and individual counties publish their own specific noxious weed lists designated for management. CDOT also maintains a priority noxious weed list. Biological resource data for the regional study area were collected from existing sources, such as maps, databases, publications, and agency information. This information was used to provide context of the resource in the region and to assist in assessing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in the project area. A noxious weed reconnaissance survey of the project area was conducted in late summer 2006. No noxious weed species from the high-priority list were noted in the project area during the survey. Infestations of noxious weed species from the state medium-priority list, low-priority list, county lists, and CDOT's priority list were apparent in the project area during the surveys. These noxious weed species are listed in Table 3.11-1. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (List C) is also present in the project area. Other noxious weed species that have an earlier blooming period or that would only be noted during a complete walking survey also could be present in the project area. Impact acreages were calculated using existing CDOT right-of-way areas and evaluation of aerial photography. • Noxious Weeds 3.11-1 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.11-1 State of Colorado, County, and CDOT Weed List Species Observed • in the Regional Study Area Common Colorado Adams Boulder Broom- Denver Larimer Weld CDOT Name/ Noxious County County field County County County Priority Scientific Weed Weed County Weed Weed Weed Weed Name Weed List List List Weed List List List List List Canada thistle (Cirsium B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes arvense) Common mullein C Yes (Verbascum Thapsus) Common teasel (Dipsacus B Yes Yes fullonum) Field bindweed (Convolvulus C Yes Yes Yes arvensis) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes esula) Puncture vine (Tribu/us C Yes terrestris) • Russian olive (E/aeagnus B Yes Yes angustifolia) Salt cedar/ Tamarisk B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Tamarix sp.) Scotch thistle (Onopordum B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes acanthium) Since there are no improvements proposed within Jefferson County, only six counties were discussed within the regional study area. 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences Noxious weeds are widespread throughout the project area due to past and present land use practices. These species have an adaptive ability to colonize disturbed areas very rapidly while out-competing existing vegetation species and reducing the viability and usable habitat for wildlife species (see Section 3.10 and Section 3.12 for further discussion of impacts to these resources). Noxious weed populations typically colonize and are a frequent problem in areas that have had recent ground or soil disturbances. Based on proposed project activities, the environmental consequences for spread of noxious weeds would be greater in areas that would be impacted by expansion of the roadway or addition of rail lines or express lanes due to the greater disturbance of soil within the project area. Colonization of noxious weed • species in locations where the addition of commuter buses, safety improvements, and general structure upgrades would be minor since these resources are mostly established already and would only create very minor areas of ground disturbances. Noxious Weeds 3.11-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.11.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. Existing conditions, as described in Section 3.11.1, would continue. 3.11.2.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes safety improvements, construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25, structural upgrades, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2. Safety Improvements Under Package A, major and minor safety improvements would occur between SH 1 and SH 14 (A-H1). Soil disturbance caused by construction equipment might increase the spread of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) into open areas. General Purpose Lanes Under Package A, one additional northbound general purpose lane and one additional southbound general purpose lane would be constructed between SH 14 and SH 60 plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60 (A-H2) and between SH 60 and E-470 (A- H3). Soil disturbance (approximately 287 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of noxious weeds on roadsides and possibly introduce new noxious • weed species. Ground disturbance caused by construction projects are often colonized by noxious weed species preventing the establishment of native vegetation. Soil disturbance along the banks of streams could increase the invasion and establishment of Tamarisk, which threatens native riparian trees and shrubs. Various streams lie within the project alignment, including the St. Vrain and Big Thompson rivers. In general, a wide variety of noxious weeds are present in Weld County (see Table 3.11-1); therefore, areas impacted by project activities in Weld County would be impacted by further invasion and establishment of weedy species of concern, including field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and Canada thistle. Structure Upgrades Package A would provide structural upgrades between E-470 and US 36 (A-H4). Soil disturbance caused by construction equipment in the project area could increase the spread of noxious weeds in open and residential areas. Commuter Rail Package A includes a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont (A-T1). Also included would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that connects this point to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton (A-T2). It is anticipated that impacts associated with weed populations would occur from construction activities involved with rail construction, • maintenance facilities, park and ride facilities, and rail stations. Soil disturbance (approximately 36 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of Noxious Weeds 3.11.3 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Leafy spurge and Canada thistle into open and residential areas, as well as patches of native • prairie that lie within the rail alignment. Commuter Bus Package A includes commuter bus service and bus stations between Greeley, Denver, and Denver International Airport (DIA). The bus routes proposed for Package A would run along existing roadways and thus would not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. 3.11.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes construction of safety improvements, tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Safety Improvements Safety improvements under Package B are the same as those associated with Package A. Therefore, impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or B. Tolled Express Lanes Under Package B, a northbound and southbound tolled express lane would be constructed from SH 14 to SH 60, SH 60 to E 470, and E 470 to US 36; the exception being the section • between Harmony Road and SH 60, which would include two tolled express lanes in each direction. The consequences of construction of express toll lanes would be similar to that of Package A for the alignments between SH 14 and E 470. Soil disturbance (approximately 258 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of noxious weeds on roadsides and possibly introduce new noxious weed species. Ground disturbance caused by construction projects are often colonized by noxious weed species preventing the establishment of native vegetation. Soil disturbance along the banks of streams could increase the invasion and establishment of Tamarisk, which threatens native riparian trees and shrubs. Various streams lie within the project alignment, including the St. Vrain and Big Thompson rivers. In general, a wide variety of noxious weeds are present in Weld County (see Table 3.11-1); therefore, areas impacted by project activities in Weld County could be impacted by further invasion and establishment of weedy species of concern, including Field bindweed and Canada thistle. For the project area between E 470 and US 36, soil disturbance would lead to an increase in the spread of noxious weeds in open and residential areas, including several small wetlands that lie within the rail alignment. Weedy species of concern in this area include Leafy spurge and Canada thistle. Bus Rapid Transit Package B includes bus rapid transit from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver and to DIA. The • bus routes proposed for Package B would run along existing roadways and thus would not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. Noxious Weeds 3.11-4 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Minor impacts in the form of soil disturbance caused by construction of bus rapid transit stations and park and ride facilities could increase the spread of Leafy spurge and Canada thistle into open and residential areas, as well as patches of native prairie adjacent to the facilities. Indirect Impacts Common to Both Build Packages Construction of both build packages would disturb areas that are already inhabited by noxious weeds, and would also disturb areas that are currently weed-free. These new disturbances could inadvertently contribute to the potential introduction of noxious weed populations. Both temporary roads and work areas would be susceptible to potential new noxious weed population invasions. Impacts to environmental resources as a result of induced growth caused by the construction of either build package are further discussed in Section 3.1.5.2 and Appendix A. 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures Since highway construction will involve soil disturbance that could exacerbate invasion of noxious weed species, an Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan will be incorporated into the project design and implemented during construction. The Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan will identify and describe the noxious weed infestations in the project area and identify the most appropriate control methods for each. Specific best management practices (BMPs) will be required during construction to reduce the potential for introduction • and spread of noxious weed species. These will include: ► Noxious weed mapping will be included in the construction documents along with appropriate control methods for noxious weeds. ► Highway right-of-way areas will be inspected periodically by the associated city or its consultants during construction and during post-construction weed monitoring for invasion of noxious weeds. ► Weed management measures will include removal of heavily infested topsoil, herbicide treatment of lightly infested topsoil, and other herbicide or mechanical treatments, limiting disturbance areas, phased seeding with native species throughout the project, and monitoring during and after construction. ► Use of herbicides will include selection of appropriate herbicides, timing of herbicide spraying, and use of a backpack sprayer in and adjacent to sensitive areas, such as wetlands and riparian areas. See Section 3.8 for more information. ► Certified weed-free hay and/or mulch will be used in all revegetated areas. ► No fertilizers will be allowed on the project site. ► Supplemental weed control measures will be added during design and construction planning. Preventative control measures for project design and construction may include: • ► Native Plants. Only native species will be used to revegetate sites disturbed by construction activities. Native plant species used for revegetation will be coordinated with agencies and CDOT specialists. Noxious Weeds 3.11.5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ► Weed Free Forage Act. Materials used for revegetation will be inspected and regulated • in accordance with provisions of the Weed Free Forage Act, Title 35, Article 27.5, CRS. ► Topsoil Management. When salvaging topsoil from on-site construction locations, the potential for spread of noxious weeds will be considered. Importing topsoil onto the project site will not be allowed. ► Equipment Management. Equipment will remain on designated roadways and stay out of weed-infested areas until the areas are treated. All equipment will be cleaned of all soil and vegetative plant parts before its arrival at a project site. • • Noxious Weeds 3.11-6 • NORTH I-2I5 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 12 Wildlife • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. • 3.12 WILDLIFE This section addresses wildlife, wildlife crossings, and aquatic resources. Important wildlife resources in the project area include riparian and aquatic habitats and What's in Section 3.12? wildlife movement corridors. 3.12 Wildlife 3.12.1 Regulatory Framework 3.12.1 Regulatory 3.12.2 Affected Environment 3.12.2.1 Migratory Birds Framework 3.12.2.2 Raptors 3.12.2.3 Big Game and Movement Corridors Colorado Department of 3.12.2.4 Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas Transportation (CDOT) projects must 3.12.2.5 Other Wildlife comply with federal, state, and local 3.12.2.6 Aquatic Resources laws and regulations protecting 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences wildlife species including: 3.12.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.12.3.2 Package A ► The Fish and Wildlife 3.12.3.3 Package B Coordination Act of 1934, as 3.12.3.4 Summary of Effects to Wildlife 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures amended (16 United States Code 3.12.4.1 No-Action Alternative [USC] §§ 661-667e) 3.12.4.2 Packages A and B ► The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of • 1918, as amended (16USC §§ 703-712) ► Executive Order 13186 ► Colorado Senate Bill (SB) 40 (SB40) (33-5-101-107, CRS 1973, as amended) ► The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires the federal action agency to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CROW) on issues related to conservation of fish and wildlife resources for federal projects resulting in modifications to waters or channels of a body of water (16USC §§ 661-667e). Migratory birds, including raptors and active nests, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The act prohibits activities that may harm or harass migratory birds during the nesting and breeding season. Removal of active nests that results in the loss of eggs or young is also prohibited. In Colorado, most birds except the European starling, house sparrow, and rock dove (pigeon) are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16USC §§ 703-712). Executive Order 13186 directs federal agencies to take certain actions to implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (86 FR 3853). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16USC §§ 668-668d) includes several prohibitions not found in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, such as molestation or disturbance. In 1962, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was amended to include the golden eagle. SB40 (33-5-101-107, CRS. 1973, as amended) requires any agency of the State of Colorado to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream or its bank or tributaries. CDOT has guidelines for SB40 wildlife certification, which were developed in cooperation with CDOW (CDOT 2003). Wildlife 3.12-1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan establishes natural area buffers for bald eagles, great • blue herons, waterfowl, and other wildlife. More detail on all regulations pertaining to wildlife resources is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report [ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) 2008]. 3.12.2 Affected Environment Wildlife resources were reviewed during the initial screening of alternatives using existing information from readily available sources. Existing information was reviewed and special concerns related to the project were identified through coordination and consultation with USFWS, CDOW, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), and local open space management agencies. Once the proposed project area was identified, detailed habitat evaluations were performed in the project area based on fieldwork and additional review of existing information for raptors and wildlife crossings. Specific methods used for data collection are described in detail in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008). Wildlife in the regional study area generally consists of species adapted to highly disturbed urban habitats or cultivated lands. Aquatic and riparian habitats in the regional study area, although typically disturbed by human activity, provide habitat for a greater diversity of species. The quality and connectivity of wildlife habitat in the regional study area is supported by the large expanses of protected open space or otherwise undeveloped land, which preserves several habitat types, as well as movement corridors between different habitat areas. Wildlife Refuges and Natural Areas are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 Section 4(0 Evaluation. 3.12.2.1 MIGRATORY BIRDS • Nearly all bird species present in the regional study area are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bird species use different habitat types in the project area for shelter, breeding, wintering, and foraging at various times during the year. Common birds occurring in the regional study area include common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Canada goose (Brenta canadensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), and black-billed magpie (Pica pica). A comprehensive list of bird species known to occur in the regional study area is found in Appendix B of the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008). 3.12.2.2 RArTORS Raptors commonly occurring in and near the project area include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Other raptors likely to occur near the project area include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) (NDIS, 2006). Raptor nests in and near the project area were mapped in April 2005 and April 2006 (ERO, 2006). While most raptor nests observed were unoccupied; the occupied nests were mostly used by red- tailed hawks, Swainson's hawks, or great horned owls. • Wildlife 3.12.2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.12.2.3 BIG GAME AND MOVEMENT CORRIDORS 1-25 is a substantial barrier to east-west movements of big game and other wildlife in the project area due to traffic, noise, and lack of cover. Existing and proposed rail corridors also are a potential barrier to wildlife movement. Existing wildlife crossings in the project area occur primarily where major drainages cross the project area under bridges or culverts. Wildlife crossings for big game, such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), occur along the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson rivers, and St. Vrain Creek (Vierra, personal communication, 2006; Huwer, personal communication, 2006). The area around Ish Reservoir is also a movement corridor for mule deer and white-tailed deer (Huwer, personal communication, 2006). American elk (Cervus elaphus) are known to occasionally move through the project area along the Big Thompson River corridor at the proposed commuter rail alignment (Huwer, personal communication, 2006). Black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (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 the occupied range for both of these species (NDIS, 2006). Mountain lions may occasionally move through the project area along major drainages (Huwer, personal communication, 2006). Wildlife crossing areas and movement corridors were identified based on input from CDOW staff, review of road kill data collected by CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol (from 1993 to 2004), and field review (refer to Table 3.12-1). Additional data was opportunistically • collected by CDOT maintenance crews from 2004 to 2007. • Wildlife 3.12-3 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-1 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 Multiple-span bridges River at 1-25 is used as a crossing area by deer and other northbound and southbound . wildlife, as shown by the relatively high number The existing bridges provide of wildlife collisions in this area, and as reported good passage for wildlife. by CDOW staff(Vierra, pers. comm. 2006). Fossil Creek at No data is available for collisions at the railway, Single-span bridge. The existing the BNSF but a few collisions have been recorded on US bridge over the creek appears to alignment 287 near Fossil Creek, which is less than 0.5 provide good crossing mile downstream from the railway crossing. opportunities. Big Thompson CDOW biologists indicated that the Big Multiple-span bridge. The River at BNSF Thompson River in this area is a movement existing bridge provides good alignment corridor for deer, elk, and other wildlife (Vierra, passage for wildlife. pers. comm. 2006; Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). Relatively few wildlife collisions have been documented at US 287 near this location. Big Thompson CDOW biologists indicated that the Big Multiple-span bridges River at I-25 Thompson River in this area is a movement (northbound, southbound, and corridor for deer and other wildlife (Huwer, pers. service road). The existing comm. 2006). The section of 1-25 extending bridges are adequately sized for about 3 miles north and south of the Big deer and other wildlife. Thompson River is used as a crossing site by wildlife, as indicated by the relatively high number of wildlife collisions recorded in this area. • Little Thompson The Little Thompson River is a movement Multiple-span bridge. The River at BNSF corridor for deer and other wildlife (Huwer, pers. existing bridge is adequately alignment comm. 2006). Colorado State Patrol data sized for deer and other wildlife. shows that several collisions have been documented along US 287 about 2 miles to the west. Little Thompson The Little Thompson River is a movement Multiple-span bridges River at 1-25 corridor for deer and other wildlife (Huwer, pers. (northbound, southbound, and comm. 2006). CSP data shows that several service road). The existing collisions have been documented along 1-25 bridges are adequately sized for near the Little Thompson River. deer and other wildlife. Ish Reservoir CDOW biologists indicated that a deer crossing No major structures, crossings Area problem occurs along US 287 west of Ish occur at grade. Reservoir(Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). CSP collision data indicates that deer, elk, and coyote have been killed crossing this section of US 287. The BNSF rail alignment passes to the east of Ish Reservoir, about 1.5 miles to the east of US 287. Wildlife crossings of the railway likely occur at a similar rate as US 287. I-25 between CSP collision data shows that deer and other Concrete box culvert at North Little Thompson wildlife have been killed along the section of I- Creek, adequate for small-and River and St. 25 between the Little Thompson River and St. medium-sized mammals; Vrain Creek Vrain Creek. The land surrounding I-25 in this inadequate for deer and larger area is mostly open and agricultural, and wildlife mammals. are killed when attempting to cross at grade. • Wildlife 3.12-4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.12-1 Summary of Wildlife Crossing Areas Identified in the Project Area. (cont'd) Wildlife Wildlife Usage Existing Structure Crossing Area St. Vrain Creek at CDOW biologists reported that St. Vrain Creek Multiple-span bridge. The SH 119 serves as a movement corridor for deer and existing wildlife passage under other wildlife (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006), and a SH 119 at St. Vrain Creek is broad, open area occurs at this location on both undersized for deer due to low sides of SH 119 connecting undeveloped land vertical clearance, but is large along St. Vrain and Boulder creeks to St. Vrain enough for small-and medium- State Park to the north and providing a natural sized mammals. movement corridor for wildlife. St. Vrain Creek at CDOW biologists reported that St. Vrain Creek Multiple-span bridge (northbound, 1-25 serves as a movement corridor for deer and southbound, and service road). other wildlife (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). CSP The existing wildlife passage collision data shows that deer and other wildlife under 1-25 is adequately sized for have been killed crossing 1-25 near St. Vrain deer and other wildlife. Creek. This crossing is used by deer, as indicated by tracks observed in the field. 1-25 west of CSP collision data indicate that deer and other No major structures. Firestone and wildlife are occasionally killed along a 3-mile Frederick section of 1-25 west of Firestone and Frederick. The surrounding area is mostly open and agricultural, and wildlife are killed when attempting to cross at grade. • Commuter rail The rail alignment follows Weld County Road No major structures. alignment west of (WCR) 7 about 1 mile west of 1-25. No wildlife Firestone and collision data is available for this area, but wildlife Frederick movements probably are similar to 1-25 west of Firestone and Frederick, as described above. Little Dry Creek Field review indicated Little Dry Creek at 1-25 Concrete box culvert; adequately at 1-25 could be a potential wildlife crossing area, but sized for small-and medium- collision data indicates that only occasional sized mammals. collisions with wildlife occur in this area and CDOW did not identify Little Dry Creek as a movement corridor. Little Dry Creek Field review indicated Little Dry Creek at the None, but no existing rail line is at Commuter Rail commuter rail alignment could be a potential present, so no movement barriers Alignment wildlife movement area, but no CSP data is exist in this area. available for this area and CDOW did not identify Little Dry Creek as a movement corridor. Big Dry Creek at CSP collision data show a few collisions on 1-25 Multiple-span bridge; the existing 1-25 near Big Dry Creek, but CDOW did not identify bridge is adequately sized for this area as a movement corridor. deer and other wildlife. • Wildlife 3.12-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.12.2.4 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS • Several sensitive wildlife habitat areas were identified during field work. These areas were identified as sensitive wildlife habitat because they are wildlife crossing areas or because they provide known habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species as defined by the USFWS or CDOW (refer to Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species). These habitat areas are listed in Table 3.12-2; their locations are shown in Figure 3.12-1. Table 3.12-2 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats in the Project Area Sensitive Wildlife Comments Habitat Area Cache la Poudre River Known occurrences of brassy minnow and Iowa darter; bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage; white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area; wildlife movement corridor Fossil Creek Reservoir Bald eagle winter roost occurs at reservoir. Big Thompson River Known occurrence of Preble's and likely occurrence of Iowa darter; bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage; white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area; wildlife movement corridor; Big Thompson State Wildlife Area occurs just west of 1-25 Little Thompson River Possible occurrence of Preble's, bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage, white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area, wildlife movement corridor, CNHP Potential Conservation Area at U.S. 287 Ish Reservoir and Great blue heron rookery; wildlife crossing area. . surrounding area St. Vrain Creek Bald eagle winter roost west of 1-25; bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage; known occurrences of common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat; white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area; wildlife movement corridor; St. Vrain State Park occurs just west of 1-25 South Platte River Known occurrences of common shiner and brassy minnow; wildlife movement corridor. Sources:NDIS, 2006;CNHP, 2005;CDOW, 2005:USFWS, 2005. (also refer to Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species). 3.12.2.5 OTHER WILDLIFE Table 3.12-3 lists other wildlife species commonly found in the project area including big game species, other mammals, raptors, other migratory birds, reptiles, and amphibians. • Wildlife 3.12.6 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation.• Figure 3.12-1 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats in the Project Area LEGEND ^/ Study Corridors /\/ Highways •� tton /\/ Arterial Roads ` J Regional Study Area �/♦ . I Cobb rie City Boundaries /'\ Lake Fierce , r \ 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area Fort Collins \ ....___./ Streams and Rivers �_ Ault 14 Lakes 1 1257 1' 1 Timnath 1 • Reservoir Winsdor i iimnath Reservoir 1 Severance Eaton , i 1 I a] y l I °ssil Creek Windex - a ‘- -=------- - -. • Cae Lucerne 1 392 I• ea , I AO I soya 'sod River Greeley t `� i Lake l — ` �+�l is. i Barden Cqy• r Loveland to -� � l -- - OO2 I.Evans 0 / 1 t i P. c �°. la Sate • Car.+pion Johnstown a �j Berthoud 0 Milliken 85 % I R11er i 56 1 / 1 0 • •o Little TbotnPs ' Gilcrest 1 ® ; N Mead `4, oGe . V .0 i ' .C �,. Rattevdle r Longmont I / / . Inns , Vall mar O 1 ♦ , @ Firestone • Niwot C O Frederick I ar:O Dacono Fart Lupton 1 52 0 Gunbarrel ire ' O Oh see* RP a 0 Valmont ,/ ' \ 0 l - 4 •� d Wanenbery 9 / Boulder 7 ' _c� Lata1•irM •mg \ - lomttsvilleri , Briyhta+tt:: ,"<_ ��, 36 \ I Q 0 Thornton ; L___J • I.\ ! II 172 'i r' t - . \ \$ / 44 +• Q I' ,III 0 2 4 6 8 10 / '� ' ... North ,' / r r r t Miles )\. r\- ,‘,. ,, , „ .. , Map ooccma+l•CtB (Stwr Nea et mad, 2.22.2001 Wildlife 3.12-7 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-3 Common Wildlife Species in the Project Area • Habitat Mammals Birds Reptiles and Amphibians Urban and Red fox, raccoon, House sparrow, N/A developed areas striped skunk, big European starling, brown bat, fox squirrel, common grackle, house deer mouse, and finch, mourning dove, house mouse rock dove, Canada goose, American robin, and barn swallow Riparian and Mule deer, white-tailed Red-tailed hawk, Plains gartersnake, wetlands deer, coyote, red fox, Cooper's hawk, western painted turtle, raccoon, striped Swainson's hawk, bullfrog, western chorus skunk, eastern northern harrier, great frog, Woodhouse's cottontail, big brown horned owl, American toad, and tiger bat, meadow vole, kestrel, great blue heron, salamander prairie vole, deer red-winged blackbird, mouse, and house song sparrow, common mouse yellowthroat, common snipe, northern oriole, American goldfinch, yellow warbler, and Canada goose Grassland Mule deer, coyote, Rough-legged hawk, red- Bullsnake, yellow- American badger, tailed hawk, Swainson's bellied racer, western striped skunk, red fox, hawk, northern harrier, rattlesnake, lesser white-tailed jackrabbit, great horned owl, earless lizard, and • desert cottontail, American kestrel, vesper plains spadefoot black-tailed prairie sparrow, western dog, deer mouse, meadowlark, grasshopper meadow vole, prairie sparrow, horned lark, lark vole, and house bunting, house sparrow, mouse European starling, common grackle, mourning dove, Canada goose, killdeer, and black-billed magpie Streams, lakes, and Muskrat and beaver American avocet, Plains gartersnake, ponds mallard, pintail, and western painted turtle, American white pelican western chorus frog, Woodhouse's toad, tiger salamander, and bullfrog Bridges and N/A Cliff swallow, barn N/A underpasses swallow, and rock dove Source:Species listed as"common"or"abundant"in Adams, Boulder, Larimer, or Weld counties by CDOW(NDIS, 2006)and likely to occur in the project area based on suitable habitat. • Wildlife 3.12.8 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.12.2.6 AQUATIC RESOURCES Ditches, streams, and water bodies in the project area potentially support a variety of aquatic insects, macroinvertebrates, and fish. Common fish species in creeks and streams in the project area include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Several state-listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species are known to occur in the regional study area, specifically common shiner (Notropis cornutus), brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni), Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile), and stonecat (Noturus flavus). These state listed species are addressed in Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. A complete list of fish species documented in lakes, rivers, and streams in the regional sturdy area is provided in Appendix C of the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO, 2008). The CNHP designated a Proposed Conservation Area, which includes the Little Thompson River at US 287. This reach of the Little Thompson River provides habitat for a number of native fish and a greater diversity of mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies compared with other Front Range streams (CNHP, 2005). Six fish species including creek chub, longnose dace, fathead minnow, longnose sucker, white sucker and green sunfish were documented in the Little Thompson on May 22, 2001 (CNHP, 2005). Results of this survey are similar to those conducted by the CDOW in 1982 and 1997. All species captured are native and common in streams along the Front Range corridor. Additionally, only a few fish out of several hundred captured showed signs of parasites or infection, indicating a healthy community (CNHP, 2005). • 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences This section describes the effects of the No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B on wildlife. Given the large scale of the project, and the large size of the project area, effects were estimated on a broad scale using data from a variety of sources including the USFWS, CDOW, and project specific data collected by CDOT contractors. Direct effects to wildlife habitat were quantified where possible by measuring acres of habitat within the project limits of disturbance using GIS overlays. Effects to threatened, endangered, and state sensitive species are described in Section 3.13.3 ► Effects on migratory bird habitat were estimated based on the acreage of wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat affected by each component. ► Effects on raptors for each component were estimated based on the number of raptor nests identified within 0.25 mile of the project area for each component. ► Effects on big game and movement corridors for each component were estimated subjectively based on the number and location of identified movement corridors crossed by each component. ► Effects on other sensitive wildlife habitat (including fish) were estimated based on acres of riparian habitat affected within identified sensitive areas such as the riparian corridors along the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, and • St. Vrain Creek. ► Effects on aquatic habitat were estimated based on acres of open water directly disturbed. Wildlife 3.12-9 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Effects are evaluated by alternative component where possible because the Preferred . Alternative may include components from each of these alternative packages. Direct effects and indirect effects were evaluated. Effects were evaluated quantitatively where possible or qualitatively where quantification was not possible or quantitative data were not available. Mitigation measures to address adverse effects of the alternatives to wildlife are discussed in Section 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures. 3.12.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes major and minor structure rehabilitation, replacement or rehabilitation of existing pavement, and minor safety modifications by 2030. These actions would take place regardless of whether any of the proposed improvements in Packages A or B occur. The No-Action Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would continue. With increasing traffic volumes and continuing commercial and residential development in the project area, some effects to wildlife would be expected. Effects from existing or increasing traffic volumes on wildlife include mortality from vehicle collisions and disturbance from noise. Insufficient traffic capacity on 1-25 could result in increased traffic on secondary roads, leading to increased mortality of wildlife from collisions and increased disturbance from noise. Effects from continued development in the 1-25 corridor would include direct loss of habitat and increasing habitat fragmentation. 3.12.3.2 PACKAGE A • Package A includes construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1-25, construction and implementation of commuter rail, and implementation of commuter bus service. Components of this build package are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.12-3 through Table 3.12-6 below summarize environmental consequences to wildlife associated with Packages A components. Tables 3.12-9 through 3.12-12 provide a comparison of impacts between Package A and Package B components. Package A Highway Components Overall, direct effects on wildlife from Package A highway components would result primarily from road widening, and replacement and construction of new bridges. The types of effects from the highway components would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and disturbance during construction. Indirect effects include impacts to water quality from increased sedimentation, increased traffic resulting in increased wildlife mortality, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such as mowed rights-of-way adjacent to the existing highway. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other wildlife, and aquatic resources from Package A highway components are described below. Migratory Birds. Package A highway components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Direct effects to migratory birds would occur from highway widening and construction of associated facilities. Direct effects would include habitat loss, displacement during construction, increased habitat fragmentation, and • destruction of nests during construction. A temporary loss of habitat would occur when grassy areas are cleared and grubbed during construction, or when structures used for nesting are replaced. Impacts to wetlands from the Package A highway components are Wildlife 3.12-10 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • quantified in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Ground nesting birds would likely be most affected because the grassland would be the habitat most affected by the project. Migratory birds using riparian areas would be temporarily displaced during bridge widening and replacement activities and their nests could be disturbed or destroyed. Cliff swallows, which often nest on bridges and overpasses, would be directly affected by nest destruction or nesting disturbance during bridge replacement. Indirect effects include increased disturbance due to noise and light from vehicles, and increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. Raptors. Package A highway components would potentially affect seven existing raptor nests located within 0.25 mile of the edge of the project area during surveys in 2005 and 2006. Direct effects include loss of raptor hunting habitat within the existing highway right-of- way. Loss of hunting habitat would most likely effect common, human-tolerant species such as red-tailed hawks and American kestrels. Raptors requiring large trees for nesting or perching would be affected where trees would be cut down or where trees are located in close proximity to highway or railway improvements. Indirect effects include increased potential for raptor collisions with vehicles as a result of increased traffic, behavioral disturbance induced by encroachment of human activities within 0.25 to 0.33 mile of nests (CDOW 2002), increased noise, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Some behavioral disturbance could be temporary as raptors adapt to the changed environment. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Package A highway components would affect four wildlife movement corridors located at the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, and Little Dry Creek (Table 3.12-4). Roads and transportation corridors • have many potential effects on wildlife, including habitat fragmentation, reduced access to habitat, population fragmentation and isolation, disruption of dispersal patterns, and mortality from collisions with vehicles (Jackson, 2000). Movement corridors for big game and other wildlife are typically located along riparian corridors and stream crossings in the project area since bridges and culverts at these locations provide an opportunity for wildlife to cross under the highway or railway. Underpasses and culverts are used by many species of wildlife during seasonal migrations, or to reach suitable habitat on the other side of the highway or railway (Barnum, 2003). Without access to crossing sites such as culverts or bridges, wildlife would either avoid crossing, resulting in isolation from suitable habitat, or risk being killed by vehicles while attempting to cross the highway. • Wildlife 3.12-11 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.124 Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package A Highway Components Component Effects on Wildlife Movement Corridors A-H1 Safety Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed in this area, and long-term effects SH 1 to SH 14 to wildlife movements from this would be minor(i.e. the same as under the No-Action Alternative). A-H2 General Purpose Lane Construction of additional lanes under this component would Improvements: increase existing fragmentation of habitat by 1-25. Bridges at the SH 14 to SH 60 Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson rivers would be replaced with wider structures, slightly decreasing the openness of the wildlife crossings under the bridges at these locations. These bridges would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. A-H3 General Purpose Lane Construction of additional lanes under this component would Improvements: increase existing fragmentation of habitat by I-25. Bridges at Little SH 60 to E-470 Thompson River and Little Dry Creek would be replaced with wider structures, slightly decreasing the openness of the wildlife crossings under the bridges at these locations. These bridges would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. The size of the bridges over St. Vrain Creek at I-25 would not be modified, and these bridges would continue to provide an underpass for wildlife. A-H4 Structure Upgrades: No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and long- E-470 to US 36 term effects to wildlife movements from this would be minor (i.e. the same as under the No-Action Alternative). Big game movement corridors in riparian areas would be temporarily disrupted during • bridge-widening and replacement activities. 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 would 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 are 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 would change wildlife . crossing locations if existing at-grade crossing sites are blocked by walls (Barnum, 2003). Existing bridges that provide suitable underpasses for wildlife would likely become more important after construction of additional traffic lanes and retaining walls. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Package A highway components would affect 1.93 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat areas shown in Table 312-5. Other sensitive wildlife habitat areas in the project area are primarily riparian and wetland areas associated with major drainageways. These areas correspond closely with movement corridors for big game and other wildlife. Effects to sensitive wildlife habitat from Package A highway components would include removal of riparian tree and shrub vegetation that provides cover for a wide variety of species in addition to the species already discussed. These effects would occur primarily . during construction and replacement of bridges and overpasses. Long-term and indirect effects would include increased fragmentation of riparian habitat. Indirect effects of • increased noise, light, and human disturbance would reduce available habitat. • Wildlife 3.12.12 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.12-5 Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package A Highway Components Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area A-H1 Safety Improvements: N/A— No additional lanes are proposed under this component, SH 1 to SH 14 and long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor (i.e. the same as under the No-Action Alternative). A-H2 General Purpose Lane Riparian and wetland habitat at the Cache la Poudre River Improvements: (1.12 acres)and Big Thompson River(State Wildlife Area) SH 14 to SH 60 (0.53 acres)would be affected by highway widening and bridge replacement under this component. A-H3 General Purpose Lane Riparian and wetland habitat at the Little Thompson River Improvements: (0.28 acres)would be affected by highway widening and bridge SH 60 to E-470 replacement under this component. Sensitive riparian habitat also occurs along St. Vrain Creek near I-25, but no changes are proposed to the I-25 bridge over St. Vrain Creek. A-H4 Structure Upgrades: N/A— No additional lanes are proposed under this component, E-470 to US 36 and long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor (i.e. the same as under the No-Action Alternative). Other Wildlife Effects to wildlife from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway rights-of-way would include potential direct effects such as loss of habitat— especially grassland habitat; disruption of migration and other movements, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation.• Aquatic Resources. Package A highway components would directly affect 1.82 acres of aquatic habitat. Adverse effects on fish and other aquatic organisms during construction would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads, which would adversely affect aquatic organisms. Working directly in streams would increase sediment loads, which could change water temperature. Working directly in streams could also interfere with seasonal movements of sensitive fish species. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through use of construction best management practices (BMPs). Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, including deicer, and would increase the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials, which could affect aquatic organisms (refer to Section 3.7 Water Resources). Package A highway components include water quality ponds, which would reduce contaminants in runoff to streams and waterways. Although the ponds would be dry most of the time, they would provide a net benefit to water quality and for aquatic organisms by improving water quality downstream. Construction of new culverts, lengthening of existing culverts, or widening existing bridges would adversely affect fish and other aquatic species by increasing shading and/or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Stream habitat would be potentially 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 fish and other aquatic organisms. Replacement of a drop structure just downstream from 1-25 on St. Vrain Creek would improve upstream movement for small fish. • Wildlife 3.12-13 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. Package A Transit Components • Overall, effects on wildlife from transit components of Package A would result primarily from construction of new tracks, replacement and construction of new bridges, and construction of other transit facilities such as new transit stations, the maintenance facility and water quality ponds. Types of effects would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, disturbance during construction, and increased mortality from collisions with trains. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such as rights-of-way adjacent to the existing tracks, especially for the commuter rail section from Fort Collins to Longmont. The commuter rail segment from Longmont to North Metro (A-T2) would consist of two new sets of tracks and would be located next to existing highways in areas that are less disturbed than other portions of the project area. Habitat fragmentation and disruption of movement corridors resulting from this component (A-T2) would be a major effect to wildlife. Indirect impacts resulting from project induced growth, transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1.5.2 Land Use and Zoning Environmental Consequences of this Draft EIS. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other wildlife, and aquatic resources from Package A transit components are described below. Migratory Birds. Package A transit components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Direct effects to migratory birds could occur from construction of commuter rail and construction of associated facilities such as transit • stations. Types of direct effects would be the same as for Package A highway components and would include habitat loss, displacement during construction, increased habitat fragmentation, and potential destruction of nests during construction. Most effects to migratory bird habitat would occur in grasslands, but effects would also occur in wetlands and riparian areas. Impacts to wetlands from the Package A transit components are quantified in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Ground nesting birds would be most affected by the project. Migratory birds using riparian areas would be temporarily displaced during bridge widening and replacement activities, and their nests could be disturbed or destroyed. Cliff swallows would be directly affected by nest destruction or nesting disturbance during bridge replacement. Indirect effects include increased disturbance due to noise and light from vehicles, and increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. _ Raptors. Package A transit components potentially affect two existing raptor nests located during surveys in 2005 and 2006 within 0.25 mile of the edge of the project area. Direct effects from the loss of railway right-of-way would reduce the available hunting habitat for many raptors, especially red-tailed hawks and American kestrels. Raptors requiring large trees for nesting could be affected where trees would be cut down or where trees are located in close proximity to highway or railway improvements. Indirect effects include increased mortality resulting from collisions with vehicles as a result of increased traffic at rail stations, behavioral disturbance induced by encroachment of human activities, within 0.25 to 0.33 mile of nests (CDOW 2002), increased noise, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Some behavioral disturbance could be temporary as raptors adapt to the changed environment. Most of the proposed transit stations are located in previously disturbed areas; • however, because of the expected induced growth around transit stations, raptors would be expected to avoid the area. Wildlife 3.12.14 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Big Game and Movement Corridors. Package A transit components potentially affect the six wildlife movement corridors located at Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Little Dry Creek, and the Ish Reservoir Area (Table 3.12-6). Collisions with trains have been documented as a source of mortality for wildlife, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk (Wells et al., 1999), thus the existing BNSF railway probably results in some mortality to wildlife. Currently, the BNSF railway is not a major obstacle to wildlife movement due to the sporadic nature of fencing along the alignment, the small size of the fences (three strand barbed wire), and relatively low frequency of rail traffic. However, a future transit agency could install chain link fences on both sides of the tracks along the entire commuter rail corridor for safety and liability purposes. Construction of new retaining walls along the rail alignment would also create new barriers to wildlife movement. Where retaining walls are present, the fences would be located along the top of the retaining wall. Implementation of Package A transit alternatives would create a substantial barrier to wildlife movement because of the new fences and retaining walls, and would result in habitat fragmentation by isolating patches of wildlife habitat on opposite sides of the rail alignment. Retaining walls and fences typically funnel wildlife movements towards existing underpasses and crossing sites (Barnum, 2003). Bridges and culverts would thus become much more important for wildlife movement after construction of commuter rail. The commuter rail components of Package A would have a much greater effect on wildlife movements and would result in greater habitat fragmentation than any other components of Packages A and B. Increased traffic as a result of operation of additional bus service along the feeder bus routes could result in an increase in wildlife collisions with vehicles. Overall, increased bus traffic •, would not affect big game movement corridors. Table 3.12-6 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package A Transit Components Component Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors A-T1 Commuter Rail: Construction of new tracks, safety fences, and retaining walls would Fort Collins to create substantial barriers to east-west wildlife movements under this Longmont component. Culverts and bridges, including those at Fossil Creek and the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers would become much more important for wildlife crossings. A-T2 Commuter Rail: Construction of new tracks, safety fences, and retaining walls would Longmont to North create substantial barriers to east-west wildlife movements under this Metro component. Culverts and bridges, including SH 119 at St Vrain Creek, the Little Dry Creek crossing of the rail alignment, and other bridges and culverts would become much more important for wildlife movements. A-T3 Commuter Bus: No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and long-term Greeley to Denver effects to wildlife movements from stations and lots associated with and DIA commuter bus would be minor. • Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Package A transit components potentially affect 0.08 acre of sensitive wildlife habitat areas shown in Table 3.12-7. Effects to sensitive wildlife habitat • from the commuter rail components would include removal of riparian tree and shrub vegetation that provides cover for a wide variety of species in addition to the species already discussed. These effects would occur primarily during construction and replacement of lip bridges. Long-term and indirect effects would include increased fragmentation of riparian habitat. Indirect effects of increased noise, light, and human disturbance would be likely to reduce effective habitat. Wildlife 3.12-15 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-7 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package A • Transit Components Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area A-T1 Commuter Rail: No direct impacts to riparian and wetland habitat at the Big Fort Collins to Longmont Thompson River are expected from the rail alignment and bridge replacement. Riparian habitat at Little Thompson River would not be directly affected by the rail alignment and bridge replacement; however, indirect effects to the Potential Conservation Area designated by CNHP could result. The wildlife crossing area near Ish Reservoir would also be affected by fences and retaining walls which would create a barrier to wildlife movement. A-T2 Commuter Rail: Riparian and wetland habitat at St. Vrain Creek (0.08 acre)would Longmont to North Metro be affected by construction of a new bridge crossing. A-T3 Commuter Bus: Greeley No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and long- to Denver and DIA term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor. Other Wildlife. Disturbance of degraded habitat in railroad rights-of-way could have effects to wildlife. Potential direct effects would include loss of habitat, especially grassland habitat; disruption of migration, dispersal of individuals to new territories, and other movements such as foraging, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles or trains. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Aquatic Resources. No direct effects to aquatic habitat would result from Package A transit components because no surface waters would be directly affected by this component. • Potential indirect adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms during construction of the commuter rail components would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads in streams, which would adversely affect aquatic organisms. Wider bridges would cause greater shading of streams, potentially altering stream temperature. New stations and parking lots would increase impervious surface area, leading to increased runoff to nearby streams. These effects would be short-term in duration and would be mitigated through use of construction BMPs (refer to Section 3.7 Water Resources). Package A transit components include construction of water quality ponds to reduce contaminants in runoff, which would benefit fish and other aquatic organisms by improving water quality downstream. Indirect effects could include interference with seasonal movements of aquatic organisms. Construction of new culverts or lengthening of existing culverts would adversely affect aquatic species by increasing shading or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Replacement of culverts with larger diameter culverts or free spanning bridges would potentially benefit fish and other aquatic species over the long term by facilitating movements along streams and reducing shading. Removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit fish and other aquatic organisms. 3.12.3.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25 and implementation of bus rapid transit service. Components of Package B are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.12-7 through Table 3.12-8 summarize environmental consequences of Package B to wildlife. Tables 3.12-9 through Table 3.12-12 compare impacts associated • with Packages A and B. Wildlife 3.12-16 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Package B Highway Components Overall, effects on wildlife and fish from Package B highway components would result primarily from road widening, and replacement or construction of new bridges. Effects to wildlife would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, disturbance during construction, and increased risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such as mowed rights-of-way adjacent to the existing highway. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other wildlife, and aquatic resources from Package B highway components are described below. Migratory Birds. Package B highway components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Impacts to riparian areas and wetlands from the Package B highway components are quantified in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Types of effects to migratory birds from highway widening and construction of associated facilities under Package B would be the same as effects under Package A. Raptors. Package B highway components potentially affect eleven existing raptor nests located during surveys in 2005 and 2006 within 0.25 mile of the edge of the project area. The types of effects to raptors from Package B highway components would be the same as the types of effects from Package A highway components. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Package B highway components would potentially affect five wildlife movement corridors located at the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson • River, Little Thompson River, Little Dry Creek, and St. Vrain Creek (Table 3.12-8). Package B highway components would have the same types of effects on wildlife movements as Package A highway components. Table 3.12-8 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package B Highway Components Component Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors B-H1 Safety Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed in this area, and long-term effects to SH 1 to SH 14 wildlife movements would be minor. B-H2 Tolled Express Construction of additional lanes under this component would increase Lanes: existing fragmentation of habitat by 1-25 by creating greater separation SH 14 to SH 60 between exiting habitat on either side of the highway. Bridges at the Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson rivers would be replaced with wider structures, and would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. B-H3 Tolled Express Construction of additional lanes under this component would increase Lanes: existing fragmentation of habitat by 1-25. Bridges at the Little Thompson SH 60 to E-470 River and Little Dry Creek would be replaced with wider structures, and would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. The bridge over St. Vrain Creek would not be modified, and would continue to provide an underpass for wildlife. B-H4 Tolled Express Construction of additional lanes under this component would increase Lanes: existing fragmentation of habitat by 1-25. The bridge at Big Dry Creek E-470 to US 36 would be replaced with a wider structure, and would continue to provide • a movement corridor beneath the highway. Wildlife 3.12-17 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Package B highway components potentially affect 2.35 • acres of sensitive wildlife habitat areas shown in Table 3.12-9. Effects to sensitive wildlife habitat from Package B highway components would include removal of riparian tree and shrub vegetation that provides cover for a wide variety of species in addition to the species already discussed. These effects would occur primarily during construction and replacement of bridges and overpasses. Long-term and indirect effects would include increased fragmentation of riparian habitat. Indirect effects of increased noise, light, and human disturbance would be likely to reduce available habitat. Table 3.12-9 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package B Highway Components Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area B-H1 Safety Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and long- SH 1 to SH 14 term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor. B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Riparian and wetland habitat at the Cache la Poudre River SH 14 to SH 60 (1.55 acres)and Big Thompson River(State Wildlife Area) (0.52 acre)would be affected by highway widening and bridge replacement under this component. B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: Riparian and wetland habitat at the Little Thompson River (0.28 SH 60 to E-470 acre)would be affected by highway widening and bridge replacement under this component. Sensitive riparian habitat also occurs along St. Vrain Creek near I-25, but no changes are proposed to the I-25 bridge over St. Vrain Creek. B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: N/A— No effects to sensitive habitat are expected under this E-470 to US 36 component because no sensitive habitat occurs in the project area • for this component. Other Wildlife. The types of effects to wildlife from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway rights-of-way from Package B would be the same as the types of effects from Package A. Potential direct effects of the highway components would include loss of habitat, especially grassland habitat; disruption of migration, dispersal of individuals to new territories, and other movements such as foraging, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Aquatic Resources. Package B highway components would directly affect 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Types of adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms during construction of Package B highway components would be the same as effects from Package A highway components and would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Types of indirect effects such as increased sediment loads during construction and long-term effects such as interference with seasonal movements would also be to the same as types of effects from Package A highway components. As with Package A highway components, Package B highway components would include water quality ponds which would provide an indirect benefit to aquatic organisms by improving water quality downstream. Effects to aquatic resources from Packages A and B are summarized in Table 3.12-10. Package B Transit Components Effects on wildlife from Package B transit components would result from construction of new • bus rapid transit stations and queue jumps on US 85. Types of effects would include habitat loss, disturbance during construction, and possibly increased mortality from collisions with Wildlife 3.12.18 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • buses. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas. Habitat fragmentation would not be an effect from these components. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other wildlife, and aquatic resources from Package B transit components are described below. Migratory Birds. Package B transit components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Effects to migratory birds from Package B transit components would include habitat loss and disturbance during construction, if construction occurs during nesting season. Raptors. Effects to raptors from Package B transit components would be limited to potential loss of foraging habitat and disturbance of foraging activity during construction. No raptor nests were identified within 0.25 miles of these components during surveys in 2005 and 2006. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Package B transit components would not have substantial effects on wildlife movement corridors. No additional lanes that could fragment habitat or affect wildlife crossings are planned as part of these components. Proposed bus rapid transit stations are generally located near existing intersections and would not affect wildlife movement corridors. Increased traffic as a result of operation of additional bus service could result in a slight increase in wildlife collisions with vehicles. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Package B transit components would not have substantial effects to sensitive wildlife habitat.. None of the proposed bus rapid transit stations are located in • sensitive wildlife habitat such as riparian areas. Operation of additional bus service would affect sensitive wildlife habitat areas due to a slight increase in noise and increased traffic. Other Wildlife. Few substantial effects to other wildlife from the Package B transit components would be expected because this component does not involve construction of new lanes and because proposed bus rapid transit stations are generally located near existing intersections. Aquatic Resources Including Fish. Adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms during construction of Package B transit components would be minimal. Package B transit components would not directly affect aquatic habitat. 3.12.3.4 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO WILDLIFE Table 3.12-10 summarizes direct effects to aquatic habitat (including fish) by component. Table 3.12-11 summarizes effects to raptor nests within 0.25 mile of the project area by component. Raptors may nest in favorable locations year after year, may use different nests in alternate years, or may move to a new nest location in response to changes in the environment. The actual number of nests is likely to be different at the time of construction, but these numbers are representative of the effects that could occur. • Wildlife 3.12-19 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-10 Summary of Effects to Aquatic Habitat (Including Fish) by Component • Component Affected Component Affected Habitat Habitat (acres) (acres) Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components AH-1 Safety Improvements: SH 1 0 BH-1 Safety Improvements: SH 1 to 0 to SH 14 SH 14 AH-2 General Purpose 1.42 BH-2 Tolled Express Lanes: 1.75 Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH14toSH60 AH-3 General Purpose 0.40 BH-3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 0.41 Improvements: to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 AH-4 Structure Upgrades: E-470 to 0 BH-4 Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 0.09 US 36 to US 36 Total Package A Highway: 1.82 Total Package B Highway: 2.25 Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins 0 B-T1 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to 0 to Longmont Denver; A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to 0 B-T2 BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 0 North Metro AT-3/ Commuter Bus: Greeley to 0 AT-4 Denver and DIA Total Package A Transit: 0 Total Package B Transit: 0 Total Package A: 1.82 Total Package B: 2.25 Table 3.12-11 Summary of Effects to Raptor Nests within 0.25 Mile of Project Area • by Component Component Number of Component Number of Nests Nests Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components AH-1 Safety Improvements: SH 1 to 0 BH-1 Safety Improvements: SH 1 to 0 SH 14 SH 14 AH-2 General Purpose 0 BH-2 Tolled Express Lanes: 0 Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 AH-3 General Purpose 6 BH-3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 8 Improvements: to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 AH-4 Structure Upgrades: E-470 to 1 BH-4 Tolled Express Lanes: E 470 to 3 US 36 US 36 Total Package A Highway: 7 Total Package B Highway: 11 Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to 1 B-T1 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to 0 Longmont Denver; A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to 1 B-T2 BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 0 North Metro AT-3/ Commuter Bus: Greeley to 0 AT-4 Denver and DIA Total Package A Transit: 2 Total Package B Transit: 0 Total Package A: 9 Total Package B: 11 • Wildlife 3.12.20 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.12-12 summarizes the effects to wildlife habitat by component, including acres of migratory bird habitat, number of raptor nests, numbers of movement corridors, acres of other sensitive habitat, and acres of other aquatic habitat. Table 3.12-12 Overall Summary of Effects to Wildlife Habitat by Component Component Number of Number of Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Raptor Movement Wildlife Habitat (acres) Nests Corridors (acres) Package A Highway 7 4 1.93 1.82 Components Package A Transit 2 6 0.08 0 Components Total Package A: 9 10 2.01 1.82 Package B Highway 11 5 2.35 2.25 Components Package B Transit 0 0 0 0 Components Total Package B: 11 5 2.35 2.25 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to wildlife, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts to wildlife and fish have been incorporated into the • build packages, including avoiding sensitive habitat, using BMPs to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. 3.12.4.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE No additional mitigation measures will be proposed under the No-Action Alternative. 3.12.4.2 PACKAGES A AND B Migratory Birds CDOT will implement the following mitigation measures for projects that will have an impact to migratory birds: ► 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. Wildlife 3.12-21 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. ► Clearing and grubbing of vegetation that may disturb ground nesting birds will be • completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. If work activities are planned between April 1 and August 31, vegetation will be removed and/or trimmed to a height of six inches or less prior to April 1. Once vegetation has been removed and/or trimmed, appropriate measures, i.e. repeated mowing/trimming, will be implemented to assure vegetation does not grow more than six inches. Raptors CDOW has developed recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for new surface occupancy within certain distances of nest sites of several raptor species. Surface occupancy is defined as human-occupied buildings and other structures such as oil and gas wells, roads, railroad tracks, or trails. The USFWS typically considers that implementation of the CDOW buffers and seasonal restrictions fulfill compliance requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for raptors. A raptor nest survey will be conducted prior to project construction to identify raptor nests and nesting activity in the vicinity of the proposed project. If an active raptor nest is found on site, the recommended buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by the CDOW (CDOW 2002) for raptors will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. If raptor nests will be impacted by the proposed project, specific mitigation measures for impacts to nesting raptors will be developed in coordination with the CDOW and USFWS prior to construction. If disturbance of raptor nests is unavoidable, mitigation measures will include the construction of artificial nests in suitable habitat or enhancement of prey habitat. • Artificial nests will be constructed in the same general area as impacts. Big Game and Movement Corridors Impacts to big game will be minimized through construction of crossing structures that will be designed to maintain wildlife movement corridors. In areas identified as important movement corridors, the following measures will be recommended. These mitigation measures may not be feasible at all wildlife crossing areas due to cost or engineering issues. The locations where these mitigation measures will be implemented will be identified as the preferred alternative is identified and final design is undertaken. To maximize use of movement corridors by wildlife, bridge spans and culverts will have the following features: ► A minimum clearance of 10 feet and width of 20 feet for deer (Ruediger and DiGiorgio, 2007). Crossing structures sized for deer will be adequate for most common wildlife. The recommended minimum culvert diameter is 48 inches for medium-sized carnivores and 36 inches for small carnivores (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). ► A minimum "openness ratio" of 0.75. The "openness ratio" is defined as the height of the structure multiplied by the structure width and divided by the structure length, measured in meters. A minimum openness ratio of 2.0 is recommended by some researchers (Reudiger and DiGiorgio 2007). ► Shrubs and vegetative cover placed at bridge underpass openings to attract wildlife and provide a "funnel effect". ► For structures that periodically convey water, ledges or shelves to provide passage • alternatives during high water. ► To avoid human disturbance to wildlife, trails will not be placed near wildlife crossing structures. Wildlife 3.12-22 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • The wildlife corridor near Ish Reservoir does not occur along a drainage. The proposed rail profile in the vicinity of this wildlife crossing follows existing grades and there are no proposed retaining walls at this location. The initial design recommendation to a regional transit agency is to omit the perimeter fencing for the appropriate segment necessary to maintain the wildlife corridor. If, during final design, it is determined that it will not be possible to omit the perimeter fencing, the design team will investigate profile adjustments to determine the feasibility of establishing a box culvert wildlife crossing underpass of suitable size and length to accommodate the range of wildlife encountered in this corridor, or use of fencing that is not a barrier to wildlife. Other recommended design elements include: ► Avoiding the placement of lighting near the crossing structures ► Avoid attracting wildlife to the right-of-way by keeping roadside vegetation height to a minimum ► Mitigating for traffic noise Use of these design elements will be specified where appropriate during final design. Along the commuter rail corridor, CDOT will seek permission from the regional transit authority to minimize the use of chain link fencing in areas that are heavily used by wildlife. If a fence is constructed, these will be of a type that is not a barrier to wildlife structures such as one-way ramps will be placed at regular intervals along the corridor to allow animals that may get inside the fence to exit the highway corridor. Measures will be taken to ensure that fences • are maintained. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas Impacts to other sensitive wildlife habitat areas have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. Proposed mitigation measures for wetlands and riparian areas will mitigate for impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat, which tends to be located along streams and rivers (refer to Section 3.8 Wetlands). Mitigation measures for big game and wildlife crossings will also benefit these areas. Other Wildlife Many other wildlife species, such as small and medium sized mammals, reptiles, and amphibians use the same migration corridors used by larger animals, and will benefit from mitigation measures for wildlife movement corridors described above. Effects to other wildlife from impacts to grasslands will be mitigated by mitigation measures described for vegetation. Other wildlife habitat areas are generally located along major drainageways. Mitigation measures for impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat will also benefit these areas. Aquatic Resources (Including Fish) The project will comply with Colorado SB40, 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 SB40 wildlife certification would be submitted to CDOW. CDOW will review the plans to ensure that the project adequately Wildlife 3.12.23 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. protects fish and wildlife resources, and will provide recommendations if the proposed • project will adversely affect a stream or its riparian corridor. To offset temporary impacts to aquatic species from habitat disturbance, aquatic habitats will be restored after construction activities have ceased. The following design measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish: ► Riffle and pool complexes will be maintained and/or created. ► Natural stream bottoms will be maintained. ► Culverts will be partially buried and the bottom will be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient. ► Culverts to be replaced will be replaced with one of equal or greater size. ► Culverts will not have grates, impact dissipaters, or any other features that will impede fish movement. ► To avoid erosion induced siltation and sedimentation, sediment/erosion control BMPs shall be placed during each phase of construction. Upon completion of slope, seeding in combination with mulch/mulch tackifier or blanket shall occur within the limits set in Section 208 of CDOT specifications. ► Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. • ► No new fish passage barriers will be created. ► Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or redesigned where possible. An example is the drop structure located east of the frontage road at 1-25 and St. Vrain Creek, which is planned to be modified to facilitate fish passage as part of this project. CDOT's water quality BMPs will be applied, and will include the installation of mechanisms to collect, contain, and/or treat roadway run-off. Mitigation measures designed to offset impacts to wetlands, Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, and Preble's meadow jumping mouse, including habitat replacement/enhancement and the replacement of existing culverts with larger or more numerous culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, will also improve fish habitat. • Wildlife 3.12.24 • NORTH I-25 EIS FM information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 13 Threatened , Endangered and State Sensitive Species • • NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooreration. transportation. • 3.13 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND STATE SENSITIVE SPECIES This section addresses federally listed threatened and endangered species; state-listed threatened, endangered, and species of concern; and other sensitive species. Two What's in Section 3.13? • federally listed threatened wildlife species 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State and two federally listed plant species Sensitive Species potentially occur in the regional study area. 3.13.1 Regulatory Framework 3.13.2 Affected Environment 3.13.2.1 Federally Listed Threatened 3.13.1 Regulatory Endangered, and Candidate Framework Species 3.13.2.2 State Listed Threatened, Colorado Department of Transportation Endangered, and Species of (CDOT) projects must comply with federal, Special Concern state, and local laws and regulations 3.13.2.3 Other Sensitive Wildlife Species protecting wildlife species including: 3.13.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species ► The Endangered Species Act of 1973 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 3.13.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.13.3.2 Package A ► The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 3.13.3.3 Package B • Act of 1940, as amended (16 USC 668- 3.13.3.4 Summary of Impacts to 668d) Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ► Colorado State Statute 33 (CRS Ann. 3.13.3.5 Indirect Impacts for All Build §§33-2 to 102-106) General Purpose Lanes,Commuter Rail, and In addition, CDOT has a prairie dog policy Tolled Express Lanes that applies to all CDOT projects. Federal 3.13.4 Mitigation Measures and state laws and CDOT policies are 3.13.4.1 No-Action Alternative 3.13.4.2 Packages A and B described below. Federally listed threatened and endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Potential effects on a federally listed species or its habitat resulting from a project with a federal action require consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA. Projects that may result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat for a federally listed species also require consultation with USFWS. 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 for the North 1-25 Corridor. 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; 1) bridge repairs for all existing bridges, 2) approximately 4,310 miles of resurfacing/overlays and accompanying shoulder Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. improvements, 3) maintenance along existing transportation corridors, and 4) safety, • reconstruction, capacity and other transportation improvements (USFWS 2004, Venner 2001). The initiative covers three federally listed endangered, threatened and candidate species, as well as 29 species of concern. Species covered by the initiative that potentially occur within the project area include the bald eagle, Colorado butterfly plant, black-tailed prairie dog, western burrowing owl, mountain plover, ferruginous hawk, northern leopard frog, plains topminnow and brassy minnow. Species explicitly not covered in the Biological Opinion (USFWS 2000), include black-footed ferret, Preble's meadow jumping mouse and Ute ladies tresses' orchid. The programmatic biological opinion was amended in February 2008 to address the change in status for the bald eagle (USFWS 2008). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668d) includes several prohibitions not found in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, such as molestation or disturbance. In 1962, the Act was amended to include the golden eagle. As directed by Colorado Revised Statute 33 (CRS Ann. §§33-2 to 102-106), the Colorado Wildlife Commission issues regulations and develops management programs implemented by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) for wildlife species not federally listed as threatened or endangered. This includes maintaining a list of state threatened and endangered species. CDOW also maintains a list of species of concern but these are not protected under Colorado State Statute 33. Additional CDOT and local guidelines and recommendations applicable to wildlife include the CDOT Prairie Dog Policy, which consists of a series of steps that include avoiding • disturbance to prairie dog colonies. More detail on all regulations pertaining to wildlife resources is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO, 2008). 3.13.2 Affected Environment Threatened and endangered species were reviewed during initial screening of alternatives using existing information from readily available sources. Existing information was reviewed and special concerns related to the project were identified through coordination and consultation with USFWS, CDOW, and Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) personnel, and local open space management agencies. Once the proposed project area was identified, detailed habitat evaluations were performed in the project area based on fieldwork. Additional reviews were conducted of existing information regarding Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus husonius preblei), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and black- - tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies. Specific methods used for data collection are described in detail in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO, 2008). • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.2 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.13.2.1 FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate wildlife species that potentially occur in the project area are shown in Table 3.13-1 (USFWS, 2005a). Table 3.13-2 lists species potentially affected by water depletions to the Platte River system (USFWS, 2005a). Table 3.13-1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area Common Scientific Potential to Occur in North I-25 Name Name Status Habitat Project Area Preble's Zapus FT Riparian areas along Known to occur in riparian habitat meadow hudsonius major drainages with on Big Thompson River at 1-25 and jumping preblei adequate shrub and tree Likely to occur in riparian habitat mouse cover on Little Thompson River at I-25; suitable habitat is present on other major drainages, but is unlikely to be occupied based on trapping data Source:USFWS, 2005a. FT-Federally listed as threatened Note: No endangered species or candidate species for listing under the ESA occur within the project area Table 3.13-2 Federally Listed Wildlife Species Potentially Affected by Depletions to • the Platte River System Common Scientific Federal Potential to Occur in Name Name Status Habitat North 1-25 Project Area Whooping Grus americana FE Platte River and Not present, but may be affected by crane surrounding habitat in depletions to the Platte River Nebraska system Least tern Sterna FE Platte River and Not present, but may be affected by antillarum surrounding habitat in depletions to the Platte River Nebraska system Eskimo Numenius FE Platte River and Not present, but may be affected by curlew borealis surrounding habitat in depletions to the Platte River Nebraska system Piping plover Charadrius FT Platte River and Not present, but may be affected by melodus surrounding habitat in depletions to the Platte River Nebraska system Pallid Scaphirhynchus FE Platte River in Nebraska Not present, but may be affected by sturgeon albus depletions to the Platte River system Source:USFWS, 2005a. FE=Federally listed as endangered FT=Federally listed as threatened Note:No candidate species for listing under the ESA occur in the project area. • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Other federally listed species that occur in the northern Colorado Front Range were evaluated • in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO, 2008) and eliminated from further consideration because of the lack of suitable habitat. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Based on site visits and past trapping records, a number of riparian areas in the project area offer potential habitat for Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's). These include the Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Dry Creek, Fossil Creek, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, South Platte River, and Spring Creek. Trapping surveys have found Preble's in riparian habitat near the Big Thompson less than one mile downstream from 1-25 (USFWS, 2005b). No trapping surveys have been conducted within one mile of 1-25 on the Little Thompson River; however, trapping surveys have found Preble's more than one mile downstream from 1-25 (USFWS 2005b). Preble's is assumed to be present in riparian habitat along the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Other drainages in the project area were surveyed extensively for Preble's in the past and available information indicates that these sites are unlikely to support populations of Preble's. Critical habitat was designated in Larimer County; however, no designated critical habitat for this species occurs in the project area (see Figure 3.13-1). 3.13.2.2 OTHER FEDERALY PROTECTED SPECIES Bald Eagle The bald eagle was recently removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered • species, but continues to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Four active bald eagle nests occur within 3 miles of the sections of 1-25 proposed for widening or the proposed rail alignment. These nests were monitored in 2006 by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory's Bald Eagle Watch Program (Gamble, 2006). Nest locations are shown in Figure 3.13-1 and are described below. • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.13-1 Roost/Nests and Possible Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat in the Regional Study Area NORTH t-25 r LEGENDIL) -25 EIS rb•maboa cooJrat Dn tra�soormron. �V Study Corridors /\/ Highways i,.r• / -.� •� `-�•-\ [85I �/ Arterial Roads r. '��- Regional Study Area 'y`' � - \ �� \,' it �A� City Boundaries i • � �� Fossil Creek Reservoir ■ ,..41/i .4� Communal Roost Cities & Towns I Fort Collins r I Aor WI Bald Eagle Winter Forage le 04 r' /,!� 1 ..--T., Bald Eagle Active Nest Sites ,�1 -. /I 4 \ I`-) (1/2-Mile Buffer) ..t. . t . 0 .,,,,,„ mmnath7 :. - { %1 i . . severance Eaton Golden Eagle Active Nest Sitesr A. . 7. 9 s 1,, ,.... e (1/2-Mile Buffer) �i -e ! , --ti r'./A 'Windsor Nest 1 f`. mil/! ' .. ...�w'�J Windsor Ar/narar . ,_ Bald Eagle Unknown Nest Sites ; �% /� .≥? �� Oen,' 3�1!• (1/2-Mile Buffer) / est.or :;cir i> : _ 1` 0 Bald Eagle Winter Range : ` , �r r' r. ,, 1 : 4:Py;levi• '; t, Bald Eagle Communal Roost ED--,1/4....... 4t- . /. (Includes 1/4-Mile Buffer) : #r '•�h r r Garden( SH 60 andt4 aiel . : .4, . � �4 LCR17 is Bald Eagle Roost Site i. • .. (Includes 1/4-Mile Buffer) / I/,� do Ens-ue . � 40 4•, Bald Eagle Winter Concentration { ��r/ " ' "-, '`�. -, �� Berthoud .. { " Millik a Bald Eagle Summer Forage LI Mr ?A. CD / • Preble's Meadow Jumping f Gi/.sS • Mouse Trapped - Found r . . �„/<; Preble's Meadow Jumping r - / Mouse Trapped - Not Found i ,t - • Sr ••t ,i Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orchid = /. �loi 0i'' , P,ttevl,e 66 ,`!I` • 6,* 1♦ Colorado Butterfly Plant L I 1 1 •r, I Sources: CDOW (NDIS. 2006) I ' +� ' "° 4 ( Longmont/ Ljj St. Vrain Creek and !r ° Boulder CreekoostVrain Creek Nest � •r , Communal Roost , GoriEtarrel•`�:•.• Del Camino/Boulder a:•' S , Creek Nest 11 .C••a'- d� Ene �, .� `lalmont ,•p r - c . 11Sttfmt•ru I -s"' I Boulder 7 • -- k '! '_ 0 tai }e t. Nwl 1 • E otnsv lie_— --, Brighter .. . I 7 /\ �`•, surnr' $ Thornton Nest -N e Eastlake r i ' sue . 36 287 /I------ % .C. - , r• . •t / _ • 1rt! ri 7 Denver—: - i _ t ..:_. 1 / I ® / I. • 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 i� �' Miles North , Map'JoctYnent•as sEJ Panne?5anicet e..Midi '&:0U7 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species 3.13-5 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. CDOW mapping shows another active nest located approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the • intersection of Highway (Hwy) 60 and Larimer County Road (LCR) 17 (NDIS, 2006). This site is approximately 1.5 miles west of the proposed rail line and is occupied by golden eagles rather than bald eagles. This nest has successfully produced young golden eagles every year for at least 6 years as of 2006 (Ryel, personal communication, 2006). CDOW defines bald eagle roost sites as groups of trees or individual trees used by less than 15 eagles for diurnal and/or nocturnal perches. CDOW defines communal roost sites as groups of trees or individual trees used by more than 15 eagles for diurnal and/or nocturnal perches. CDOW has identified roost sites at several locations that are adjacent to or within 1 mile of the project area (see Figure 3.13-1). These sites are: ► Fossil Creek Reservoir Communal Roost. CDOW has mapped a communal roost site at Fossil Creek Reservoir about 0.5 mile west of 1-25 (NDIS, 2006). CDOW considers the reservoir as a whole when mapping the limits of the roost. It extends the roost boundary about 0.25 mile from the edge of the reservoir, not including Swede Lake, because most of the larger trees surrounding the reservoir are used by eagles in winter. Specific roost locations and levels of use can vary depending on prey availability, weather, and other factors. ► St. Vrain Creek and Boulder Creek Roost. CDOW has mapped as a bald eagle roost site the section of St. Vrain Creek from west of US 287 to east of 1-25, and the section of Boulder Creek from the confluence of Boulder Creek with St. Vrain Creek, upstream to a point about five miles from the confluence. This area was active as a winter roost in February and March 2005 (ERO, 2008). • ► Boulder Creek Communal Roost. A communal roost site is located about 3 miles southwest of the intersection of 1-25 and SH 119 on Boulder Creek (NDIS, 2006). 3.13.2.3 STATE-LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN State endangered, threatened, and species of concern with potentially suitable habitat in the regional study area are listed in Table 3.13-3 and Table 3.13-4 and are described below. Colorado Revised Statute 33 states that it is unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to - knowingly transport or receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on the state list of threatened and endangered wildlife (CRS Ann. §§33-2-105). While species of special concern are not protected by statute, CDOT is committed to their conservation. Some state-listed species were dropped from further consideration because of the lack of suitable habitat (ERO, 2008). • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.6 NORTH I25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.13-3 State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area (Terrestrial) Common Scientific Status' Habitat Potential to Occur in Name Name North I-25 Project Area Mammals Black-tailed Cynomys SC Open space and vacant Known to occur prairie dog ludovicianus land throughout the project area Swift fox Vulpes velox SC Shortgrass prairie Potentially occurs east of I-25 in Larimer and Weld counties Townsend's Plecotus SC Caves and mineshafts, Potentially occurs in big-eared bat townsendii urban areas, and riparian urban areas and riparian areas areas Birds Western Athene ST Nests in prairie dog Known to occur in the burrowing owl cunicularia colonies prairie dog colony at US 34 and SH 257; possibly occurs in other prairie dog colonies Ferruginous Buteo regalis SC Nests in grasslands and Likely to occur in prairie hawk often forages in prairie dog colonies in winter • dog colonies Great blue Ardea None` Nests in colonies in Known to occur; three heron herodius groves of trees on major heron nesting areas rivers and reservoirs, and occur in or near the forages in all aquatic project area habitats Reptiles/Amphibians Common Thamnophis SC Streams, ditches, and Known to occur on major gartersnake sirtalis ponds streams and rivers and other aquatic habitats in the project area Northern Rana pipiens SC Streams, lakes, ponds, Known to occur in Cache leopard frog marshes, and wet la Poudre, Big meadows Thompson, St. Vrain, and South Platte drainages ' Key to CDOW species ranking system:SE:State Endangered,ST:State Threatened,SC:Special Concern. 2 Great blue heron is not listed on state list,but is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooreration. transportation. • Table 3.134 State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area (Aquatic) Common Scientific Status' Habitat Potential to Occur in Name Name North I-25 Project Area Fish Common shiner Notropis SE Cool, clear streams with Known to occur in cornutus moderate gradient, St. Vrain Creek and gravelly bottoms, and South Platte River shady areas Brassy minnow Hybognathus ST Cool, clear streams with Known to occur in hankinsoni abundant aquatic Cache la Poudre River, vegetation and mud or Fossil Creek, St. Vrain gravel substrate Creek, and South Platte River Iowa darter Etheostoma SC Lakes with rooted Known to occur in exile aquatic vegetation and Cache la Poudre and streams with cool, clear Big Thompson rivers, water, undercut banks, and St. Vrain Creek and vegetation extending from the bank into the water Stonecat Noturus flavus SC Streams with strong Known to occur in current and rubble, St. Vrain Creek rocks, or woody debris Invertebrates • Cylindrical Anodontoides SC Mud and sand in small Potentially occurs in papershell ferussacianus creeks small streams in the project area Sources:CDOW 2005c;NDIS 2006. * Key to CDOW species ranking system: SE:State Endangered,ST:State Threatened, SC:Special Concern.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,personal communication,2006). 3.13.2.4 OTHER SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES A rare stonefly (Mesocapnia frisoni) is the only CNHP listed species with potentially suitable habitat in the regional study area (ERO, 2007). In Colorado, this species is known to occur only in the Little Thompson River (CNHP, 2005). In the project area, the stonefly is known to occur in the reach of the Little Thompson River that includes the crossing at US 287 and the BNSF Railway (CNHP, 2005). 3.13.2.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES The USFWS (2006) has identified the Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana subsp. Coloradensis) and Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) as potentially occurring in all counties within the regional study area (see Table 3.13-5). As such, field surveys were conducted during the summer/fall of 2005 and 2006 to assess if populations of these species or potential habitat for these species existed within the project area. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-8 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.13-5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area Common Name Scientific Status Habitat Acres of Existing Name Potential Habitat Colorado butterfly plant Gaura Federally Zone between 5.01 acres neomexicana Endangered wetlands and subsp. upland prairies in coloradensis sub-irrigated drainage bottoms of active, meandering streambeds Ute ladies'-tresses orchid Spiranthes Federally Open riparian areas, 19.19 acres diluvialis Threatened floodplains, and alluvial meadows Sources:USFWS 2006. Colorado Butterfly Plant The Colorado butterfly plant is a perennial evening primrose that is approximately 20 to 32 inches in height with reddish, pubescent stems and a narrow, elongate inflorescence of white flowers, which turn pink or reddish with age. Primary habitat for this species is generally located between 5,000 to 6,400 feet in elevation in a zone between wetlands and upland prairie in the sub-irrigated, alluvial soils of drainage bottoms with an active, meandering stream. . Based on the field surveys, potential habitat for the Colorado butterfly plant exists within the project area along the Cache la Poudre River floodplain in Larimer County; however, no populations or individuals of this species were observed during the surveys. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid The Ute ladies'-tresses orchid is a perennial, terrestrial orchid characterized by 8- to 20-inch stems, thick tuberous root system, narrow leaves, and white flowering stalk. The stalk is comprised of a spike arrangement at the top of the stem with few to many small white or ivory flower clusters. Primary habitat typically found in elevations below 6,500 feet in open riparian areas, alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial stream, and edges of springs and lakes. Based on the field surveys, potential habitat for the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid exists within the project area floodplains of the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek; however, no populations or individuals of this species were observed during the surveys. 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences This section describes the consequences of the No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B to federally listed threatened and endangered species; state-listed threatened, endangered, and species of concern; and other sensitive species. Given the large scale of the project, and the large size of the regional study area, effects were estimated on a broad scale using data from a variety of sources including USFWS, CDOW, and . project-specific data collected by CDOT contractors. Direct effects to sensitive species or their habitat were quantified where possible by measuring acres of habitat within the project limits of disturbance using Geographic Information System (GIS) overlays. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.9 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. ► Preble's Habitat. Effects to Preble's habitat were estimated by assuming that Preble's is • present in riparian habitat within 1 mile upstream and downstream of known capture sites. Riparian vegetation was defined based on vegetation data (Section 3.10 Vegetation). ► Bald Eagle Habitat. Effects to bald eagle habitat were estimated based on the number of nests within 0.5 mile of the project area and the acreage of summer or winter forage areas within the project area affected by a given project component. ► Platte River Species Habitat. 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 for the following reasons: • 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. • Water used for dust abatement would be obtained from municipal sources that have previously undergone depletion consultations. • Wetland mitigation will be at a 1:1 ratio; therefore, there would not be water loss via transpiration. ► Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Habitat. Effects to black-tailed prairie dogs were quantified based on mapping of prairie dog colonies supplied by CDOW and verified by ERO using current aerial photography and field visits. Effects to other sensitive species often associated with . prairie dogs, such as western burrowing owls, were estimated from the effects on prairie dog colonies. ► Blue Heron Habitat. Effects on great blue herons were estimated based on data from CDOW, showing known nesting areas for this species (NDIS, 2006). ► Northern Leopard Frog/Gartersnake Habitat. Effects to potential habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes were estimated by assuming that habitat for these species coincides with wetlands and riparian vegetation. All types of wetland and riparian habitat, including open water, were considered potential habitat for these two species. ► Sensitive Aquatic Species Habitat. Effects to sensitive aquatic species, including common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell, were estimated based on acres of impacts to streams where these species are known to occur or have the potential to occur. ► Colorado Butterfly Plant/ Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid Habitat. Effects to the Colorado butterfly plant and Ute ladies'-tresses orchid were identified based on existing area of potential habitat for these species as identified by the USFWS and through the habitat assessments conducted in 2006. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.10 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.13.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes major and minor structure rehabilitation, replacement or rehabilitation of existing pavement, and minor safety modifications by 2030. These are actions that would take place regardless of whether any of the proposed improvements in Packages A and B occur. The No-Action Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2. The No-Action Alternative would not affect threatened and endangered species. Existing conditions, described in Section 3.13.2, would continue. However, with increasing traffic volumes and continuing commercial and residential development in the project area, some effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species would be expected. Effects from existing traffic volumes would include mortality from vehicle collisions and disturbance from vehicle lights and noise. With increasing traffic and congestion, roadway pollution and sediment runoff may increase, which could eliminate sections of potential habitat and increase the possibility for noxious weed invasions. Existing habitat fragmentation due to l- 25 would continue. Effects from continued development would include direct loss of habitat and increasing habitat fragmentation from development. 3.13.3.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25, the construction and implementation of commuter rail, and the implementation of commuter bus service. The alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2. A discussion of impacts • for each Package A component is provided below. Highway Components Overall, effects to threatened and endangered species from Package A highway components would result primarily from road widening, replacement and construction of new bridges, and installation of new lights. The types of effects from highway components include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, disturbance during construction, and increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. Most effects would occur in permanently degraded areas, such as mowed rights-of-way adjacent to the existing highway. Effects to threatened, endangered, and species of concern from Package A highway components are described below. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Package A highway components A-H2 and A-H3 would disturb approximately 0.81 acre of riparian habitat that provide potential habitat for Preble's at the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Temporary disturbance to riparian habitat during bridge replacement at these two rivers could affect Preble's habitat on these drainages. Direct effects to Preble's could include loss of potential 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 area as a movement corridor due to increased width of the 1-25 bridge crossings of the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Bald Eagle. Package A highway components potentially affect bald eagle nests, roosts, and • foraging habitat: ► Current data indicate that no active nests occur within 0.5 mile of the Package A highway 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 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 roost located at Fossil Creek Reservoir would not be adversely affected by Package A highway component A-H2 because proposed work in this area consists of upgrading interchange and frontage roads, and because the roost is separated from the highway by existing and proposed development. New lighting at the intersection would either increase light pollution at the roost or, depending on design, decrease effects of light on the roost. The roost area is already heavily impacted by light pollution and eagles have likely acclimated to the existing disturbance. Bald eagle roosting areas change from year to year, new roosting areas could become established or existing roosts could be abandoned by the time of construction, so effects described above are considered representative of effects that could occur. ► Package A highway components would affect 186.50 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. Bald eagles frequently forage in prairie dog colonies and riparian areas along major . streams and rivers in the project area, especially in winter. Long-term impacts include loss of foraging habitat from road widening or other project components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat from Packages A and B are summarized in Table 3.13-7 (Section 3.13.3.4). Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Package A highway components would directly affect 40.93 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Direct effects to black-tailed prairie dogs could include being crushed by machinery or displaced during construction. Implementation of CDOT's prairie dog policy would result in avoidance or minimization of most impacts to prairie dogs, especially direct mortality due to construction (CDOT, 2005). Prairie dogs would also be indirectly affected by loss of habitat within the highway right-of-way as a result of construction and by habitat fragmentation. Effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-8 (Section 3.13.3.4). Western Burrowing Owl. Package A highway components would affect 40.93 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide potential nesting habitat for this species. Direct effects to burrowing owls could include being crushed by machinery or being forced to abandon their nests if construction occurs during the time the owls are present in Colorado from March 1 to October 31, or during the nesting season from April 1 to July 31 (CDOW, 2002). No burrowing owls are known to nest within the project area associated with Package A highway components. For the purposes of comparing impacts between packages, impacts to prairie dog colonies are considered representative of potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat. Effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from • Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-8 (Section 3.13.3.4). Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-12 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Great Blue Heron. Package A highway components would not result in direct effects to great blue heron nesting areas because no impacts would occur within the 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from the edge of great blue heron nesting areas recommended by CDOW. Great blue herons would be affected by loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas. Impacts to great blue heron foraging areas would be similar to impacts for other riparian species. Indirect impacts could include potential changes in aquatic species composition or abundance that affect the availability of heron prey. Impacts to aquatic resources (and thus impacts to herons) would be small (see Section 3.7 Water Resources). Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. Package A highway components would affect 15.90 acres of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. These two species would be affected by loss or fragmentation of riparian areas and wetlands as a result of construction. Direct effects could include mortality from being crushed by equipment during construction. Indirect effects could include habitat fragmentation and reduced movement between habitat patches located on opposite sides of new or widened bridges or culverts. Indirect effects to these two species would result from temporary declines in water quality from the project, but would be expected to be short-term (see Section 3.7). Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-9 (Section 3.13.3.4). State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species. Package A highway components would directly affect 0.30 acres of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species, such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and • cylindrical papershell (Table 3.13-11). Potential adverse effects to these species during construction would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, - culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads, which would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species. Working directly in streams would increase sediment loads, which could change water temperature. . Working directly in streams could also interfere with seasonal movements of sensitive fish species. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through use of construction best management practices. 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. Package A highway components include construction of new water quality ponds, which would result in an indirect benefit to state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream compared to the No-Action Alternative. Construction of new culverts or lengthening of existing culverts would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species by increasing shading or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Stream habitat could be potentially improved through the replacement of existing culverts with more numerous culverts or free-spanning bridges. Removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit sensitive fish species. Removal of the existing drop structure on St. Vrain Creek just downstream from 1-25 is planned as part of the project and would remove a barrier to small fish movement. Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other species of concern (swift fox, Townsend's big eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) from Package A highway components are described in Table 3.13-10 (Section 3.13.3.4). • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.13 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Colorado Butterfly Plant. No Colorado butterfly plant or Ute ladies'-tresses orchid species populations or individuals were observed within the project area during the field surveys, so no direc impacts to these species would be anticipated. However, approximately 2.25 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed through construction activities, and because potential habitat exists within the project area, presence/absence surveys are recommended prior to construction. The addition of a highway lane on either side of the existing roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. No Colorado butterfly plant or Ute ladies'-tresses orchid species populations or individuals were observed within the project area during the field surveys, so no direct impacts to these species would be anticipated. However, approximately 4.15 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed through construction activities, and because potential habitat exists within the project area, presence/absence surveys are recommended prior to construction. Transit Components Effects to federal or state-listed threatened and endangered species from transit components of Package A would result primarily from construction of new tracks, replacement and construction of new bridges, and construction of other transit facilities, such as new transit stations and water quality ponds. Most effects would occur in permanently degraded areas, such as rights-of-way adjacent to the existing tracks, especially for the double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont (A-T1). The commuter rail segment from Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton (A-T2) would consist of a new double-tracked commuter rail line and would be located next to existing highways in areas that are less disturbed than other portions of the project area. Impacts to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species from the Package A transit components are described below. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Package A transit components would not affect occupied Preble's habitat. Although potentially suitable habitat is present along several drainages affected by Package A transit components, there have been no recent captures of Preble's within most of the suitable habitat, so no effects to Preble's are expected. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Packages A and B are summarized in Table 3.13-6 (Section 3.13.3.4). Actual impacts may be different at time of construction because new data on Preble's distribution may be available in the future. Effects shown in Table 3.13-6 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. Bald Eagle. Package A transit components potentially affect bald eagle nests, roosts, and foraging habitat: ► Current data indicate that no active nests occur within 0.5 mile of the Package A transit 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 0.25 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 study 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. Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-14 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • ► Package A transit component A-T2 could affect the bald eagle roost on St. Vrain Creek. The proposed rail alignment from Longmont to Thornton would run parallel to SH 119 on the north side of the highway, crossing St. Vrain Creek via a new bridge north of SH 119. Approximately 0.08 acre of riparian habitat that provide suitable perching or roosting sites for bald eagles would be directly affected at this location, and approximately 5 acres within the 0.25-mile buffer around eagle roosting habitat would also be affected. Although it is unlikely that bald eagles actually roost immediately adjacent to SH 119, a busy highway, the loss of riparian habitat in this area would reduce the amount of available roosting habitat further downstream. Construction of the commuter rail line in this area could also lead to indirect impacts to roosting bald eagles through increases in noise, vibration, and visual disturbance such as lights, from passing trains. Bald eagle roosting areas change from year to year, and new roosting areas could become established or existing roosts could be abandoned by the time of construction, so effects described above are considered representative of effects that could occur. ► Package A transit components would affect 21.09 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. Bald eagles frequently forage in prairie dog colonies and riparian areas along major streams and rivers in the project area, especially in winter. Long-term impacts would include loss of foraging habitat from road widening or other project components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat from are summarized in Table 3.13-7 (Section 3.13.3.4). Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Package A transit components would directly affect 15.1 acres of • . black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Direct effects to black-tailed prairie dogs could include being crushed by machinery or displaced during construction. Implementation of CDOT's prairie dog policy would result in avoidance or minimization of most impacts to prairie dogs, especially direct mortality due to construction (CDOT, 2005). Prairie dogs would also be indirectly affected by loss of habitat within the railroad right-of-way as a result of construction and by habitat fragmentation. Effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-8 (Section 3.13.3.4). Western Burrowing Owl. The Package A transit component A-T1 would affect 15.1 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls. Types of direct and indirect effects would be the same as for Package A highway components. No burrowing owls are known to nest within the project area associated with Package A transit components. For the purposes of comparing impacts between alternative packages, impacts to prairie dog colonies are considered representative of potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat. Effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-8. Great Blue Heron. Package A component A-T1 would result in disturbance to 3.34 acres within the 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer around a great blue heron nesting area at Ish Reservoir. The • 0.31-mile buffer is based on recommendations by CDOW. No direct impacts to great blue heron nesting areas would occur. Great blue herons would be affected by loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas. Great blue herons could be affected by noise, light, or human encroachment 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. • Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. Package A transit components would affect 4.96 acres of potential habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-15 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Types of effects would be the same as for Package A highway components. Direct effects to • potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Packages A and B are summarized in Table 3.13-9 (Section 3.13.3.4). State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species. Package A transit components would directly affect 0.08 acres of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species, such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell (Table 3.13-11, Section 3.13.3.4). Potential adverse effects to these species during construction would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Accidental spills of hazardous materials in streams could occur during construction, which would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species. Working directly in streams would increase sediment loads, which could indirectly change water temperature and cover eggs. Working directly in streams could also interfere with seasonal movements of sensitive fish species. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through use of construction best management practices. The Package A transit components include construction of water quality ponds, which result in an indirect benefit to state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream. Construction of new culverts, lengthening of existing culverts, or widening of existing bridges would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species by replacing natural streambed with concrete and by increasing shade. Stream habitat could be potentially improved through the replacement of existing culverts with more numerous culverts or free-spanning bridges. Removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit sensitive fish species. Table 3.13-11 (Section 3.13.3.4) summarizes direct effects to • habitat for state-listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species from Packages A and B. In addition to direct impacts to habitat, the project would lead to increases in impervious surface areas, which would lead to increased flows during storm events. Increases in flows could lead in turn to increased channelization and incision of streams, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation (refer to Section 3.7 Water Resources). These impacts could result in degraded habitat conditions for state listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species. Impacts would be greater for Package B than for Package A because Package B would result in a greater increase in impervious surfaces. In addition to effects to habitat from increased flows, increases in impervious surfaces in the project area could also result in increased loads of contaminants in streams. The Driscoll water quality model predicted that loads of several contaminants reaching aquatic habitat after storm events would increase under both Package A and Package B compared to the No-Action Alternative, with Package B resulting in greater increases in loads than Package A due to the greater increase in impervious surface under Package B (refer to Section 3.7 Water Resources). Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other species of concern (swift fox, Townsend's big eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) from Package A transit components are described in Table 3.13-10 (Section 3.13.3.4). Colorado Butterfly Plant. No Colorado butterfly plant or Ute ladies'-tresses orchid species populations or individuals were observed within the project area during the field surveys, so no • direct impacts to these species would be anticipated. No areas of potential habitat were identified for this species within the transit component corridors and therefore no presence/absence surveys for this species would be necessary prior to construction. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-16 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. No population or individual species were observed during habitat assessments, so no direct impacts would be anticipated on this species. No areas of potential habitat were identified for this species within the transit component corridors and therefore no presence/absence surveys for this species would be necessary prior to construction. 3.13.3.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. The alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Impacts from each Package B component are described below. Highway Components Overall, effects on threatened and endangered species from Package B highway components would result primarily from road widening, and replacement and construction of new bridges. The types of effects from highway components would be the same as for Package A highway components. Effects to threatened, endangered, and species of concern from Package B highway components are described below. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Package B highway components would disturb approximately 0.80 acres of riparian habitat that provides potential habitat for Preble's at the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Types of direct and indirect effects would be the same as for Package A highway components. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Packages A • and B are summarized in Table 3.13-6 (Section 3.13.3.4). Actual impacts may be different at time of construction because new data on Preble's distribution may be available in the future. Effects shown in Table 3.13-6 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. Bald Eagle. Package B highway components potentially affect bald eagle nests, roosts, and foraging habitat: ► Current data indicate that no active nests occur within 0.5 mile of the Package B highway components as of the 2006 - 2007 breeding season. Types of impacts would be the same as with Package A highway components if a pair of bald eagles were to nest within 0.5 mile of the project area. ► The roost located at Fossil Creek Reservoir would not be adversely affected by the Package B highway components because the proposed work in this area consists of upgrading interchange and frontage roads, and because the roost is separated from the highway by existing and proposed development. Types of impacts from lighting would be the same as with Package A highway components. ► Package B highway components would affect 230.68 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. Types of impacts would be the same as with Package A highway components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat are summarized in Table 3.13-7 (Section 3.13.3.4). Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Package B highway components would directly affect 97.32 acres of • black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Types of effects would be the same as with Package A highway components. Effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-8 (Section 3.13.3.4). Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.17 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Western Burrowing Owl. Package B highway components would affect 97.32 acres of prairie dog• colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide potential nesting habitat for this species. Types of effects would be the same as with Package A highway components. No burrowing owls are known to nest within the project area associated with Package B highway components. For the purposes of comparing impacts between packages, impacts to prairie dog colonies are considered representative of potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat. Effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-8. Great Blue Heron. Package B highway components would not result in direct effects to great blue heron nesting areas because no impacts would occur within the 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from the edge of great blue heron nesting areas recommended by CDOW. Indirect effects to great blue herons would be similar to impacts from Package A highway components. Impacts would include loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas and potential changes in aquatic species composition or abundance that affect the availability of heron prey. Impacts to aquatic resources (and thus impacts to herons) would be small (see Section 3.7 Water Resources). Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. Package B highway components would affect 20.76 acres of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. The types of effects to these two species would be the same as with Package A highway components. Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-9 (Section 3.13.3.4). State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species. Package B highway components would directly affect 0.35 acre of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species, such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell.. Types of effects would be the same as with Package A highway components. As with Package A transit components, the construction of water quality ponds as part of the project would likely result in a net benefit to water quality and to sensitive aquatic species by improving water quality in streams downstream from the project area. Table 3.13-11 summarizes direct effects to habitat for state-listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species from Packages A and B. Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other species of concern (swift fox, Townsend's big eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) from Package B highway components are summarized in Table 3.13-10 (Section 3.13.3.4). Colorado Butterfly Plant. No Colorado butterfly plant populations or individuals were observed within the project area during the field surveys, so no direct impacts to these species would be anticipated. However, approximately 2.42 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed through construction activities, and because potential habitat exists within the project area, presence/absence surveys are recommended prior to construction. The improvements on either side of the existing roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. No Ute ladies'-tresses orchid populations or individuals were observed within the project area during the field surveys, so no direct impacts to these species would be - anticipated. However, approximately 4.85 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed through construction activities, and because potential habitat exists within the project area, • presence/absence surveys are recommended prior to construction. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-18 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Transit Components Overall, effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species from Package B transit components would result from construction of new transit stations, parking lots and queue jumps. Types of impacts would include habitat loss and disturbance during construction. Most habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas. Effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are described below. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. No effects to Preble's would occur from Package B transit components because no occupied habitat would be affected. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Packages A and B are summarized in Table 3.13-6 (Section 3.13.3.4). Bald Eagle. No effects to bald eagle nests, roosts, or foraging habitat would occur from Package B transit components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat from Packages A and B are summarized in Table 3.13-7 (Section 3.13.3.4). Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Package B transit components would directly affect 6.25 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Types of effects would be the same as with Package A highway components. Effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-8 (Section 3.13.3.4). Western Burrowing Owl. Package B transit components would affect 6.25 acres of prairie dog - colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide • potential nesting habitat for this species. Types of effects would be the same as with Package A • ' highway components. No burrowing owls are known to nest within the project area associated with Package B highway components. Effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-8. Great Blue Heron. Package B transit components would not result in direct effects to great blue heron nesting areas because no impacts would occur within the 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from the edge of great blue heron nesting areas. Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. Package B transit components would affect 0.53 acres of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. The types of effects to these two species would be the same as with Package A highway components. Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Packages A and B are shown in Table 3.13-9 (Section 3.13.3.4). State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species. Package B transit components would not affect habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species, such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell. Table 3.13-11 (Section 3.13.3.4 ) summarizes direct effects to habitat for state- listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species from Packages A and B. Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other species of concern (swift fox, Townsend's big eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) from Package B transit components are summarized in Table 3.13-10 (Section 3.13.3.4). • Colorado Butterfly Plant. The types of effects would be the same as with Package A transit components. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-19 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. The types of effects would be the same as with Package A transit • components. 3.13.3.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES Table 3.13-6 through Table 3.13-11 summarize effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species by component. Table 3.13-6 summarizes potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Packages A and B. Actual impacts may be different at time of construction because new data on Preble's distribution may be available in the future. Effects shown in Table 3.13-6 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. Table 3.13-6 Summary of Effects to Occupied Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat Component Acres Component Acres of of Habitat Habitat Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components A-H1 Safety Improvements: 0 B-H1 Safety Improvements: 0 SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 A-H2 General Purpose Improvements: 0.53 B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: 0.52 SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A-H3 General Purpose Improvements: 0.28 B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: 0.28 • SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A-H4 Structure Upgrades: 0 B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: 0 E-470 to US 36 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A Highway: 0.81 Total Package B Highway: 0.80 Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to 0 B-T1 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley 0 Longmont to Denver; A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to 0 B-T2 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley 0 North Metro to DIA A-T3/ Commuter Bus: Greeley to 0 A-T4 Denver and DIA Total Package A Transit: 0 Total Package B Transit: 0 Total of Effects for Package A: 0.81 Total of Effects for Package B: 0.80 • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-20 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.13-7 summarizes effects to bald eagle foraging habitat by component. Bald eagles frequently forage in prairie dog colonies and riparian areas along major streams and rivers in the regional study area, especially in winter. Long-term impacts from road widening or other project components could include 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 3.13-8 shows expected impacts to important bald eagle foraging habitat. Table 3.13-7 Summary of Effects to Bald Eagle Forage Habitat Component Forage Component Forage Habitat Habitat (acres)1 (acres)1 Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components AH-1 Safety Improvements: 0 BH-1 Safety Improvements: 0 SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 AH-2 General Purpose Improvements: 166.42 BH-2 Tolled Express Lanes: 187.05 SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 AH-3 General Purpose Improvements: 20.08 BH-3 Tolled Express Lanes: 20.31 SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 AH-4 Structure Upgrades: 0 BH-4 Tolled Express Lanes: 23.32 • E-470 to US 36 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A Highway: 186.50 Total Package B Highway: 230.68 Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to 6.18 B-T1 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley 0 Longmont to Denver; A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to North 4.92 B-T2 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley 0 Metro to DIA AT-3/ Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 6.09 AT-4 and DIA Total Package A Transit: 17.19 Total Package B Transit: 0 Total Effects Package A: 203.69 I Total Effects Package B: 230.68 ' Forage habitat is defined by NDIS,2006. • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-21 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.13-8 Summary of Effects to Important Bald Eagle Foraging Habitat Within • 3 miles of Nests and Roosts. Nest or Roost within 3 Open water Important Package A Package B miles of project area Prairie dogs within foraging impacts to impacts to within 3-mile habitat prairie dogs prairie dogs 3-mile buffer within within within buffer (acres) 3-miles 3-mile 3-mile (acres)1 (acres)2 buffer3 buffer3 Fossil Creek Reservoir/ 846 2,169 3,015 28 38 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 roosts 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. 2 Prairie dogs(acres)+Open water(acres). ' Prairie dogs mapped by ERO in 2006. Impacts within project footprint. Table 3.13-9 summarizes direct effects to black-tailed prairie dog habitat by component. Many prairie dog colonies in the project area are located within private property that is likely to be developed in the near future. Other prairie dog colonies are located adjacent to undeveloped land and have the potential to expand in the future. Prairie dog colonies are also occasionally • affected by sylvatic plague, which may wipe out a colony or greatly reduce the number of prairie dogs. For all of these reasons, the area of occupied prairie dog habitat affected by the project is likely to be different from current conditions at the time of construction. The quantities in Table 3.13-9 are considered representative of impacts that could occur. • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-22 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.13-9 Summary of Effects to Black Tailed Prairie Dog Occupied Habitat Component Occupied Component Occupied Habitat Habitat (acres) (acres) Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components A-H1 Safety Improvements: 0 B-H1 Safety Improvements: 0 SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 A-H2 General Purpose Improvements: 21.93 B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: 38.30 SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A-H3 General Purpose Improvements: 19.00 B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: 24.63 SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A-H4 Structure Upgrades: 0 B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: 34.39 E-470 to US 36 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A Highway: 40.93 Total Package B Highway: 97.32 Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: 0.11 B-T1 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley 6.54 Fort Collins to Longmont to Denver; A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to 9.20 B-T2 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley 0 North Metro to DIA AT-3/ Commuter Bus: Greeley to 1.06 AT-4 Denver and DIA Total Package A Transit: 10.37 Total Package B Transit: 6.54 Total Package A: 51.30 Total Package B: 103.86 Source:CDOW, 2002 and ERO, 2008. Table 3.13-10 summarizes effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat by component. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-23 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.13-10 Summary of Effects to Potential Northern Leopard Frog and Common • Gartersnake Habitat Component Habitat' Component Habitat' (acres) (acres) Package A Highway Components Package B Highway Components A-H1 Safety Improvements: 0 B-H1 Safety Improvements: 0 SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 A-H2 General Purpose Improvements: 10.62 B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: 14.27 SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A-H3 General Purpose Improvements: 5.28 B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: 5.52 SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A-H4 Structure Upgrades: 0 B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: 0.97 E-470 to US 36 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A Highway: 15.90 Total Package B Highway: 20.76 Package A Transit Components Package B Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to 0.75 B-T1 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to 0.52 Longmont Denver; A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to North 3.49 B-T2 BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to 0 Metro DIA A-T3/ Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver 0 A-T4 and DIA Total Package A Transit: 4.24 Total Package B Transit: 0.52 Total Package A: 20.14 Total Package B: 21.28 'Wetlands and riparian vegetation are considered potential habitat for these species. Table 3.13-11 summarizes impacts to other state threatened, endangered, and species of concern. Table 3.13-11 Summary of Effects to Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Affected by Packages A and B Common Name Type of Effect Relative Magnitude of Effect Swift fox Potential loss of foraging habitat and Low—disturbed areas would be low quality displacement during and after habitat for this species, on fringes of construction. occupied range. Townsend's big- Potential loss of foraging habitat and Low—no caves or mines that could provide eared bat displacement during and after roosting or hibernation sites would be construction. affected. Ferruginous hawk Potential loss of foraging habitat Low— no nesting habitat would be disturbed s Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-24 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.13-12 summarizes impacts to habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species by component. Table 3.13-12 Summary of Direct Effects to Habitat for State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species from Packages A and B Component Aquatic Habitat Activity Acres (Species Potentially Directly Affected) Affected Package A Highway Components A-H1: Safety Improvements: N/A N/A 0 SH1toSH14 A-H2: General Purpose Improvements: Cache la Poudre River Replace existing bridges at 1-25 0.15 SH 14 to SH 60 (brassy minnow and northbound, 1-25 southbound, and Iowa darter) Harmony Road Big Thompson River Replace existing bridges at 1-25 0.15 (Iowa darter) northbound, 1-25 southbound, and 1-25 service road A-H3: General Purpose Improvements: St. Vrain Creek No-Action at existing bridges over 0 SH 60 to E-470 (common shiner, brassy at 1-25 minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat) A-H4: Structure Upgrades: N/A N/A 0 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A Highway: 0.30 Package A Transit Components • A-T1: Commuter Rail: Big Thompson River Construct new tracks and crossing 0 Fort Collins to Longmont (Iowa darter) adjacent to existing crossing A-T2: Commuter Rail: St.Vrain Creek Construct new rail alignment and 0.08 Longmont to North Metro (common shiner, brassy bridge on north side of SH 119 minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat) A-T3/A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to N/A N/A 0 Denver and DIA Total Package A Transit: 0.08 Package B Highway Components B-H1: Safety improvements: N/A N/A 0 SH1toSH14 B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes: Cache la Poudre River Replace existing bridges at 1-25 0.20 SH 14 to SH 60 (brassy minnow and northbound, 1-25 southbound, and Iowa darter) Harmony Road Big Thompson River Replace existing bridges at 1-25 0.15 (Iowa darter) northbound, 1-25 southbound, and 1-25 service road B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes: St.Vrain Creek (common No-Action at existing bridges over 0 SH 60 to E-470 shiner, brassy minnow, at 1-25 Iowa darter, and stonecat) B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: N/A N/A 0 E-470 to US 36 Total Package B Highway: 0.35 B-T1: BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to N/A N/A 0 • Denver; B-T2: BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA N/A N/A 0 Total Package B Transit: 0 Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.25 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.13-13 Summarizes the direct impacts to threatened and endangered species for • Packages A and B, by component. Table 3.13-13 Summary of Direct Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species by • Component, in Acres Component Preble's Bald Bald Prairie N. Leopard Sensitive Habitat Eagle Eagle Dogs Frog and C. Fish Forage Roosts Gartersnake Species Package A Highway Components 0.81 186.50 1.98 40.93 15.90 0.30 Package A Transit Components 0 17.19 5.05 10.37 4.24 0.08 Total of Effects for 0.81 203.69 7.03 51.30 20.14 0.38 Package A: Package B Highway Components 0.80 230.68 2.01 97.32 20.76 0.35 Package B Transit Components 0 0 0 6.54 0.52 0 Total of Effects for 0.80 230.68 2.01 103.86 21.28 0.35 Package B: 3.13.4 Indirect Impacts For All Build General Purpose Lanes, Commuter Rail, and Tolled Express Lanes The addition of a highway lane on either side of the roadway, the installation of commuter rail lines, or the installation of interchanges or commuter stations would increase impervious • surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment would create favorable conditions for weedy species to further establish in areas of potential habitat for threatened or endangered species. The invasion of noxious weeds into potential habitat is one of the greatest threats to species of special concern. Other indirect impacts include the decrease or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes as well as provide habitat for wildlife. • Because proposed roadway and rail alignments primarily follow existing lines, existing vegetation communities including potential habitat for threatened and endangered species currently receive indirect effects from roadway, railway, and maintenance activity. However, the magnitude of indirect effects could increase with implementation of Package A or Package B. 3.13.5 Mitigation Measures This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to threatened and endangered species, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to threatened and endangered species were incorporated into the alternative, including avoiding sensitive habitat, maintaining existing alignments where practicable, using best management practices to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. • The proposed project area falls within the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, an agreement between CDOT, CDOW, FHWA, and USFWS. The Shortgrass Prairie Initiative included a biological Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.26 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. • assessment 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 biological assessment includes all of 1-25 within Colorado. A Biological Opinion was issued by the USFWS, which covers the bald eagle and 29 species of concern (USFWS, 2003). The opinion includes a list of measures to minimize effects to bald eagle, including protecting off-site shortgrass prairie habitat and implementation of on-site best management practices (BMPs). It also includes proposed conservation measures for sensitive, non-listed 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 Biological Opinion lists BMPs for each of these species and provides that if any of these species are listed, appropriate protective measures will be incorporated into the opinion. 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. Specific mitigation recommendations, in addition to those in the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, are described below. 3.13.5.1 No-ACTION ALTERNATIVE No additional mitigation measures would be proposed under the No-Action Alternative. Routine maintenance and upgrades to 1-25 will fall under the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative Biological Opinion described above and mitigation measures described in the opinion apply. • 3.135.2 PACKAGES A AND B 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 will focus on avoidance and minimization of impacts during construction. Avoidance and minimization measures will include limiting timing of construction to Preble's inactive season (November through April) and 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 to facilitate small mammal passage. ► Where impacts are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation will be provided through replacement with suitable habitat for Preble's. Mitigation measures for Preble's could be combined with wetlands mitigation. Wetland mitigation measures may also replace any impacts to suitable unoccupied Preble's habitat. Bald Eagle ► A raptor nest survey (to include bald eagles)will be conducted prior to construction to identify bald eagle nests in the project area. If an active bald eagle nest is found within 0.5 mile of the project area, 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 are removed during construction, they will be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with native cottonwood trees. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.27 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. ► Mitigation for wetland impacts will also provide mitigation for impacts to riparian habitats used • for foraging by bald eagles. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Prairie dog distribution in the project area is likely to change between the time field surveys were conducted and the time construction occurs, so prairie dogs colonies will need to be resurveyed prior to construction. In areas where avoidance of prairie dogs is not possible, CDOT will follow its Impacted Black- tailed Prairie Dog Policy (CDOT, 2005). CDOT's prairie dog policy is described in greater detail in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO, 2007), and includes avoidance and minimization of impacts to prairie dog colonies during design and construction of CDOT projects. If avoidance is not practicable, the policy calls for relocation, donation to raptor rehabilitation facilities, or donation to the black-footed ferret reintroduction program. If relocation or donation to raptor or ferret facilities is not practicable, prairie dogs will be humanely euthanized prior to construction. At no time will • CDOT authorize earth-moving activities that result in the burying of living prairie dogs. Any prairie dog relocation or removal activities will be carried out in accordance with CRS 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or regulations, and with close coordination with CDOW. Western Burrowing Owl ► Burrowing owl surveys will be conducted prior to any work in prairie dog colonies between March 15 and October 31 when burrowing owls are present in Colorado (CDOW, 2007). If burrowing owls are present, prairie dog removal will be scheduled to occur outside this time • period. ► If burrowing owls are found 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 that 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 nesting in the construction area. Prairie dogs will be humanely removed following CDOT's prairie dog policy prior to destruction of burrows. Great Blue Heron Direct impacts to nesting great blue herons will be avoided by prohibiting work within the 500- meter (0.31-mile) buffer from nest sites recommended by CDOW (NDIS, 2006). Impacts within • this buffer will be limited during the great blue heron nesting season, which occurs from mid- March through July. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-28 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog ► Mitigation measures for wetlands and Preble's, including wetlands replacement and riparian enhancement, will also mitigate for impacts to northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. ► Replacement of culverts with larger culverts or free-spanning bridges will also mitigate for potential impacts to northern leopard frog and common gartersnake. State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species The project will comply with Colorado Senate Bill (SB) 40, which requires any agency of the State of Colorado to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream or its bank or tributaries (CDOT, 2003). An application for SB 40 wildlife certification would be submitted to CDOW. CDOW will review the plans to ensure that the project adequately protects fish and wildlife resources, and will provide recommendations if the proposed project would adversely affect a stream. To offset temporary impacts to aquatic species from habitat disturbance, aquatic habitats will be restored after construction activities have ceased. The following design measures will mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish. ► Riffle and pool complexes will be maintained and/or created. ► Natural stream bottoms will be maintained. • ► Culverts will be partially buried and the bottom will be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient to the maximum extent practicable. ► Culverts to be replaced will be replaced with one of equal or greater size. ► Culverts will not have grates, energy dissipaters, or any other features that would impede fish movement. ► To avoid erosion-induced siltation and sedimentation, erosion control measures will be applied, such as the immediate reseeding of disturbed areas after construction and, if necessary, the application of mulch and mulch tackifier to stabilize slopes. ► Erosion control blankets will be "wildlife friendly", consisting of 100% biodegradable materials. ► Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. ► No new fish passage barriers will be created. ► Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or redesigned where practicable. An example is the drop structure located east of the frontage road at 1-25 and St. Vrain Creek, which is planned to be modified to facilitate fish passage as part of this project. CDOT's water quality BMPs will be applied, and include the installation of mechanisms to collect, contain, and/or treat roadway run-off. Mitigation measures, such as habitat • replacement/enhancement and replacement of existing culverts with larger or more numerous culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, would also improve fish habitat. These measures are designed to offset impacts to wetlands, Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, and Preble's. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.29 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. The mitigation measures for state sensitive fish species described above, including SB 40 • certification and water quality BMPs, also benefit sensitive aquatic invertebrates, such as the cylindrical papershell and Mesocapnia frisoni stonefly. Other State Threatened, Endangered and Species of Concern No specific mitigation measures are proposed for swift fox, Townsend's big eared bat, and ferruginous hawk because impacts to these species are expected to be minor or non- existent. Colorado Butterfly Plant and Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid Potential Colorado butterfly plant and Ute ladies'-tresses orchid habitat within the project • area, along the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers and along St. Vrain Creek, will be surveyed during the flowering season just prior to construction. Surveys are to be conducted by a biologist who meets qualifications established by the USFWS for performing presence/absence surveys for these species. Findings of the survey will be documented in a biological finding report and submitted to USFWS for concurrence prior to beginning any construction activities. In the unlikely event either Colorado butterfly plant or Ute ladies'-tresses orchid is found within the project area, specific conservation measures will be developed in coordination with the USFWS. Conservation measures could include avoiding impacts by establishing a No-Work Zone or, in the event of unavoidable impacts, enhancing adjacent or off-site habitat. • • Threatened, Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-30 • NORTH I-25 IN EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 14 Visual Quality • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.14 VISUAL QUALITY 3.14.1 Introduction This section describes existing visual resources in the regional study area. It includes a what's in Section 3.14? discussion of: 3.14 Visual Quality 3.14.1 Introduction ► Landscape character units used to evaluate 3.14.2 Affected Environment visual resources and visual quality 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 3.14.3.1 Pa considerations associated with each unita Alternative 3.14.3.2 ers Package A ► An inventory of existing visual resources and 3.14.3.3 Package B significant views in the regional study area 3.14.4 Mitigation 3.14.3.1Measures Highway ► A summary of important visual resources and 3.14.3.2 Transit visual quality considerations for local communities based on a review of local land use planning documents The visual assessment process includes determining effects to visual resources by improvements that would: ► Block or impede views of scenic value (such as mountains or pastoral landscapes) • ► Change the existing visual character or quality of the site, such as: • Introducing new visual elements • Relocating homes and businesses • Impacting town character • Impacting wetland resources, floodplains, and unique landforms This visual assessment process also examines the consistency of improvements with any visual resource protection policies and goals stated in comprehensive plans and ordinances. Specific design elements that could affect visual quality are: ► Sound walls ► Lighting ► Retaining walls ► Elevation changes to roads ► Bridges ► Additional landscaping P. Road widening- new ► New rails, stations, and expanses of pavement maintenance facilities • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. 1 3.14.2 Affected Environment 2 Due to the magnitude of the regional study area , project area corridors were evaluated 3 according to distinct landscape character units . Physical elements of a landscape are what 4 form the visual patterns that strongly influence our response to the landscape. The six f landscape character units evaluated consisted of: E ► Existing transportation corridors ► Agricultural , open space, and undeveloped land ► Parks , recreation areas, and trails 9 ► Water and natural resources 10 ► Commercial , light industrial , and municipal uses 11 ► Residential (urban , suburban , rural ) uses • • 12 A visual quality assessment was performed , 13 which considered the existing visual quality of • =" x;': 14 the regional study area and how existing visual ' •�J. . Y ^ 15 resources (natural areas, important viewsheds, - 'N+ 16 and land use) help to define the scenic 1 f backdrop of a community. It also evaluated • • _ __ 18 whether existing visual resources would remain - - -� "" -- 19 the same or change based on improvements Thltsmssii 20 associated with components of the No-Action 21 Alternative and the two build packages . 22 Visual quality considerations associated with 23 each of the six landscape character units in the Photo 3.14-1 . BNSF Rail Corridor, Ft. Collins 24 project corridor are described below. This view reflects a more urban residential corridor. 25 Existing Transportation Corridors. 26 There are three primary transportation corridors 27 in the project area . US 85, 1-25 and the BNSF 28 and UPRR corridors were assessed as 29 landscape character units . 30 The US 85 corridor runs from the City of 31 Greeley in the north to Denver Union Station in • Jo 32 the south . The corridor traverses large tracts of - .T - -- _- 33 agricultural land along the northern portion of P.• 34 the corridor interspersed with rural towns . The ri 35 southern portion of the corridor is more urban in = _ 36 nature associated with the Denver metropolitan •�" L` 37 Area . Photo 3.14-2. Big Dry Creek Open Space in the north at the Town Open space is highly regarded by many viewers for 38 The 1-25 corridor begins its scenic values. 39 of Wellington and terminates at Denver Union 40 Station . The northern portion of the corridor traverses agricultural lands but moving south 41 becomes more urban in nature, with increasing residential and commercial uses . Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • The BNSF Railway and UPRR corridors travel through undeveloped fields, rural residential areas, and in built up urban areas. In urban areas , the BNSF rail bed traverses along urban streets as seen in Photo 3. 14-1 , which depicts a typical gravel rail bed that intersects city streets . Parks, Recreation Areas, and Trails. There are numerous parks, recreation areas, and trails adjacent to the project corridors . Often these areas offer views to on-site natural resources and views of mountains, hills , and valleys . These resources increase the scenic integrity 8 values of viewsheds within the corridors . These recreation areas sometimes function as open 9 space "buffers" dedicated to enhancing scenic values of an area . ( Photo 3.14-2) 10 Water and Natural Resources . Adjacent 11 floodplains and riparian areas with grasslands, 12 shrubs, and trees are common to larger natural 13 drainage systems. Natural resources also include 1LI views to the mountains, hills and valleys that are 15 typical to the more rural undeveloped landscapes . .►.s..a,,LE4 I NI R * 16 The occurrence of this landscape character unit .�: 17 increases the scenic integrity value of viewsheds _ = ____ 18 within the project corridors. In addition , the more . .. 19 varied the viewshed with natural resource 20 elements such as rock outcroppings , the higher the 2 -' scenic value is (Photo 3.14-3). : `.:.4 , nY - •• Photo 3. 14-3. Federal and 119th Street • 24_ Commercial, Light Industrial, and Municipal . This view is representative of development land 23 Notable components of this landscape character uses adjoining undeveloped areas and natural 24 unit are any historical landscape elements such as corridors. with wide sweeping background views 25 those found in historic towns, including historic of the Front Range and foothills. 26 grain elevators, other farm or ranch outbuildings , • • . .•. .Y•� r • • 27 and historic government buildings . These elements • 28 are often considered to increase the scenic quality 29 of a landscape or viewshed (Photo 3. 14-4). 3u Residential : Urban, Suburban , and Rural . Each - - 31 of the project corridors bisects residential areas _ •- y 32 that can be classified as urban , suburban, and ,- ,- ra 33 rural . Urban residential areas contain higher 34 density housing units with very minimal open - y 1 �" - 35 space or landscaped areas surrounding the units . _ 36 Suburban areas are less dense and have larger T=,---� -�T 37 lots with greater landscaped areas. Rural 38 residential areas are often associated with «- T 39 agriculture . In general , the less dense the land �r7k �� ,,�;*�: � . . 40 use, the greater the natural scenic integrity Photo 3.14-4. Grain Elevator, Larimer County 41 remaining intact. The development density Historic landscape elements, such as this six- 42 associated with residences generally increases chamber grain elevator, can increase a 43 when moving from north to south in the landscape's scenic quality. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-3 Draft EIS NORTH I 25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Visual resources in the regional study area were identified through a review of planning • documents and through field observation. Generally, significant visual resources include historic structures, parklands, open space, and natural resources/areas (e.g., lakes, streams, • rivers, wetlands). Field observations were performed to determine the locations of sensitive viewsheds and dominant existing views. Desirable, important, and protected views in the regional study area were documented. These views are identified on Figure 3.14-1. Based on a review of local land use planning documents, some of the primary visual goals important to local communities are: ► Important ecological and scenic resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, and unique landforms, should be protected and enhanced. ► The small-town character of Berthoud should be maintained. ► Significant natural features in the Boulder Valley planning area, including Davidson Mesa, Gunbarrel Hill, and Boulder Reservoir, should be preserved. ► Numerous natural landmarks were defined as prominent landscape features, deemed important because of the views they afford and for scenic, visual, or aesthetic values. ► Active protection of farmland and open space should be encouraged. ► The greenbelt around the city of Broomfield should be preserved, where feasible, to protect environmentally constrained lands, steep slopes, creek corridors, and buffer growth in nearby communities. • ► Wildlife preserves, riparian corridors, Rocky Mountain views, and greenbelt buffers along roadways should be identified as visually important to provide visual relief from more intense land uses. ► Mountain and downtown views from public places, such as parks, should be preserved. ► Design guidelines for both public and private developments should be maintained to promote protection and enhancement of the visual environment. ► Mountain backdrops were identified as significant visual resources. ► Historic buildings should be preserved as landscape features that help to create community identity. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS 4 i 1-- October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.14-1 Visual Resources Identified in the Regional Study Area LEGEND Ai Study Corridors i ._.--.--.-.... "/ Highways ..?"4 wallow '• ~ 131 � / Arterial Roads/� / \, ['1 Regional Study Area —6k / \` _ __ ef City Boundaries Pierce , o Citi:sL :w Tns in Project Area i ,,Fort Golliris. \ ,......./ Ault \ I Visual Resources Identified It 2571 •* in Comprehensive Plans L { Tennant O Significant Views Identified In Field j �O7. 4 Severance Eaton IGOI 1I, -�_ 1 . u> tWIIIt15a Lucerne i \-61- u� ; I ' , � ':s> ? ii Greeley i t1 ;2631 34 ---- Loveland Garden C!t lED I Evan, r 1 - _� La Salle •. rdn.n.,.ir I a- 4„,„, i / I � 'i I G,'r,hrn;t it' 0 makeIn • J • ,r lifts; —®qtr} j. I %. 1 0 'Ir' 1 Longmont 1 I .-ft,, Fuesamc KNmot CI Frederick 1 o r = Dacmc '� 52 Fort turd N • _„ y Gij nel R I i �, je I.1/ —• 0, Yahlwut t::: i m �{ rg x � J a 41._ - Wallenberg t 1 'Boulder - 1 i � Q ialaretlN Nul -j-4-44 I 4 r . j �xncville � Br:gltl W' 1 ill i reysII(ferl of - - ; Eastlake � O liernlWson �.`� Brnwndiel,i w - _' `,\,N\ Northglerrn / 36 / i_ Owmlur. x r `,• f_ ;/ --I ft I ttfri i I ' 0 2 4 6 8 10 —,�11:::t'i t ( ;i JMiles North• Mao Document C49 :'.t•ua_.-m•C: Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-5 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences Many of the North Front Range communities comprising the regional study area have unimpeded views to the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, including Longs Peak and Mount Meeker. Proposed improvements associated with the packages are minor relative to the large scale of this view. Proposed improvements that affect visual quality in the project area were identified and evaluated for the degree of effect. Effects were rated as minor, moderate, or high. An effect is categorized as minor if it does not block or impede scenic views or diminish the visual character. This would include walls that are 5 feet or less in height and interchanges and bridges that are built at the same height. An effect was categorized as moderate if it either would block or impede a scenic view of value to adjacent businesses or residences (within Y- mile radius) or diminish the visual character. This would include walls from 5 feet to 15 feet in height and bridges and interchanges raised 6 feet or less in height. An effect was categorized as high if it would block or impede a scenic view of value (within %-mile radius) and also diminish the visual character. This would include walls greater than 15 feet in height and bridges and interchanges raised greater than 6 feet. The visual effects that occur as a result of highway widening, rail construction, bridge and wall construction, carpool lots, stations, and maintenance facilities were evaluated for each component. Transportation improvements associated with the project could result in both short-term and • long-term visual impacts. Short-term impacts include disruptions during construction while long-term impacts are the result of permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Short-term impacts would include detours, an increase in roadway congestion in and around the area, the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term impacts would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term impacts include relocation of businesses and residences: new interchanges; increased right-of-way; addition of station amenities; and changes to the surrounding landscape through the use of overpasses, bridges, retaining walls, medians, as well as from alterations to the existing roadway grade. 3.14.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Direct Impacts The No-Action Alternative would generally have minimal effect on visual resources. Existing conditions, described in Section 3.14.1, would continue. Indirect Impacts Traffic and congestion would continue to increase. Even without highway or transit improvements associated with the project, growth would continue to occur on undeveloped agricultural land. This would change the landscape character along the 1-25, the BNSF and US 287 corridors, and alter views and perception of visual character. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-6 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.14.3.2 PACKAGE A Visual impacts are discussed below for transportation improvement components in Package A. Visual elements associated with highway improvements include interchange upgrades, replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of carpool lots. Table 3.14-6, provided later in this section, summarizes visual impacts from highway widening and structure upgrades under each Package A highway component. Structural elements include retaining walls, sound walls, bridges, box culverts and interchanges. Retaining walls are proposed in areas that currently do not have them. Retaining walls would be either the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) standard retaining walls or mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls and would range from 3 feet, 6 inches to 21 feet, 6 inches in height. If the retaining wall goes up vertically from 1-25, it would reduce the visual effect of the highway on surrounding homes and businesses while limiting motorists' views. If the retaining wall goes down vertically from 1-25, it would limit the views of the surrounding homes to the surrounding community and long-range views from areas east of 1-25 to the mountains. Sound walls are proposed in areas which currently do not have them. The new sound walls would range from 10 feet to 12 feet in height. While new sound walls would reduce noise impacts to the surrounding community, they could increase visual impacts. The new sound walls would reduce the visual effect of the highway on surrounding homes and businesses while limiting motorists' views and long-range views of the surrounding community. • A-HI Highway Safety Improvements (SH 1 to SH 14). Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-1 identifies the location and height range of one A-H1 retaining wall that would be greater than 15 feet in height. This wall would have a high effect to the surrounding community. One retaining wall would be 15 feet in height or less, this wall would have a moderate visual effect. Table 3.14-1 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H1 Retaining Wall Impacts Motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range Surrounding Community?North of LCR 58, south of LCR 60 on 1-25 3'-5"to 21'-5" Surrounding community Near SH 1 and 1-25 (NW quadrant) 3'-5"to 15'-0" Surrounding community Table 3.14-2 identifies the location and height for the one sound wall in this component. It would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-2 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-H1 Sound Wall Location East/West Side Sound Wall Sound Wall Length of 1-25 Height Range North of SH 1 on 1-25 West 10'-12' 1,000' • Two interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Ten bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be modified or reconstructed at the same heights as the structures that they are replacing. Four bridges and box culverts are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet of less. The addition of retaining Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-7 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. walls, a sound wall, and the reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would • overall have a moderate visual effect to motorists and adjacent homes and businesses, since similar structures already exist in these locations. Carpool Lots. A carpool lot is proposed in the southwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 1. Carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because it does not block any views and would not require the relocation of businesses or residences. A-H2 General Purpose Lanes (SH 14 to SH 60) Highway Widening. Widening the highway from SH 14 to SH 60 would require the relocation of residences and businesses. Highway widening would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because of the required relocation of businesses and residences. The greater expanse of pavement, from 68 feet to 120 feet between SH 14 and Crossroads and from 68 feet to 144 feet between Crossroads and SH 60, would result in a change in the visual experience for motorists. Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-3 identifies the location and height range of eighteen A-H2 retaining walls that would be greater than 15 feet in height, which would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-4 identifies the location and height of one sound wall in A-H2 which would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-3 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H2 Retaining Wall Location Retaining Wall Impacts Motorist or • Height Range Surrounding Community? North of Harmony Road, south of LCR 40 on 1-25 11'-0"to 15'-5" Motorist North of SH 392, south of LCR 36 on 1-25 11'-0"to 69'-0" Surrounding community North of SH 392, south of LCR 36 on 1-25 11'-0" to 20'-0" Surrounding community North of SH 392, south of LCR 36 on 1-25 18'-0" to 23'-0" Motorist North of SH 392, south of LCR 36 on 1-25 14'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near SH 392 and 1-25 3'-5"to 20'-5" Surrounding community Near Crossroads Blvd and 1-25 19'-0"to 34'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 5'-0" to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 4'-5" to 35'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 10'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 3'-5"to 31'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 3'-0"to 35'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of LCR 20E on 1-25 5-5"to 19'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of LCR 20E on 1-25 4'-5"to 30'-0" Surrounding community Near LCR 16 and 1-25 27'-0"to 39'-5" Surrounding community Near SH 60 and 1-25 10'-5"to 29'-5" Surrounding community • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-8 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-4 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-112 East/West Side Sound Wall Sound Wall Sound Wall Location of 1-25 Height Range Length South of SH 392 and north of CR 30 on West 12' 2,500' 1-25 at Mountain Range Shadows Five interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 to 12 feet. Rebuilding the interchange with the grade change would have a moderate effect on visual conditions. Two interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a change to the vertical alignment. The interchange of 1-25 and SH 402 would be modified to have SH 402 go over 1-25 and the interchange of 1-25 and LCR 16 would be modified to have LCR 16 go over 1-25. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would have a moderate visual effect because it would block existing views from 1-25 to the mountains. Lowering the vertical alignment of 1-25 would limit the views of the vehicular traveler, while opening the view to adjacent properties. One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 to 12 feet. Nine bridges that make up the US 34 interchange would be constructed in two levels. One level approximately 24 feet above the existing US 34 and another level approximately 48 feet above existing US 34. The US 34 eastbound and westbound by-pass over LCR 5, and the US 34 over Rocky Mountain Avenue would require relocation of businesses. The increase of size and vertical alignment of the US 34 interchange would have a high visual effect to the vehicular traveler and adjacent properties. Nine bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be reconstructed or modified • at the same heights as the bridges that they are replacing. Eighteen bridges and box culverts are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Four bridges and box culverts are proposed to be constructed with a grade change from 6 to 12 feet. Three bridges are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 28 feet. The introduction of numerous retaining walls over 15-feet in height, a sound wall, reconstructed interchanges and bridges that vary in their degree of visual effect to the surrounding community would have a high visual effect overall. Carpool Lots. Five carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: 1-25 and SH 14, 1-25 and Prospect Road, 1-25 and Harmony Road, 1-25 and SH 392, and 1-25 and SH 402. The carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of carpool lots would have a minor visual effect because they would not block views or require the relocation of businesses or residences. A-H3 General Purpose Lanes (SH 60 to E-470) Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from SH 60 to SH 66 and from SH 52 to E-470 would require the relocation of residences and businesses and naturalized type landscaping. Highway widening would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because it would require the relocation of businesses. The greater expanse of pavement, from 68 feet to 120 feet between SH 60 and SH 66, from 128 feet to 144 feet between SH 52 and SH 7, and from 136 feet to 168 feet between SH 7 and E-470, would result in a change in the visual experience for motorists. Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-5 identifies the location and height range of thirteen A-H3 • retaining walls that would be greater than 15 feet in height. These would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. One retaining wall would be 15 feet in height or less, this wall would have a moderate visual effect. Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-9 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-5 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H3 • Retaining Wall Location Retaining Wall Impacts Motorist or Height Range Surrounding Community? North of WCR 40, south of SH 56 on 1-25 3'-5"to 29'-0" Motorist North of WCR 40, south of SH 56 on 1-25 14'-0" Motorist North of WCR 40, south of SH 56 on 1-25 14'-0" to 18'-0" Surrounding community Near WCR 34 and 1-25 24'-0"to 30'-0" Surrounding community Near WCR 34 and 1-25 12'-0"to 34'-0" Motorist Near WCR 34 and 1-25 34'-0"to 38'-0" Surrounding community North of SH 66, south of WCR 32 on 1-25 5'-0"to 25-5" Surrounding community North of SH 66, south of WCR 32 on 1-25 21'-0" to 27'-0" Surrounding community North of 1601h, south of SH 7 on 1-25 1,-0"to 18'-2" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 2'-0"to 42'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 2'-6"to 33'-1" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 2'-0" to 34'-9" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 1'-9" to 45'-2" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 5'-8"to 16'-5" Surrounding community Five interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt at the same heights that exist today. Rebuilding the interchanges at the same heights would have a minor effect on visual • conditions. One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a change to its vertical alignment. The interchange of 1-25 and SH 56 would be modified to have 1-25 go over SH 56. Lowering the vertical alignment of SH 56 would limit the views of adjacent properties and improve the views to motorists on 1-25. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would have a moderate effect to visual conditions because it would impact the views of surrounding businesses and residences to the mountains and require relocation of a residence. Nine bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be reconstructed at the same heights as the bridges that they are replacing. Reconstruction of existing structures would have a minor visual effect to the highway because the area already has structures in these locations. Nine bridges and box culverts are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Nine bridges and box culverts are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 7 to 14 feet. The introduction of new interchange alignments and bridges that vary in their degree of visual effect to the surrounding community would have a high visual effect overall to a highway that already has numerous bridges and interchanges. Carpool Lots. Six carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: 1-25 and SH 60, I- 25 and SH 56, 1-25 and SH 66, 1-25 and SH 119, 1-25 and SH 52, and 1-25 and SH 7. The carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because it would not block views or require relocation of businesses or residences. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-10 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • A-H4 Structure Upgrades (E-470 to US 36) Bridges in the A-H4 component project area are proposed to be reconstructed at the same height as the bridges that they are replacing. Reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would have a minor visual effect to a highway that already has bridges and interchanges in these locations. Table 3.14-6 Package A Highway Components Effects Analysis Package A Highway Components Highway Widening effect Structural Upgrade effect A-H 1 None Moderate A-H2 Moderate High A-H3 Moderate High A-H4 None Minor A-Tl Commuter Rail- Fort Collins to Longmont Rail Impacts. This portion of the commuter rail alignment is proposed to be located in the BNSF right-of-way. Between the BNSF North Yard and the CSU station at University Avenue, the commuter rail alignment would use the existing track through Fort Collins. Since there would be no improvements to the track through this portion, there would be no visual effects. South of CSU to North Longmont, the commuter rail alignment would transition to a double track. The commuter rail alignment would utilize the existing BNSF track and proposes a new • track to the east of the existing track. For the majority of this component, the new track would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing track. A 6-foot chain link fence would run parallel on the east and west sides of the tracks. At all railroad crossings, gates would be upgraded or installed in order to provide safe crossings and potentially limit horns at crossings. Ten railroad crossings would be upgraded to a four-quadrant gate. This would add two additional gates in the medians of the adjacent cross street. Adding gates would reduce noise impacts to the community but would have a minor visual effect on surrounding businesses and residences. The new track and chain link fence would represent a moderate effect to the surrounding community because they would require relocation of residences and businesses. Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-7 identifies the location and height range of five A-T1 retaining walls that could be greater than 15 feet in height. These would have a high visual effect. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-7 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-Tl • Retaining Wall Location Retaining Wall Height Impacts transit rider or Range surrounding community? North of Fossil Creek Trail, south of 14'-5"to 16'-4" Transit rider Fairway Lane along BNSF North of Fossil Creek Trail, south of 11'-5"to 16'-3" Transit rider Fairway Lane along BNSF North of Fossil Creek Drive, south of Fossil 15'-4" to 16'-5" Surrounding community Creek Trail along BNSF North of Fossil Creek Drive, south of Fossil 12'-7"to 18'-6" Surrounding community Creek Trail along BNSF 24th Street SW and BNSF 8'-6"to 16'-2" Surrounding community Table 3.14-8 identifies the location of fifteen A-T1 sound walls, all of which would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-8 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-Tl Sound Wall Location EastiWest Side of tracks Sound Wall Length East of 23rd St- Mountain Ash Place (Loveland) East 1,400' 35th Street SW (Champion) East 600' South CR 15 (Berthoud) East 400' 21st Avenue-23rd Avenue (Longmont) West 900' 17th Avenue- 19th Avenue (Longmont) West 1,300' • 17th Avenue-21st Avenue (Longmont) East 2,500' 15th Avenue- 17th Avenue (Longmont) East 1,200' Mountain View Avenue- 15m Avenue (Longmont) East 1,300' 11th Avenue- Mountain View Avenue (Longmont) East 1,500' 9th Avenue- 10th Avenue (Longmont) East 600' 8th Avenue- 9th Avenue (Longmont) East 600' 7th Avenue-8th Avenue (Longmont) East 500' 51h Avenue-61h Avenue (Longmont) East 500' 4th Avenue-5th Avenue East 500' 3rd Avenue-4th Avenue East 500' New bridges would run parallel to the existing track and cross at the same height. The introduction of new bridges would have a minor visual effect to a railroad corridor that already has tracks and bridges in these locations. Although the effect associated with the bridges would be minor, with the addition of the sound walls and new bridges, this would have an overall high visual effect to the rail corridor. Table 3.14-9 summarizes commuter rail impacts associated with Component A-T1. Commuter Rail Stations. Standard commuter rail stations would consist of two platforms, which measure 400 feet by 25 feet. The commuter rail platforms would require a pedestrian overpass that is 12-feet wide and 23-feet high between the platforms with elevator and stair towers. Amenities associated with stations would include: shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreen, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpass, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss-n- ride, lighting, and landscaping. The addition of a parking lot would create an asphalt area. Table 3.14-9 summarizes commuter rail station impacts associated with Component A-T1. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-12 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • The Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center would be an exception to the standard commuter rail station. This station is proposed to be served by one platform with no overpasses or stair towers required. The parking at the Downtown Transit Center is proposed to be either surface parking or a parking structure. The addition of a parking lot would create a large area of asphalt while a parking structure would introduce a three-story building in an urban area where the average building height is two to four stories. Adding a station at the Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center would have a moderate visual effect to the urban downtown area because it would require relocation of the City of Fort Collins parking lot but would not affect views. Table 3.14-9 Component A-Tl Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis Station Name Effects Classification Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Relocation of parking lot Moderate Colorado State University Views to mountains blocked Moderate South Fort Collins Transit Center Views to mountains blocked Moderate North Loveland Business relocation, views to mountains blocked High Downtown Loveland Parking lot relocation, views to mountains blocked High Berthoud Business relocation, views to mountains blocked High North Longmont Residential relocation, views to mountains blocked High • The North Loveland, Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, and North Longmont stations would have a high visual effect because they would require relocation of a business or residence and the station would impede views from the east to the mountains. Stations at CSU and South Fort Collins Transit Center would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because they would impede views from the east to the mountains, particularly Longs Peak. The effect would be moderate because, while it would impede views, it would not require the relocation of any businesses. Figure 3.14-2 and Figure 3.14-3 are visual simulations that depict the Berthoud commuter rail station. Maintenance Facility. Two commuter rail maintenance facility locations are being considered in Package A. The standard maintenance facility would consist of additional tracks, offices, dispatch/driver support areas, vehicle maintenance bays, repair shops, vehicle wash areas, fueling facilities, storage, and parking. Visual impacts associated with each commuter rail maintenance facility location are summarized in Table 3.14-10. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-13 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.14-2 Berthoud Station, View at Commuter Rail Plaza I i __ _. - - ._., ,. .. , .„ �:c - - I ., ..� .t / 1 i : ,i. _ ii II it liii e R� : ! ,, iii I.b a, LI : I nit ,,, , ,„ p, ..., .„. _, . . .. , t, _ ,,,,....,..„ ,,..., ., , . , , , , IN 4 ow af .W if, --c .."\-4. - - d WI `j• R i — ---------------- Figure 3.14-3 Berthoud Station, View at Commuter Rail Station II •S- �... _ _ ., . . . t ,V, &air s. 3. " a a i II,' A /• 4 411 Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-14 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-10 Package A Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis Maintenance Facility Name Effects Classification East Vine and Timberline Visible to surrounding community Moderate CR 46 and US 287 Visible to surrounding community Moderate East Vine Drive and North Timberline. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and to residential and commercial buildings. The maintenance facility would be visible to Vine Drive and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate visual effect because it would be visible to the surrounding community and change the visual character of the area. CR 46 and US 287. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to residential and commercial development. Additional traffic would be added to local streets. The maintenance facility would be visible to motorists on US 287, 3rd Street, and in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate visual effect because it would be visible to the surrounding community and change the visual character of the area. A-T2 Commuter Rail— Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Rail Impacts. The commuter rail alignment from the Sugar Mill station would utilize the existing BNSF track and place a new track to the east of the existing track. The new track • would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing BNSF track. A double track with two new tracks would provide the connection from the Sugar Mill station to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. The track would run parallel to SH 119 east from Sugar Mill, turn south and parallel CR 7, then follow the UPRR alignment across 1-25 to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. A six-foot chain link fence would run parallel to the tracks on the east and west sides of the tracks. At all railroad crossings, gates would be installed to improve safety and limit noise effects. While the addition of gates would reduce noise effects, they could increase effects to the visual environment. The introduction of a new track would require the relocation of residences and businesses. The relocation of businesses and residences, new track, chain link fence, railroad, and crossing elements would have an overall moderate effect on the surrounding community. Component A-T2 would include three new grade separations where one does not currently exist. These are at the following locations: ► SH 52 - this grade-separated crossing would moderately impact adjacent residences. The new structure over SH 52 would impede views to the Front Range that have been identified as significant. ► Wyndham Hill Parkway -just north of SH 52, there would be a new bridge that would be visible from residential areas both east and west of County Road 7. The structure over Wyndham Hill Parkway would impede views to the Front Range. This impact would be moderate. ► SH 119 (Longmont) - on the eastern side of Longmont, a new bridge would be constructed to carry the commuter rail tracks over SH 119. This would affect views from • motorists traveling east and west on SH 119 and residents in the area. This impact would be moderate. Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-15 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. Structural Impacts • Table 3.14-11 identifies the location and height ranges for sixteen A-T2 retaining walls that would be greater than 15 feet in height. This would have a high visual impact. Table 3.14-11 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-T2 Retaining Wall Location Retaining Wall Height Impacts Transit Rider or Range Surrounding Community? East of Emery Street, west of Martin Street 8'_5" to 25'-0" Surrounding community on BNSF/1 Avenue East of Emery Street, west of Martin Street 10'-5" to 25'-0" Surrounding community on BNSF/1sl Avenue West of Alpine Drive, east of Martin Street 14'-2" to 21'-3" Transit rider on BNSF West of Alpine Drive, east of Martin Street 4'-7"to 21'-3" Transit rider on BNSF West of the intersection of SH 119 and 1 T-0"to 26'-0" Transit rider Ken Pratt Boulevard West of the intersection of SH 119 and 3'-5"to 20'-9" Transit rider Ken Pratt Boulevard East of the intersection of SH 119 and 10'-6" to 25'-0" Transit rider Ken Pratt Boulevard East of the intersection of SH 119 and 10'-6"to 25'-0" Transit rider Ken Pratt Boulevard North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 10'-1"to 18'-6" Surrounding community4111 North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 9'-3"to 18'-6" Surrounding community North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 20'-5"to 25-0" Transit rider North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 20'-5"to 25-0" Transit rider SH 52 and CR 7 9'-0"to 20'-3" Surrounding community SH 52 and CR 7 9'-0"to 20'-3" Surrounding community SH 52 and CR 7 13'-2" to 17'-3" Surrounding community South of 168th Avenue and Colorado Blvd 9'-3"to 19'-8" Surrounding community Table 3.14-12 identifies the location of the A-T2 sound wall, which would have a high visual effect on the surrounding community. Table 3.14-12 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-T2 Sound Wall Location East/West Side of I-25 Sound Wall Length CR 8 (Dacono) East 1,500' • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-16 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • The new bridges would run parallel and cross at the same height as the existing track from Longmont to Sugar Mill. The introduction of these new bridges would have a minor visual effect to a railroad corridor that already has tracks and bridges in these locations. The bridges over ditches and creeks would not be raised in height from the surrounding grade; therefore, they would have a minor visual effect. The new bridge that crosses SH 119 would be 30 feet with structure depth over the roadway. This would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community because it would impede views to the mountains and surrounding development. The introduction of retaining walls, sound walls, and new bridges would have an overall high visual effect on the rail corridor. A summary of the results of the A-T2 commuter rail effects analysis is provided in Table 3.14-13. Table 3.14-13 Package A Commuter Rail Effects Analysis Commuter Rail Components Rail Structural A-T1 Moderate High A-T2 Moderate High Commuter Rail Stations. Table 3.14-14 summarizes A-T2 commuter rail station visual impacts. Table 3.14-14 Component A-T2 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis Station Name Effects Classification • Longmont at Sugar Mill Business relocation, views to Moderate mountains blocked 1-25 and WCR 8 Views to mountains blocked Moderate FasTracks North Metro None None The stations at 1-25 and WCR 8 and at the Longmont and Sugar Mill would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because they would impede views from the east to the mountains and Longs Peak. Commuter rail would stop at all of the North Metro corridor stations. These stations have not been included in the analysis since the stations are being designed and built as part of FasTracks, and no additional improvements are proposed as part of Package A. A-T3 and A-T4 Commuter Bus — Greeley to Denver/DIA Commuter Bus Stations. The standard commuter bus station would include parking, bus bays, kiss-n-ride, lighting, and landscaping. The amount and type of landscaping would depend on city standards. Table 3.14-15 summarizes visual impacts associated with proposed commuter bus stations. The Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville and Fort Lupton stations would have a moderate visual effect because they would result in the relocation of a business or residence. These stations would not, however, impede views to the mountains. Commuter bus would stop at the existing Brighton park-n-Ride, Denver Union Station and DIA and the • proposed Commerce City park and ride. These stations have not been included in the analysis and are assumed to be in existence at the time the EIS improvements and no additional improvements are proposed as part of Package A. Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-17 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-15 Component A-T3 Commuter Bus Station Effects Analysis • Station Name Impact Classification Greeley Relocation of business Moderate South Greeley Use of existing parking lot Moderate Evans Relocation of residence Moderate Platteville Relocation of business Moderate Fort Lupton Relocation of business Moderate Brighton None None Commerce City None None Denver Union Station None None DIA None None Maintenance Facility. Two locations for the commuter bus maintenance facility are being considered in Package A. The standard maintenance facility would consist of offices, dispatch/driver support areas, vehicle maintenance bays, repair shops, vehicle wash areas, fueling facilities, storage, and parking. Table 3.14-16 summarizes visual impacts associated with each of the two potential locations for the commuter bus maintenance facility. Table 3.14-16 Package A Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis Maintenance Facility Name Impact Classification Portner Road and Trilby Road Visible to surrounding community Moderate • 3151 Street and 1st Avenue Visible to surrounding community Moderate Portner Road and Trilby Road. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and to residential and commercial buildings. The maintenance facility would be visible to Trilby Road and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment because it would change the visual character of the area. 31st Street and 1st Avenue. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and commercial development. The maintenance facility would be visible to 31st Street and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment because it would change the visual character of the area. Summary of Package A Impacts Direct Impacts. Highway and transit improvements would include rebuilding interchanges, replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of carpool lots, tracks, platforms, shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreen, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpass, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting, and landscaping. In a project area that primarily consists of undeveloped agricultural land with extensive views to the mountains, including Longs Peak to the west, most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect to the visual quality of the corridor. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14.18 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Both the highway and transit components in Package A would have short-term and long- term impacts. Short-term impacts would result from disruptions during construction while long-term impacts would result from permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Short-term impacts under Package A would include detours, increased roadway congestion in and around the area, the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term impacts would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term impacts include relocation of businesses and residences, new interchanges, increased right-of-way, additions of station amenities, and changes to the surrounding landscape through the use of overpasses, bridges, retaining walls, medians, as well as alterations to the existing roadway grade. Indirect Impacts. The proposed highway and transit improvements could encourage development that is more compact and denser, especially within walking distance of a commuter rail station. This would change the visual character. The addition of stations and a maintenance facility would add additional traffic to local streets. Both the stations and maintenance facility would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. 3.14.3.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes the same basic structural elements (retaining walls, sound walls, • bridges, box culverts, and interchanges) that were described for Package A. Visual elements associated with highway improvements include highway widening, reconstruction and modification of interchanges, new bridges, replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of three carpool lots. Table 3.14-24, later in this section, summarizes visual impacts from highway widening and structure upgrades for each Package B highway component. 8-HI Highway Safety Improvements (SH 1 to SH 14) Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-17 identifies the location and heights of two B-H1 retaining walls that would be less than or equal to 15 feet in height. These would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-17 Wall Locations in Component B-H1 Retaining Wall Location Retaining Wall Impacts motorist or surrounding Height Range community? Near SH 1 and 1-25 (NW quadrant) 3'-5"to 15'-0" Surrounding community Near SH 1 and 1-25 (SE quadrant) 3'-5"to 15'-0" Surrounding community The location of the B-H1 sound wall is provided in Table 3.14-18. This would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. S Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-19 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-18 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H1 • Sound Wall Location East/West Side Sound Wall Height Sound Wall of I-25 Range Length North of SH 1 on 1-25 West 10'-12' 1,000' Two interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Ten bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be modified or reconstructed at • the same elevation as the bridges that they are replacing. Two bridges and box culverts would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. The addition of retaining walls, a sound wall, and reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would overall have a moderate visual effect because these structures would block and impede views to the mountains. Carpool Lots. A carpool lot is proposed in the southwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 1. Carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because it would not block views or require relocation of businesses or residences. B-H2 Tolled Express Lane (SH 14 to SH 60) Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from SH 14 to Harmony Road would require a buffer separating the tolled express lanes (TELs) in each direction. The widening of the highway from Harmony Road to SH 60 would require one new barrier separating the two TELs in each direction. The widening of the highway from SH 14 to SH 60 would require the • relocation of residences and businesses. The greater expanse of pavement, from 68 feet to 128 feet between SH 14 and Harmony Road and 68 feet to 192 feet between Harmony Road and SH 60, would result in a change in the visual experience for the motorist. Highway widening would have a moderate effect on visual conditions because it would require relocation of businesses or residences. Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-19 identifies the location and heights of nineteen B-H2 • retaining walls greater than 15 feet in height. These would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. Three retaining walls would be 15 feet in height or less, these would have a moderate visual effect. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-20 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-19 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H2 Retaining Wall Impacts Motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range Surrounding Community?Near SH 14 and 1-25 3'-5"to 15'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 40, south of Prospect Road on 1-25 3'-5"to 33'-5" Motorist Near LCR 40 and 1-25, north of Harmony Road 3'-5"to 18'-5" Surrounding community Near Harmony Road and 1-25 3'-5" to 16'-0" Surrounding community Near 392 and 1-25 3'-5" to 15'-0" Surrounding community North of Crossroads Blvd, south of LCR 30 on 1-25 3'-5"to 25'-0" Motorist North of Crossroads Blvd, south of LCR 30 on 1-25 6'-0"to 29'-0" Motorist North of US 34, south of Crossroads Blvd. on 1-25 11'-0" to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of US 34, south of Crossroads Blvd. on 1-25 5-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of US 34, south of Crossroads Blvd. on 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 4'-5" to 35'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 10'-0" to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-5"to 31'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-0"to 35'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-5" to 25'-5" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-5" to 25'-5" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-5"to 25'-5" Surrounding community • North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 14'-0"to 31'-5" Surrounding community North of LCR 16, south of LCR 18 on 1-25 3'-5"to 19'-5" Motorist North of LCR 16, south of LCR 18 on 1-25 26'-0" to 36'-5" Surrounding community Near SH 60 (WCR 48)and 1-25 3'-5" to 15'-0" Surrounding community The location of the B-H2 sound wall is shown in Table 3.14-20. This would be a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-20 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H2 Sound Wall Location East/West Side Sound Wall Sound Wall of I-25 Height Range Length South of SH 392 and North of CR 30 on West 12' 2,500' 1-25 at Mountain Range Shadows Five interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Two interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a change to the vertical alignment. The interchange of 1-25 and SH 402 would be modified to have SH 402 go over 1-25 and the interchange of 1-25 and LCR 16 would be modified to have LCR 16 go over 1-25. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would have a moderate effect to visual conditions. Lowering the vertical alignment of 1-25 would limit views of motorists, while opening the view to adjacent properties and to motorists of the raised cross street. One • interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 to 12 feet. Nine bridges that make up the US 34 interchange would be constructed in two levels. One level approximately 24 feet above the existing US 34 and another level approximately 48 feet above existing US 34. The US 34 eastbound and westbound by-pass over LCR 5, and the US 34 over Rocky Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-21 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Mountain Avenue would require relocation of businesses. The increase of size and vertical • alignment of the US 34 interchange would have a high visual effect to the vehicular traveler and adjacent properties. Nine bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be modified or reconstructed at the same elevation as the structures that they are replacing. The reconstruction of existing structures would have a minor visual effect to a highway that already has structures in these locations. Eighteen bridges and box culverts would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Four bridges and box culverts are proposed to be constructed with a grade change from 6 to 12 feet. Three bridges are proposed to be rebuilt at a grade change of 28 feet. The introduction of numerous retaining walls over 15 feet in height, a sound wall, reconstructed bridges, and interchanges would have a high visual effect overall because these structures would block views and require relocation of residences or businesses. Carpool Lots. Three carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: the northeastern corner of 1-25 and SH 14, the northwestern corner of 1-25 and Prospect and the southwestern corner of 1-25 and SH 402 (alternative location at the southeastern corner). The carpool lots consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lots would have a minor visual effect because they do not block views and do not require relocation of businesses or residences. B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes (SH 60 to E-470) • Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from SH 60 to E-470 would require the addition of a new buffer-separated Tolled Express Lane (TEL) in each direction. The widening of the highway from SH 60 to E-470 would require relocation of businesses and naturalized type landscaping. The greater expanse of pavement, from 128 feet to 152 feet between SH 66 and SH 7, would result in a change in the visual experience for the motorist. The highway widening and relocation of businesses would represent a moderate effect to the surrounding community. Structural Impacts. The location and heights of nine B-H3 retaining walls greater than 15 feet in height are included in Table 3.14-21. These walls would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-22 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-21 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H3 Retaining Wall Height Impacts Motorist or Retaining Wall Location Range Surrounding Community? North of WCR 36, south of WCR 38 on 1-25 6'-0"to 18'-5" Surrounding community North of WCR 34, south of WCR 36 on 1-25 23'-5"to 32'-5" Surrounding community North of WCR 34, south of WCR 36 on 1-25 3'-5" to 25-6" Surrounding community North of WCR 28, south of SH 66 on 1-25 12'-5" to 39'-0" Surrounding community North of 160`", south of SH 7 on 1-25 2'-0"to 20'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 11,-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 12'-0"to 25'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 11,-0"to 27'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 13'-0" to 18'-0" Surrounding community Seven interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt at the same height that exists today. Rebuilding the interchanges at the same heights would have a minor effect on visual conditions. One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a change to the vertical alignment. The interchange of 1-25 and SH 56 would be modified to have 1-25 go over SH 56. Lowering the vertical alignment of SH 56 would limit the views of adjacent properties to the mountains and surrounding development and improve views of motorists on 1-25. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would overall have a moderate effect to visual conditions because it would block and impede views to the mountains. Eighteen bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be reconstructed at the same elevation as the structures that they are replacing. Eleven bridges and box culverts • would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Six bridges and box culverts would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 to 14 feet. The introduction of numerous retaining walls over 15 feet in height, reconstructed bridges, and interchanges would have a high visual effect overall because these structures would block views and require relocation of residences or businesses. Carpool Lots. Three carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: the southeastern corner of 1-25 and SH 60, the northwestern corner of 1-25 and SH 56, and the southwestern corner of 1-25 and SH 66. The carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of a carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because it would not block views or require relocation of businesses or residences. B-H4 Tolled Express Lane (E-470 to US 36) Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from E-470 to just south of US 36 would require the addition of one buffer-separated TEL lane in each direction, which would require the relocation of residences and businesses. The greater expanse of pavement, from 136 feet to 176 feet between SH 7 and US 36, would result in a change in the visual experience for the motorist. This would have a moderate effect on visual conditions because widening would require relocation of businesses or residences. Structural Impacts. The location and heights of 23 B-H4 retaining walls greater than • 15 feet in height are included in Table 3.14-22. These walls would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. Two retaining walls would be 15 feet in height or less, these would have a moderate visual effect Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-23 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-22 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H4 • Retaining Wall Location Retaining Wall Impacts Motorist or Height Range Surrounding Community? North of US 36, south of 84th on 1-25 2'-0"to 20'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th , south of 88'h on 1-25 31'-0"to 32'-0" Motorist North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 26'-0"to 27'-0" Motorist North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 15'-0" to 30'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 3'-0"to 20'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 17'-0"to 34'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 2'-0"to 17'-0" Motorist North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 2'-0"to 16'-0' Surrounding community North of 841h, south of 88th on 1-25 4'-0" to 14'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 5'-0"to 27'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 4'-0"to 33'-0" Motorist North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 5'-0"to 16'-0" Surrounding community North of 841h, south of Thornton Pkwy on 1-25 2'-0"to 28'-0" Motorist North of 84th, south of 104th on 1-25 2'-0"to 20-0" Surrounding community South of 104th and 1-25 3'-0" to 15'-0" Motorist 104th and 1-25 26'-0" to 28'-0" Surrounding community 104th and 1-25 2'-0"to 17'-0" Surrounding community 104th and 1-25 3'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community 104th and 1-25 9'-0"to 19'-0" Surrounding community North of 104th, south of 112th on 1-25 3'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community 112th and 1-25 2'-0" to 29'-0" Surrounding community • 120th and 1-25 14'-0" to 19'-0" Surrounding community 120th and 1-25 8'-0"to 24'-0" Surrounding community North of 120th, south of 128th on 1-25 2'-0"to 31'-0" Surrounding community North of 128th, south of 136th on 1-25 10'-0"to 27'-0" Surrounding community The location and heights of the four B-H4 sound walls are provided in Table 3.14-23. This would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-23 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H4 Sound Wall Location East/West Side Sound Wall Sound Wall of I-25 Height Range Length North of 128th Ave on 1-25, Thorncreek East 14' 1,850' North of Community Center Drive on 1-25 EaSUWest 14' 1,300' North of Thornton Parkway on 1-25, West 10'-12' 600' Badding Reservoir North of US 36 on 1-25 East 12' 1,300' One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt at the same vertical alignment that exists today. Two interchanges would be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-24 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Six bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be reconstructed at the same elevation as the structures that they are replacing. Four bridges and box culverts would be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. The introduction of new retaining walls, sound walls, and reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would have a moderate visual effect overall to a highway that already has sound walls, bridges, and interchanges in these locations. Table 3.14-24 summarizes visual impacts from highway widening and structure upgrades under each Package B highway component. Table 3.14-24 Package B Highway Effects Analysis Components Widening Effect Structural Effect B-H1 Minor Moderate B-H2 Moderate High B-H3 Moderate High B-H4 Moderate Moderate B-TI Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver BRT Impacts. BRT is proposed to travel on arterial roads and share the TEL lanes on 1-25. When BRT travels on arterial roads, it would function similar to commuter bus. The BRT would load and unload passengers in the park-and-ride or at an on-street bus stop. When BRT travels on 1-25, the BRT would stop at a platform located in the median of 1-25. The new TEL lanes would represent a minor visual effect to the surrounding community. . BRT Stations. Typical BRT stations would include one platform that is 20 feet in width by 300 feet in length, a pedestrian overpass, parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting and landscaping. A pedestrian overpass would be provided from the median platform over 1-25 to the proposed park-and-ride with the exception of SH 7 where the grade separated cross street would be utilized for pedestrian connectivity. The pedestrian overpass would be 17 feet, 6 inches from the top of road to the bottom of the bridge. For stations located on 1-25, barriers would run parallel on the east and west sides of the bus loading lanes at the platform. BRT stations that are not located on the 1-25 corridor would not include the platform or pedestrian overpass. Instead, these stations would function similar to commuter bus stations. Table 3.14-25 summarizes visual impacts associated with BRT stations. The Windsor and Firestone stations would have a high visual effect because these locations would require relocation of a business or residence and the stations would impede views to the mountains. Figure 3.14-4 and Figure 3.14-5 are visual simulations that depict the Windsor BRT station. I Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-25 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.14-4 Windsor Station, View from BRT Plaza II ... , .., , . , , _ _ ___ „I., - .. ____ . . _ ... . _,___ I ...,,,„1., . ._ :iir._......„ ., t. -- lithe„,. - 11 II I I C IA T j • I � III .., II.t� r _ -- •, p , 1 ' i .,: 111 id I t t3/4 • ,gy4.m . c • t , _ , _ 4 It F t - li i - II . iliki, .cillIllIllIllplppli"IIPIPIIIPP- 6p 1� , - 7----______._, I : 7 Figure 3.14-5 Windsor Station, View from BRT Loading/Unloading Zone I I." ,t .. . 8RT Load,nwUnloading at Station Managed Lanes with BRT Jr Northbound 625 r Frontage Road rem Teti -lam EXPRELW BAR s= - -�' ms _ 1 --s---sa--......n rtinlitillilltlitlinillMilill =Jr P;,.•.. : Alia rep i_ . :l 4 _ . I Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-26 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-25 Package B BRT Stations Effects Analysis Station Name Effect Classification South Fort Collins Transfer Center None' Minor Harmony Road and Timberline None* Minor 1-25 and Harmony Road None* Minor Windsor Pedestrian overpass may impede view High Crossroads Boulevard Block views to the mountains Moderate Berthoud Block views to the mountains Moderate Firestone Relocation of business High Frederick/Dacono Block views to the mountains Moderate 1-25 and SH 7 None* Minor US 34 and SH 257 None* Minor Greeley Downtown Transfer Center None* Minor West Greeley None* Minor *The visual impact of these sites would include one or more of the following:new landscaping and addition of a large mass of asphalt.These impacts have been determined to represent negligible visual impact and not diminish the visual character of the area. Stations at Crossroads, Berthoud, and Frederick/Dacono would have moderate visual effects to the surrounding community. The stations would impede views to the mountains, including Longs Peak, but would not require relocation of any businesses. Stations at South Fort Collins Transit Center, Harmony Road and Timberline, 1-25 and Harmony Road, 1-25 and SH 7, Greeley Downtown Transfer Center, West Greeley, and US 34 and SH 257 would have a minor effect because these locations would not require • relocation of any businesses and would not block views to the mountains. Maintenance Facility. Two bus maintenance facility locations are being considered in Package B. The standard maintenance facility would consist of offices, dispatch/ driver support areas, vehicle maintenance bays, repair shops, vehicle wash areas, fueling facilities, storage, and parking. Table 3.14-26 summarizes visual impacts associated with each of the proposed bus maintenance facility locations. Table 3.14-26 Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis Maintenance Facility Name Impact Classification Portner Road and Trilby Road Visible to surrounding community Moderate 315' Street and 1 s'Avenue Visible to surrounding community Moderate Portner Road and Trilby Road. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and to residential and commercial buildings. Additional traffic would be added to local streets. The maintenance facility would be visible to Trilby Road and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment. 31st Street and 1st Avenue. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and commercial development. The maintenance facility would be visible to 31st Street and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-27 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. B-T2 Bus Rapid Transit Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA • Summary of Package B Impacts Direct Impacts. Package B highway and transit improvements would include rebuilding interchanges, the replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of carpool lots, platforms, shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreen, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpass, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting, and landscaping. In a project area that primarily consists of undeveloped agricultural land with extensive views to the mountains, such as Longs Peak to the west, most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect on the visual quality of the corridor. Both Package B highway and transit components would result in short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would result from disruptions during construction while long- term impacts would be the result of permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Package B short-term impacts would include detours, increase in roadway congestion in and around the area, the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term effects would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term effects would include the relocation of businesses and residences, new interchanges, increased right-of-way, addition of station amenities, and changes to the surrounding landscape through use of overpasses, bridges, retaining walls, and medians, as well as from alterations to the existing roadway grade. Indirect Impacts. The proposed Package B highway and transit improvements could • encourage development, therefore, changing the landscape character as described in this section. The addition of stations and a maintenance facility would add additional traffic to local streets. Both the stations and maintenance facility also would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize adverse visual impacts from proposed highway and transit improvements. Mitigation measures will include providing visual buffers and enhanced architectural treatments to structures. 3.14.4.1 HIGHWAY Potential mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effects of the proposed highway improvements will include landscaping and architectural features. Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of highway widening will include incorporating landscaping at interchanges and along the highway. Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of structural elements will include providing architectural interest or color into retaining walls, sound walls, and reducing the effect of overpasses by providing architectural detailing of the railings and other features. • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14.26 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.14.4.2 TRANSIT Potential mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effect of the proposed transit improvements will include fencing types, landscaping, and architectural features. Mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effects of track widening will include incorporating landscaping, considering vinyl coated chain link fencing, providing architectural interest or color in retaining wall and bridge design, and limiting lighting to only what is required for safety and security. Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of stations will include providing distinctive treatments at platform station locations to designate station locations. Local communities, business districts, or other entities should be involved in upgrading or enhancing the currently proposed features. The effects of overpasses will be reduced with architectural detailing of the railing and other features. Station effects will be reduced with the use of trees in combination with shrubs to filter views to the station and parking lots, provide a human scale, and present a positive image to attract ridership. Landscape islands with shade trees will be placed in parking lots to break up the expanse of pavement and parked vehicles. • • Visual Quality and Impacts 3.14-29 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N o ni I-25 EIS a information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 15 Historic Preservation • • Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.15 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 3.15.1 Affected Environment 3.15.1.1 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE What's in Section 3.15? Legislation at the state and federal levels 3.15 Historic Preservation requires that governmental agencies assess the 3.15.1 Affected Environment impacts of proposed projects on historic and 3.15.1.1 Regulatory Compliance archaeological resources before undertaking a 3.15.1.2 Historical Resources project. The federal legislation that protects 3.15.1.3 Archaeological Resources historic and archaeological resources includes 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) of the National 3.15.2.2 Package A and B g Alternatives 3.15.2.2 Package A and B Highway Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA as Components amended) and Section 4(f) (49 USC 303, Sec. 3.15.2.3 Package A Transit Components 771.135) of the U.S. Department of 3.15.2.4 Package B Transit Components Transportation Act. 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures 3.15.3.1 No-Action Alternative Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal 3.15.3.2 Package A agencies or other agencies undertaking federal 3.15.3.3 Na Package B 9 9 3.15.4 Native American Consultation actions consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic site, district, structure, building, object or archaeological • resource included on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In order to qualify for the NRHP, a property or resource possesses sufficient integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet one or more of the following eligibility criteria: Criterion A: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history. Criterion B: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D: The property has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory. The Section 106 process (36 CFR 800.4) includes steps to: 1) identify consulting parties, 2) define an Area of Potential Effect (APE), 3) identify and evaluate historic properties, 4) assess the impacts of an undertaking on the historic properties, and 5) consult with appropriate agencies for techniques to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. The process for complying with the state legislation (State Register Act Article 80.1, Register of Historic Properties) is similar. For the North 1-25 Draft EIS, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have formally arranged with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to substitute the project's National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA) documents (Draft and Final EIS) in lieu of separate correspondence, in order to Historic Preservation 3.15-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation transportation. accomplish the Section 106 consultation process. The document substitution process is • intended to reduce the time and complexity of the review process involving the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties, by providing detailed information about project impacts associated with the various alternatives in the Draft EIS rather than in letters with attached graphics. For the North 1-25 Draft EIS, the Section 106 consultation step involving determinations of NRHP-eligibility for all historic and archaeological resources was accomplished by the traditional method of submitting survey reports and site forms to the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties. Once this step was completed, all questions and comments were satisfactorily addressed, and all NRHP-eligible and NHRP—listed sites had been identified, CDOT and FHWA described, depicted, and made determinations of effect for these sites in the Draft EIS, arranged by project alternative. All Section 106 consulting parties would then review and have the opportunity to comment upon the determinations of effect and recommended mitigation measures as presented in the Draft EIS. Following the effects review process, the resulting final determinations of effect and mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Final EIS, and any mitigation commitments will be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be signed by CDOT, FHWA, the SHPO and other appropriate parties. CDOT sent out letters to all certified local governments in the regional study area as well as a few other agencies and entities with interest in historic preservation officially inviting them to participate as consulting parties in the Section 106 process for this project. Letters were sent to the cities and communities of Berthoud, Brighton, Broomfield, Fort Collins, Fort Lupton, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Northglenn, and Timnath. They were also sent to Boulder County, Colorado Preservation, Inc., and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. • Responses were received from the following entities agreeing to participate as consulting parties: City of Greeley Historic Preservation Office City of Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board City of Longmont Historic Preservation Commission • Historic Preservation 3.15-2 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation transportation. • 3.15.1.2 HISTORICAL RESOURCES Historical Resource Surveys Historical resources were evaluated within the APE. The APE for this project was discussed at several meetings in early 2006 and further evaluated during a field trip with staff from SHPO and CDOT on June 15, 2006. The boundaries of the APE were agreed to by the SHPO in a letter dated March 12, 2007 (see Appendix B). Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation—the North 1-25 corridor including queue jumps along US Highway (US) 34 associated with the bus rapid transit, a commuter rail corridor, and a commuter bus route along US 85. The APE boundaries for each specific corridor are described in detail under each of the corridor descriptions that follow. Activities undertaken to identify historical resources in the APE included a file search at the Colorado Historical Society, a review of NRHP and State Register of Historic Properties (SRHP) listings, a review of any local landmark listings, a review of previous historical resource assessments in the general area, and field surveys of the APE. North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 corridor includes an area encompassing the maximum area of disturbance for this project, which is generally the existing right-of-way plus portions of adjacent properties. • Intensive-level surveys of the historical resources were conducted within the APE. A total of 116 historical resources were surveyed or re-evaluated in this corridor. Linear sites (e.g., railroads, irrigation ditches) are evaluated as segments that are either supporting or non- supporting segments of an entire NRHP-eligible linear resource. Those historical resources eligible for the NRHP are listed in Figure 3.15-1 and Figure 3.15-2 by location from north to south. • Historic Preservation 3.15-3 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-1 Non-Linear Historical Resources within the Area of Potential Effect / 1111 LEGEND Al Study Corridors /\/ Highways j ,'� \-- 85 /\/ Arterial Roads Lt g •i• . � ... J Regional Study Area %/ I � : iri'= City Boundaries / Pierce , f / \ 7 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area I For shins 1 , , ` 2 r Ault HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN APE 1 257 _ Both EatonEl Einarsen Farm , 9 Severance © Rudolph Farm I . L , © Cline Cottage I ' - a Windsor • \ 3 . CI �L___ 1 Lucerne �` Gallatin Residence }}} _ © Schmer Farm I I ! Gree 'i �� 6 Zimmerman Grain Elevator 34 — .�� 1 II Hatch Barn i 27 T' =-lovelan' . ' - Garden i t 1 34 8 Mountain View Farm 1 - FJ<, ' j 9 Bashor Farm i L3 alle t► 1 10 Bein Farm i Campion 1 t 60 Johnstown i m Bimson Blacksmith Shop I a Milliken 85 Berth+11 / ® Little Thompson River Bridge No. C-17-BN "! 5. 12 ® Olson Farm 1 13 • Gilcres En Rademacher/Hilgers Residence I .n ; e ' , ® White—Plumb Farm i w al 16 Flagstone Residence I• Mead + Platteville ID Fort Vasquez `66 -�-! - 17 in Old City Electric Building �4 gmont 19 Colorado & Southern Depot - Longmont _ 20 Great Western Sugar Plant / 1 . 21 _S Vollmer o lone ® Sandstone Ranch 'v- Firestone I ® Novartis Seeds Syngenta Seeds /'• Ntwrol "" 25 9 Frederick I 1 ® Dickens Farm / a o Fort Lupton i 52 Ell Boggs Residence o Gimbarrel 1p t ® Hingley Farm Valmont __.�__.. - Erie.-- -- n o r 26 Colorado and Southern Depottoveland Depot I Wallenberg ® Loveland Landmark - City of Loveland Building ? Q f --) 28 Public Service Co. Fort Collins Substation i-2 La' "W �_. ''1 Louisville! � Brighton ' - --7- 29 North Glenn First Filing ' i E1 , _`_.I 30 North Glenn Second Filing slg7eridas ` . IN" i - ,I t •,�•.: i ' Broom I Y Henderson / -- / I 41\—ws. " !a r of tttglenri /% — '�` 36 2, I '1 `+ .: , Thornton ./- - - — �r 1,.trr■.' i��l�i��u i�i j rM 1 C71 i A /■ ��`�r (11� �■ 11 rtl�GD Nr `C Jr � � �i■� ..St. (j��-=. �. i�\ �� I rt �` /� � ■■ '�" —�-iii 0 2 4 6 8 10 I I r r North rr(tl� 3i ■ a ■r Miles � �- ,,., ..�1<;,`�� ■,,,7 Map Document•Via (IgseOnC-sa mum 6-062007 Historic Preservation 3.15-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-2 Linear Historical Resources within the Area of Potential Effect LEGEND Al Study Corridors A/ Highways .�•...acts,.,o>o /\/ Arterial Roads jalt .." ,`, rreil Regional Study Area �� 5LR863.2 ••,, 1 City Boundaries / H 5LR1731.2 Fierce' ° Cities & Towns in Project Area Fort Collins 5LR1327.6 •\ - * Historic Ditches I - �`� 4 14 5LR2160.1 Ault 1 ^, Historic Railroads and Ditches j t? I 57, ,1 i,,,,,,,,,. 5LR8930.1 • ' ari.r• Falco r. 1 t` 5LR1815.2 I. I5LR8930.2 ' f ylucerne - 392 -- . 5LR503.2 j 5LR850.5 5LR8928.1 Greeley I5LR1731 .1 ,rte ( ! I5LR503.4 . _ - . 5LR1815.3 Loveland I Gardac't' —11_ 34 I5LR8928.7I� , 5LR850.1 Evans i I5LR1710.1 , 5LR8927.1 Sant, , ' Campion •J,nnsurr,„ i ! Ld 85 ii .� / i 5WL841.11 -~- i,5113449.2 I• 5BL3114.28 5WL841 .9 i ' 56L3113.67 ! ti,�,w / 5WL1975.1 °tt""e 5BL4832.28 I5BL400.3 rTT'' L�,,,,,,,o„t 5WL1974.3 �1 I5BL514.1 I ` / cam' 5WL5461.i 5WL2871.1 I5BL4832.26F ° Fee 5WL2247.11 5WL1970.1 I-- redenck i . __ ___a = - 5WL1966.11 ° ,:ono -u ; — /,�/ 5WL1966.1 I 5BF72.1 i i/ ° vain, m" 56F72.2gri( .0 t 5WL1966..8 /® ! Bouln I ' • 5WL1969.41 I N. 5WL130.1 l0 Laray*''I__ ....._— ' --- Bountu" - 5BF72.3 ,.'•. 5WL1317.11 __ / r 4119 Eastlake e'�' ° 5,472.15 93 I5AM457.2\ � irthglenn — ��/ r-13" 1 \ ‘ ° Thornton 5AM1291.3 i JJJ2vi4bjL - H4_J t I i 0 2 4 6 8 10 Z . k i i ' ' I Miles North --- 1 ,a-, • . Historic Preservation 3.15-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Historical Resources • From all the historical resources that were surveyed for this project or that had previously been surveyed, 91 were determined eligible for or already listed on the NRHP. These include 49 resources surveyed on the 1-25 corridor, 40 resources surveyed on the commuter rail corridor, and two resources on US 85. This total includes seven resources that have already been listed on the NRHP (see Table 3.15-1). A total of 27 individual historic ditches and canals, made up of 44 linear segments, are located within the APE. The 18 railroad segments comprise linear portions of five railroad lines and one railroad siding within the APE. Table 3.15-1 NRHP Listeda or Eligible Historical Resources and Linear Historical Resource Segments Within the APE Tabulated from North to South by Corridor Site# Address Name 1-25 Highway Corridor 5LR.8932.1 T8N/R68W, SW1/4 Sec. 15 Larimer County Ditch 5LR.11396 1320 Northeast Frontage Road Einarsen Farm 5LR.863.2 T7N/R68W, NE%Sec. 4 Larimer and Weld Canal 5LR.1731.2 T7N/R68W, EC Sec. 9 Colorado & Southern Railroad 5LR.11393 1028-1100 Southeast Frontage Road Rudolph Farm 5LR.11409.1 T7N/R68W, SE% Sec. 16 Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet 5LR.995.4 T7N/R68W, SE%Sec. 16 Lake Canal Ditch • 5LR.11391 4434 E. County Road 40 Gallatin Residence 5LR.1327.6 T7N/R68W, SW% Sec. 27 Colorado & Southern Railroad 5LR.2160.1 T7N/R68W, S%Sec. 34 Boxelder Ditch 5LR.11390 E. County Road 38—just east of the Cache Cline Cottage La Poudre River 5LR.8930.1 T6N/R68W, N% Sec. 27 Louden Ditch 5LR.1815.2 T5N/R68W, SE1/4 Sec. 3 Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch 5LR.503.2 T5N/R68W, S'%Sec. 10 Loveland and Greeley Canal 5LR.8928.2 T5N/R68W, NW%Sec. 15 Farmers' Ditch (Farmers Irrigation Ditch) 5LR.8928.1 T5N/R68W, N'/z Sec. 14-15 Farmers' Ditch 5LR.1815.3 T5N/R68W, SE%Sec. 11 Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch 5LR.11209 5464 E. Highway 34 Schmer Farm 5LR.850.1 T5N/R68W, C Sec. 15 Great Western Railway 5LR.11408 Zimmerman Grain Elevators 5LR.11382 640 Southeast Frontage Road Hatch Farm 5LR.8927.1 T5N/R68W, N%Sec. 22 Hillsboro Ditch 5LR.11242 a 5331 SH 402 Mountain View Farms 5WL.5204 3807 CR 48 Bashor Farm 5WL.5203 3766 CR 48 Bein Farm 5WL.3149.1 T4N/R68W, N1/2 Sec. 10 Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence 5WL.864 T4N/68W, WC Sec. 11 Great Western Railway Buda Siding 5WL.841.11 T4N/R68W, EC Sec. 10 Great Western Railway 5WL.2985a E. 1-25 Frontage Road at Little Thompson Little Thompson River Bridge No. • River C-17-BN Historic Preservation 3.15-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.15-1 NRHP Listeda or Eligible Historical Resources and Linear Historical Resource Segments Within the APE Tabulated from North to South by Corridor (cont'd) Site# Address Name 5WL.5198 17820 E. 1-25 Frontage Road Olson Farm 5WL.1978 3865 Highway 66 Rademacher/Hilgers Residence 5WL841.9 T3N/R68W, EC Sec. 10 Great Western Railway 5WL1975.1 T2N/R68W, NW% Sec. 2 Last Chance Ditch 5WL.1974.1 T2N/R68W, SW% Sec. 3 Rural Ditch 5WL.3146.1 T2N/R68W, NW% Sec. 14 Flume Ditch 5WL.1970.1 T2N/R68W, SE% Sec. 27 Lower Boulder Ditch 5WL1966.1 T1N/R68W, SEA Sec. 22 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5BF72.1 T1N/R68W, NW% Sec. 23 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5BF72.2 Ti N/R68W, SW%Sec. 23 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5BF72.3 Ti N/R68W, NE% Sec. 34 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5BF.76.2 T1S/R68W, NE%Sec. 3 Bull Canal 5AM.457.3 T1S/R68W, NE%Sec. 3 Bull Canal 5AM.457.8 T1S/R68W, NE%Sec. 15 Bull Canal 5AM457.2 T1S/R68W, N%Sec. 22 Bull Canal 5AM.457.4 T1S/R68W, NW%Sec. 27 Bull Canal 5AM1291.3 T2S/R68W, N% Sec. 10 Farmers Highline Canal/Nivers Canal 5WL.322a 955 39th Avenue, Greeley White—Plumb Farm 5AM.2074 Southeast corner 1-25 and 112th Avenue North Glenn Second Filing 5AM.2073 Northeast corner 1-25 and 104th Avenue North Glenn First Filing • Commuter Rail Corridor 5LR.1731.1 Larimer/Boulder County line north to Cherry Colorado Central, Colorado & Street in Fort Collins (eclipses 5LR1731.4, Southern/Burlington Northern & 5LR1731.7, and 5LR9888.1) Santa Fe Railroad 5LR.11330' 128 Prospect St., Fort Collins Public Service Company of Colorado—Fort Collins Substation 5LR.10819.2 T7N/R69W, N% Sec. 26 Larimer County Canal No. 2 5LR.10681.1 T6N/R69W, NE'% Sec. 2 New Mercer Ditch 5LR.8930.2 T6N/R69W, SW%Sec. 26 Louden Ditch 5LR.850.5 Great Western Railroad 5LR.488a 405-409 Railroad Ave., Loveland Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/ Loveland Depot 5LR.503.4 T5N/R69W, SW'/<Sec. 13 Loveland &Greeley Canal 5LR.1729.2 T5N/R69W, SE%Sec. 23 Big Thompson Ditch 5LR.1731.11 T5N/R69W, NW%Sec. 24 Colorado Central/Colorado & Southern/Burlington Northern & Santa Fe, Business Spur 5LR.8928.7 T5N/R69W, NW% Sec. 24 Farmers' Ditch 5LR.1710.1 T4N/R69W, SE%Sec. 2 Handy Ditch 5BL.400.3 Larimer/Boulder County line south to Colorado Central/Colorado & Longmont Southern Railroad/BN&SFRR 5BL.3449.2 T3N/R69W, SE'/< Sec. 11 Supply Ditch 5BL.3114.28 T3N/R69W, SE%Sec. 11 Highland Ditch 5BL.3113.67 T3N/R69W, NE%Sec. 27 Rough & Ready Ditch 5BL.4832.28 T3N/R69W, NE% Sec. 34 Oligarchy Ditch 5BL.10636b 122 8"'Ave., Longmont Boggs Residence • 5BL.1245 103 Main Street, Longmont Old City Electric Building 5L.1244 100 Main Street, Longmont Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot 5BL.514.1 T2N/R69W, S1/2 Sec. 2 Great Western Railway Historic Preservation 3.15-7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.15-1 NRHP Listeda or Eligible Historical Resources and Linear Historical • Resource Segments Within the APE Tabulated from North to South by Corridor (cont'd) Site# Address Name 5BL.513 11939 to 11801 Sugarmill Road, Longmont Great Western Sugar Plant 5BL.7606 1020 Sugar Mill Road Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds 5BL.4832.26 T2N/R69W, N1/2 Sec. 12 Oligarchy Ditch 5WL.5278 545 SH 119 William H. Dickens Farm 5WL.2877.2 T2N/R68W, NW1/4 Sec. 7 Union Reservoir Outlet Ditch/Coffin Spring Gulch Ditch 5WL.712a T2N/R68W, NE1/4 Sec. 7 Sandstone Ranch 5WL.5461.1 T2N/R68W, NW1/4 Sec. 27 Boulder and Weld County Ditch 5WL.5263 7523 WCR 7 Hingley Farm 5WL.1970.7 T2N/R68W, W1/2 Sec. 27 Lower Boulder Ditch 5WL.2247.11 T1N/R68W, SW 1/4 Sec. 10 Community Ditch 5WL.1974.3 2N,R68W,SW '/ Sec.15 Rural Ditch 5WL.1966.11 T1N/R68W, S1/2 Sec. 14 Bull Ditch segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5WL.1317.11 T1N/R68W, NW1/4 Sec. 24 UPRR—Dent Branch 5WL.1969.41 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPRR—Denver& Boulder Valley Branch 5WL.1966.8 T1N/R68W, NW1/4 Sec. 25 Bull Ditch segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5WL.1969.1 T1 N/R68W, SE% Sec. 15 Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& • Boulder Valley Branch SBF.130.1 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPRR—Denver& Boulder Valley Branch 5AM.472.1 UPRR Segment within Adams County UPRR—Dent Branch 5LR.530a 228 Museum Avenue, Berthoud Bimson Blacksmith Shop/Little Thompson US 85 Corridor Queue Jumps 5WL.5296 3611 Idaho Street, Evans Flagstone Residence—Goetzel 5WL.568a 13412 US 85 Fort Vasquez a Resources listed on the NRHP. SHPO concurrence pending. Commuter Rail Corridor The commuter rail corridor extends along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks from Fort Collins to Longmont. This includes a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track. From Longmont, a new double- tracked commuter rail line connects this point to the North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. The new alignment trends eastward along SH 119 until WCR 7, and then continues on the west side of WCR 7 in a southward direction for about seven miles until it intersects with the existing abandoned UPRR tracks near Erie. Intensive surveys were conducted of the historical resources within the APE. A total of 76 resources were surveyed or re-evaluated in this corridor, of which 40 have been determined eligible for the NRHP. These include two former power plants, two railroad depots, one sugar factory, one former blacksmith shop, one former ranch, one business, two farms, one residence, 10 railroad segments, and 19 ditch • segments. These historic properties are listed in Table 3.15-1 Historic Preservation 3.15-8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Queue Jumps Along US Highway 34 and US 85 The queue jump improvements occur along two highways—US 85 from Platteville through Evans associated with the commuter bus and US 34 from State Highway (SH) 257 to US 85 for the bus rapid transit. A queue jump consists of a modification to an existing signal light to allow buses to proceed through an intersection ahead of regular traffic on a separately timed green light. A short right-turn/bus-only lane is striped onto the existing outside lane of the highway to facilitate this bus movement. Surveys were conducted of the properties within the APE. A total of seven historical resources were surveyed or re-evaluated in these corridors, two of which are already listed on the NRHP. These historic properties are also listed in Table 3.15-1. Stations and Maintenance Facilities This project also includes potential sites for the locations of stations and maintenance facilities. The specific boundaries of these stations and maintenance facilities were provided. Most of the stations are on vacant land and no buildings would be affected. In cases where there are buildings older than 40 years on or adjacent to the station site, the historical buildings were surveyed and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. A total of six historical resources were surveyed on or adjacent to the station locations, two of which have been determined NRHP-eligible. There were no structures on any of the proposed maintenance facility sites. These historic properties are listed in Table 3.15-1. • 3.15.1.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES North 1-25 Corridor This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4. Where right-of-entry was granted, an intensive pedestrian survey was conducted for all parcels within the APE. The North 1-25 corridor surveys resulted in the recordation of 26 archaeological resources, including 22 isolated finds (IFs) and four sites. Isolated finds are, by definition, not eligible for the NRHP. Sites identified as potentially NRHP-eligible, which require further data to assess their NRHP-eligibility, are listed in Table 3.15-2. Table 3.15-2 Potentially NRHP-Eligible (untested) Archaeological Resources Identified within the North I-25 APE Listed from North to South Site# Description Evaluation 5LR11435 Site (M)—Lithic Scatter and Trash Scatter Potentially Eligible 5LR11436 Site (P)—Open Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible 5WL5320 Site (P)—Open Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible 5AM1928 Site (P)—Open Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible Prehistoric=P, Historic=H, Multi-component=M Two of these potentially NRHP-eligible (untested) archaeological sites—site 5WL.5320 under both Packages A and B, and site 5AM.1928 under Package B—could be subject to direct impacts due to their proximity to the construction zones defined for each of the build packages. • However, installation of retaining walls has been employed to avoid any impacts to these sites. All untested or "Needs Data" sites have been avoided, and therefore no further Section 106 actions are necessary. Historic Preservation 3.15-9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Commuter Rail Corridor . Intensive pedestrian surveys of the length of the BNSF railroad track were conducted within the current right-of-way from Fort Collins to Longmont. From Longmont to FasTracks North Metro, an intensive pedestrian survey was conducted within the APE (300-foot wide corridor) wherever right-of-entry was granted. The surveys of the commuter rail corridor identified 16 non-eligible archaeological resources consisting of 5 IFs and 11 sites. Queue Jumps Along US 85 and US 34 Where right-of-entry, was granted a pedestrian survey was conducted within the APE. Surveys of the properties within the APE yielded no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. All of the proposed impact areas are heavily disturbed by the current highway right- of-way. Station Site Alternatives for Commuter Bus, Commuter Rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Where right-of-entry was granted, the station site alternatives for commuter bus, rail, and BRT were subjected to intensive pedestrian surveys. No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were identified. Operation and Maintenance Facilities No right-of-entry was granted for proposed locations of operation and maintenance facilities. No archaeological surveys were conducted. Results of Archaeological Resource Surveys • From all the archaeological resources that were surveyed for this project or that had previously been surveyed, only four have been determined to have potential to yield information important to prehistory. However, further subsurface testing is needed in order to evaluate the information contained by these sites and to make definitive evaluations of NRHP-eligibility. Test excavations at the sites will not be conducted under the auspices of this project since there will be no direct effects to any of these localities. Lands within the APE for which right-of- entry was not granted will be surveyed for archaeological resources at the time of final design and prior to construction. 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences Cultural resource impacts were assessed for each of the project alternatives. The range of impacts may be direct or indirect and short-term or long-term. Direct impacts include the removal or modification of historic properties. Indirect impacts result from the project but are generally further removed in distance or may affect the setting for a historic property. Indirect impacts include visual, auditory, and atmospheric changes in the vicinity of an historic property that affect the qualities that make the property or resource historic. For historic resources, most impacts would be long-term, but there can also be temporary impacts associated with construction of the transportation improvements. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has developed regulations (36 CFR 800) to assist federal agencies in evaluating and mitigating the impacts of their undertakings • on historic properties. Historic properties on or eligible for the NRHP are affected when the characteristics of a historic property are altered. The categories of impacts to historic Historic Preservation 3.15-10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • resources are: No Historic Properties Affected, No Adverse Effect and Adverse Effect as defined in 36 CFR 800.5. As part of the process, the SHPO and consulting parties review the Section 106 determinations of eligibility and effects made by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). For the North 1-25 Draft EIS, review of the effects determinations is being done as a part of this Draft EIS. If the Finding of Effect is that historic properties are adversely affected, then a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be prepared. The MOA would set forth measures to mitigate the adverse effects and would be agreed upon by the project sponsor (FHWA, FTA, CDOT) SHPO and ACHP. Mitigation actions may include such measures as detailed archival recordation of adversely affected historic properties or development of historic interpretive signage. 3.15.2.1 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES This section describes the consequences of the No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B with regard to historic properties (NRHP-eligible or listed historical and archaeological sites). This discussion provides a basis for comparison of the alternatives. For Packages A and B, consequences are discussed by component to allow for the possibility that the Preferred Alternative may include components from each of these packages. Mitigation measures to address adverse impacts of the alternatives on this resource are discussed in Section 3.15.3. All of the build options would entail short-term effects associated with construction of either • package. Short term effects include dust from construction, noise and vibration associated with the construction, increases in roadway congestion and changes in the way people commute around the area. 3.15.2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would generally not affect historic properties. There would still be increasing traffic and congestion in this corridor. The present trend of conversion of many of the remaining historical farmsteads into residential, industrial and commercial development would also continue. 3.15.2.3 PACKAGE A AND B HIGHWAY COMPONENTS Direct and indirect effects to eligible historic properties, including supporting segments of NRHP-eligible linear resources, related to each highway component are described in this section. Some linear resources would be affected by both highway and transit components. In these cases, direct and indirect effects of both highway and transit components are described in this section to facilitate presentation of the effects on the resource as a whole. SH1roSH14 5LR.8932.1 (Larimer County Ditch) Resource Description: The Larimer County Ditch crosses 1-25 approximately 900 feet north of Larimer County Road (CR) 56, south of the town of Wellington. The open ditch crosses . underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road inside two concrete culverts. The earthen ditch segment is approximately 20 feet wide with grassy levees, and traverses rural terrain. Historic Preservation 3.15-11 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Eligibility Determination: In 2001 the Larimer County Ditch (5LR.8932) was determined to be eligible for NRHP. Segment 5LR.8932.1 does not support the eligibility of the greater ditch • resource due to past modifications to its structure at the culvert crossings underneath 1-25 and the existing east frontage road. Effects Determination—Package A: Package A improvements include a wider frontage road along the existing alignment parallel to the southbound 1-25 mainline, requiring a 38 foot long culvert extension to the west side of the existing 35 foot long culvert. A new 40 foot wide frontage road will be built parallel to the east side of the northbound 1-25 mainline, requiring a new concrete box culvert (CBC) crossing of the ditch at that location. The new culvert would place 45 feet of open ditch within a concrete culvert. The length of open ditch placed inside new culvert extensions would total 83 feet. There would be no mainline 1-25 improvements in this area (see Figure 3.15-3). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of 1-25 and the frontage road and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore has determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Ditch. Effects Determination—Package B: Package B improvements include the same impacts as Package A. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 and frontage road and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA AND CDOT therefore has determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Ditch (see Figure 3.15-3). • • Historic Preservation 3.15-12 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-3 5LR.8932.1 (Larimer County Ditch) — Packages A and B LEGEND Historical Resources Packages A & B Resource Impact 4 Packages A & B ROW Boundary 1 PV441 5LR.8932.1 Property Boundary Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert k I , 1 Roadway Features H Retaining wall y i • I .1641 Parcel Boundaries `J Guardrails .i ii VF ,t Existing 1-25 culvert 9/ will remain in place. _ . ♦' ,.✓ is / New 38-foot-long culvert f i extension over West Frontage Road of , ..; r► -- ' III liaVia_ • ., .._. {entesseseessissimity". ._ - _______ .., \\ i?T.Atts:414 a •. i + .. 1li s. New 45-foot-long culvert • " / extension over East Frontage Road y r „. I } 1 sm.a .A. � / 4 f, i .., t / . , , ,N, / NB ). + SB I Location Map r el% .1, i Att itillir 0 200 0 ' � s Feet Norin i Historic Preservation 3.15-13 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5LR.11396 (Einarsen Farm) Resource Description: The historic Einarsen Farm (5LR.11396) is located in the project APE • on the east side of 1-25 at 1320 Northeast Frontage Road. The farm, which was established in 1890, contains an intact barn and hipped roof cottage-style farmhouse. Eligibility Determination: Based on its association with 19th century Larimer County agriculture and the good integrity of the farm structures built during the period of significance (1880s-1940s), this farm has been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Effect Determination—Package A: In this location, the existing configuration of two general purpose lanes in each direction would be maintained, although the northbound and southbound roadways and the east frontage road would be widened to improve shoulders. Under Package A, a narrow sliver of land extending north from East Vine Drive would be permanently incorporated into the transportation right-of-way. This acquired right-of-way would allow construction of wider roadway shoulders and would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historic farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road. This strip of land measures approximately 1,600 feet in length, and 50 feet at its widest extent near the East Vine Drive intersection tapering to 0 feet wide at the northernmost point near the ranch access road. The impacted area is along the edge of a cultivated field and contains 1.76 acres and constitutes less than 1 percent of the total area of the 220 acres within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are near the proposed improvements (see Figure 3.15-4). The historical farm setting was permanently altered in the 1960s by initial construction of 1-25 and introduction of the highway and associated traffic noise. Currently, the farmhouse is • located 80 feet from the east edge of the existing frontage road. With the Package A improvements, the farmhouse would be 70 feet away from the east edge of the frontage road. Noise levels associated with increased Package A traffic levels on 1-25 and frontage road would result in a two decibel increase over existing conditions. This noise increase is barely perceptible. The changes to the local terrain are minimal and there are no highway features introduced by the proposed improvements that would indirectly affect the historic farm or visual context of the farm. Changes in noise and physical setting and atmosphere are not expected to diminish the function, character, feel, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. A temporary construction easement could be necessary along the western edge of the property for haul roads, construction access, and staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this use of the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature, and would not permanently affect the atmosphere of the farm setting. Thus indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities would occur, but would not be expected to significantly diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm, farm structures and farmhouse NRHP- eligible. Due to the small amount of farmland directly impacted, its proximity to the existing non- historic frontage road, and the fact that no historic farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. • Historic Preservation 3.15-14 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Effect Determination—Package B: Direct impacts to this historical farm under Package B are very similar in nature and extent to those anticipated under Package A. A slightly shorter segment of the east frontage road would be realigned and widened. The acquired right-of-way to allow construction of wider roadway shoulders would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historical farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road. The impacted strip of land measures approximately 1,600 feet in length, and 50 feet at its widest extent near the East Vine Drive intersection tapering to 0 feet wide at the northernmost point. The impacted 1.76 acres are located along the edge of a cultivated field and constitutes less than 1 percent of the total area of the 220 acres within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are near the proposed improvements (see Figure 3.15-4). Noise levels associated with increased traffic levels on 1-25 would result in a three decibel increase over existing conditions. While one decibel louder than noise expected with Package A, this increase is still in the barely perceptible range. The changes to the local terrain are minimal and there are no highway features introduced by the proposed improvements that would indirectly affect the visual context of the farm. Changes in noise and physical setting and atmosphere are not expected to diminish the function, character, feel, or attributes that render the farm, farm structures and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. Indirect effects due to temporary construction activities would be the same as for Package A. Due to the small amount of farmland impacted, its proximity to the existing non-historic frontage road, and the fact that no historical farm buildings are located in this vicinity, • FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. i Historic Preservation 3.15-15 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.154 5LR.11396 (Einarsen Farm) — Packages A and B 11 , _ _ . .. .... _ LEGEND ¢ Historical Resources \ lib t 1 Packages A & B Resource Impact I' .ti ' - : - •Packages A & BROW Boundary r' _ I 5LR.11396 Property Boundary '. 3 r j Packages EOP H Bridge Guardrails - r Roadway Features �� Retaining Wall :-1 i Parcel Boundaries As Guardrails yt than t ortr' Ids ! ?Oliva r / rri li fir liin Wirt' siftlki I an._ • „ _ • . A' r, yr, sh tyl .-1, fi , i es rii let vs . y a r 1 ipr;'• PI ;4, it 1 i nil it - "If -.Mt:- ' 1 ' tor A . .. -- ../trir. littlats ,, _ r;31 �' �' , t 1 „„wilt,4 tent O ,.....„ , i c „ ,, • pppir rn . set, • \ i . . • - 11.1. . ., s •� d s , i i Int I , iiii 1 L sad * as„ nit 111 • , • t tier . , ji tAz s_. sr , ? ir4c,„, ;lb ITL-- . i iii ha; . , : .� F- • �'� Area = 76,694 Sq. Ft if 1� 4-1 • f f iri1-' C f •� Acres = 1.76 is._ .-, _ , hrti ' AtitAiii-Miltvit'o •a- --N•. ,r, is tie'en �'' ' ,11 1 et if g• c,t,„-- . ...: P. ` J L 11 A C" • F, Orr " '4,4t ._• Is �, ' 47 i / win, , ,00 i \\_.:: . I. I _ E VINE DR -N. -.:- • — / \ iir• / I II 1 Location Map'-' - 1/Il I r ' I, , , --.- I 0 400 lavi=1 Feet 01 North Historic Preservation 3.15-16 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.863.2 (Larimer and Weld CanalI Resource Description: This segment of the Larimer and Weld Canal generally runs perpendicular to 1-25 and crosses both the highway and the frontage road. The canal was originally built between 1878 and 1881. The canal is approximately 30 feet in width. The portion of the canal that crosses under the highway was altered when the highway was constructed in the 1960s. The entire canal is approximately 45 miles long. The segment in the project APE (5LR.863.2) is 3,782 feet long. The levees along both banks of the canal are grassy and in many areas lined with coarse stone riprap. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The entire canal is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer and Weld Counties. The segment (5LR.863.2) within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination—Package A: Currently, 3 bridges span the canal, carrying multiple lanes of northbound and southbound 1-25, and the east frontage road. Each of these roadways would be widened to add wider shoulders and new acceleration and deceleration lanes associated with the Mountain Vista Drive interchange ramps. To accommodate the proposed improvements under Package A, the existing northbound 48-foot long, rolled (- beam composite bridge improvements over the canal would be widened by 25 feet from its current 38-foot width. The existing southbound bridge is identical to the northbound bridge and would be widened by 20 feet. The existing east frontage road bridge is a 48-foot long, 24- foot wide concrete slab and girder bridge over the canal. It would be widened by 12 feet. All • highway and frontage road widening would be supported on top of the new bridge structures. New bridge piers and abutments used to support the widened bridge deck would be placed outside the historic boundary of the canal and would therefore not result in direct impacts (see Figure 3.15-5). The widened bridges would increase the amount of open canal located underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to increased bridge deck area would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the canal, however; this would not alter the qualities that render this ditch segment NRHP-eligible. Installation of the new bridge piers and deck structures would likely require a temporary use within the boundary of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The canal would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from all encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. No direct impacts to the resource would occur as a result of these improvements. Indirect effects to the canal would not diminish the function, alignment, attributes, or setting that render the canal NRHP-eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer and Weld Canal. Effect Determination—Package B: Impacts are identical to Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would also result in no adverse effect to the Larimer • and Weld Canal (see Figure 3.15-5). Historic Preservation 3.15-17 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-5 5LR.863.2 (Larimer and Weld Canal) — Packages A and B . . 3.- T - -- 1 I III LEGEND ; ■ Historical Resources ■ Packages A & B Resource Impact III J Packages A & B ROW Boundary • 5LR.863.2 Property Boundary 1 ■ • J Packages EOP -5 Bridge / Culvert WI • Roadway Features . .m. Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries J Guardrails - ■ S- ■ r ■ . 1.�__ I 7 - Existing 1-25 bridge would be i I extended to the west 20 feet and to • - ' _ . the east 25 feet creating a wider span • �.. over the canal without directly li " impacting the existing historic • resource. The east frontage road I a . would similarly be widened 12 feet to r , .I the east without impacting the canal. / 1el • i ,Sfp - , • 4.6ods' qr r 1 `� - r4'4r. 1111 - .„, , .. , i „...,•‘,. t. ,f - ,, , ,. ... . . „....„ _ ii ,,, . . , *i ‘ . I. k. . ..., , I. , ,...... # . , . of Sim f • i1 „ i II rkiaill --- ' -:I .-tn. _Lk, Fie reall.....C. , 1- . No Areas Directly Impacted 1 '� r r • I i ■ 1 / ■ .15 t- 7 ,.:. ,j ,.. . , • ■ r , 9 _ 1 I • a ,: ___ , . 1 ■ 1,,, illii, . i,/V.. . 2 , ■ 1 1-. ...1 I 1� r 3 i. �. ■ ♦ I-, rJ \ / II -- Location Map ' „NJ ! ■ itillisiti_ 0 200 , ' ' a :� I Feet North — 1 r! ■ 6 Historic Preservation 3.15-18 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, 5BL.400 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) Resource Description: Multiple segments of the Colorado & Southern (C&S) Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties are located within the APE of the potential highway package improvements. Several different site numbers have been assigned to this rail line, but they all refer to the same overall resource (see Figure 3.15-6). The northernmost railroad segment affected by highway improvements is segment 5LR.1731.2, an 836 foot-long segment of the historic C&S Black Hollow Branch that runs eastward from Black Hollow Junction, which is located northeast of the Downtown Fort Collins Airpark, to Black Hollow in Weld County. It was built in 1906 by the Colorado Railroad Company, a subsidiary of C&S and then absorbed by C&S in 1930. The C&S was dissolved in 1981 and the tracks taken over by Burlington Northern, which in 1995 became the BNSF. The total length of the C&S Black Hollow Branch is 9 miles. The 1-25 alignment crosses the C&S alignment just northwest of the SH 14 interchange. The bridges that carry 1-25 over the railroad were built during construction of 1-25 in the 1960s. The second affected segment (5LR.1327.6) is a 1,661 foot-long railroad segment originally built in 1882 as part of the Greeley, Salt Lake, & Pacific Railroad. In 1899, the rail line became part of the C&S. The segment is part of an approximately 13 mile-long link that extends diagonally from Fort Collins to Greeley. 1-25 crosses this segment of the C&S alignment just south of the SH 14 interchange. The bridge that carries the highway over the railroad was built during construction of 1-25 in the 1960s. The third segment of the C&S line (5LR1731.11) in the APE is also known as the Colorado • Central(CC)/C&S/BNSF Business Spur. The spur is a commercial access spur line running north from the mainline BNSF RR just south of West 151 Street in Loveland. This disused spur is 262 feet long, retains rail and ties, and includes a wooden trestle bridge (5LR.1731.11.mm6028) over the Farmers Irrigation Ditch (5LR8928.7). The bridge is in a deteriorated state. The Larimer County segment 5LR.1731.1 and the Boulder County segment 5BL.400.3 represent the southernmost Colorado Central/Colorado & Southern Railroad/Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad segments in the APE. Segment 5LR.1731.1 runs 7.8 miles south from the Larimer County line to South Pratt Parkway in Longmont. These segments were built in 1877 and have been in constant service for 130 years. The CC/C&S/BNSF runs 23.4 miles generally south from Cherry Street in Fort Collins to the Boulder County line. The entire CC/C&S/BNSF rail line in Boulder County is 33.8 miles long. Eligibility Determination: The entire C&S railroad (5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, 5BL.400) is eligible under NRHP Criterion A for its association with the development of railway transportation. Railway transportation was critically important to the settlement and economic development of Colorado. Segments 5LR.1731.2, 5LR.327.6 and 5LR.1731.1 of the railway retain integrity of the original location, design, and function, and collectively support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. The integrity of segment 5LR1731.11 has been heavily modified and due to this loss of integrity no longer supports the eligibility of the entire railroad. i Historic Preservation 3.15-19 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-6 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, 5BL.400 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) Segments Intersecting Project APE II LEGEND Historic Railroads and Ditches .-� 11Adlinyton '� %/ Study Corridors t -' •.N 85 /�/ Highways �'• /\/ Arterial Roads `�� 5LR.1731.2 �� [_J Regional Study Area I Pierce'` 5LR.1327.6 \., City Boundaries • Fort Collins ' Ault . 4 / a Cities & Towns in Project Area 257 I 4 --ti Iinn'atlt [atv Save ance ' ' 5LR.1731.1 287 .__.. . t .�1 Jmdso Lucerne '1 392 I.ji.6reeleyi . r� 34 i3; . r i 4 .,.i j . • Loveland Gardencav'� ! 34 1 / La Sane .. ; Campion hl' / 6 1 85 i/ . Berthoud ' O Milliken 56 1 l I / ' (Acres( f '' 1 A / l lkka:1 i l — —� F ills 66 I ' onymont 5BL.400.3 I i / lrolhnr. Q I / --1.i. —t FYestone it Niwot —_Q Fredaidtt i I 1 4 52 / . - Dacono Fat lItrpton • Gunbairel 1 I /'I I Erie , 7,6 O Wattent: Boulder -7 t ..T, CaravansNwl \ �- _, _. sy_T—. , 7 itLouisville i --, , H wl tta i ' N. for ( H, 1 _ / _ _ ,,�•. - Eastlake I_ Bromfield11 —� 36 287 T . /- - - .. / �\ - ;' St t _ - \ 1 \�• . / 1/ 1 r . -� �' Denve1�' 70 -- -: d i -j �.n - I i ±1 r 4 / i 4- ‘ \The I t 1 I t 1 Miles North �_;,- II _ "1 \ r 1 ME,Dto.m.nt (N 175 Map Tempw._1201'l nrt01 1/18/7067-1 37 711 IN Historic Preservation 3.15-20 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire C&S Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties. Impacts to segment 5LR.1731.2—Package A: 1-25 is currently carried over this historic railroad by two parallel, 125 foot-long, 38-foot wide welded girder composite bridges for the northbound and southbound traffic lanes. The existing bridges result in a combined 76 feet of overhead railroad coverage. The existing east and west frontage roads are provided with at- grade railroad crossings. Package A in this location consists of a transition area from three general purpose lanes in each direction on the south to two general purpose lanes in each direction on the north. The northbound 1-25 roadway would be widened to the east of the existing roadway edge, while the southbound roadway would be widened to the west of the existing roadway edge. Wider bridge structures would replace the existing bridges to accommodate the larger roadway template. These new bridges would each be 79 feet long and 63 feet wide, constructed as pre-stressed concrete girder type structures. Due to their wider dimensions, an additional 50 feet of railroad would be covered by the two new highway bridges. The frontage roads would remain in their current locations and would be maintained in their existing at-grade railroad crossing configurations (see Figure 3.15-7). The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed. The entire widened 1-25 roadway would continue to be carried over the historic railway on top of the new bridge structures. The new bridges would be supported by piers placed outside the historic rail corridor boundary (railroad right-of-way) resulting in no direct impacts to the historic railway. Installation of the new bridge piers and deck structures would likely require a temporary construction easement on the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The railway would remain operational and would be protected from all encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The widened bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck by 50 feet. This increased overhead cover due to a wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, this minor impact would not diminish the qualities that render this railway segment NRHP-eligible. No direct impacts would occur. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. I Historic Preservation 3.15-21 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-7 5LR.1731.2 (Colorado & Southern Railroad/ Black Hollow Branch) — Packages A and. _ B 41 LEGEND Historical Resources Packages A & B Resource Impactill �• . Packages A & B ROW Boundary 5LR.1731 .2 Property Boundary Packages EOP H Bridge /Culvert • a .- MIME Roadway Features F. Retaining Wall IParcel Boundaries Ana, Guardrails r r f T r �1 • • .f r r r w' r } — ei ; 1 . . a.— ray . 1. ._. r r . Existing bridges . Existing at-grade crossing ism i i - - - , pr :a ti`te - Existing at-grade crossing i . t H (r`� ! (E Sr f i : -tr. e ria-- ' .9,41‘43M.r."'• : • `. Fhi a ea - • I I 1 _ , ) ,: : x. ,_ _.... I,4, 1 c ,e_. . . _. t„,,,, , _ . . .. _ , __ t . „ , T...... . i, i , sisai • , _ r— . . agipiai • %Itti , I1 No Areas Directly Impacted r t �'it4 II �`a Eir w 1a • i 1 ,.. ,'j4 ii u K. I is \ 1 j Iklf t r r N ` ' / - '1, \ _ - — Ii Locatio -I - i : '� \ 0 200 \\ ` i I Feet North l l II Historic Preservation 3.15-22 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5LR.1731.2—Package B: The changes associated with Package B at this location are similar in character to those associated with Package A. In the vicinity of the historic railroad, Package B consists of a transition area from two general purpose lanes plus a buffer-separated managed lane in each direction to a section containing only two general purpose lanes in each direction. The northbound roadway would be widened to the east of the existing roadway edge, while the southbound roadway would be widened to the west of the existing roadway edge. Wider northbound and southbound bridge structures would be required to accommodate the larger roadway template. These new bridges would each be 79 feet long and 63 feet wide, constructed as pre-stressed concrete girder type structures. The frontage roads would remain in their current locations and at-grade crossings would be maintained in their current configurations (see Figure 3.15-7). The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed. The entire widened 1-25 roadway would continue to be carried over the historic railway on top of the new bridge structures. The new bridges would be supported by piers placed outside the historic rail corridor boundary (railroad right-of-way) resulting in no direct impacts to the historic railway. The widened bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to a wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; but would not alter the property's historic function or alignment, nor diminish the character or attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Construction access across the railway property may be required for installation of new bridge piers. This temporary direct impact would not diminish qualities that render the railway NRHP- eligible. • The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to Segment 5LR.1327.6— Package A: Presently, 1-25 is bridged over the historic rail line via two 172-foot long, 3-span welded girder and concrete bridges for northbound (B- 17-BC) and southbound lanes (B-17-BD). The existing northbound bridge is 44 feet wide and the existing southbound bridge is 38 feet wide. Under Package A, the 1-25 template would be widened approximately 60 feet on the east side of the existing highway to provide space for the overall expansion of the highway footprint to accommodate three general purpose lanes in each direction. The expanded 1-25 section would require replacement of the old bridges with new, larger bridge structures to span the rail line. The southbound bridge (B-17-BD) would be demolished and replaced in approximately the same position. Bridge structure B-17-BC would be demolished and the new northbound bridge would be constructed approximately 30 feet east of that location. The northbound bridge would be 208 feet long and 63 feet wide, and the southbound bridge would be 218 feet long and 63 feet wide. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers would be placed outside the historic rail corridor boundary. The frontage road would be widened approximately 12 feet to improve paved shoulder width. Where the frontage road crosses the railway, no changes to the road width or alignment are planned. Package A would result in no direct impacts to this resource (see Figure 3.15-8). Historic Preservation 3.15-23 D NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-8 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) — Package A II .... 1 �. _..�. -- . �� LEGEND 1-- --_----� Historical Resources t Package A Resource Impact I Package A ROW Boundary , 5LR.1327.6 Property Boundary - Package A EOP H Bridge ir Culvert Roadway Features F. Retaining Will • - ,3 \ • —741 Parcel Boundaries �� Guardrails , I ilLs.N.NNNNisi...H, _.._ . • z _ 1irImp -4= tP 11. i \ • 1 a .. 1 • . _. . _ • _, ... . . ._. , A 0 i.. u I \\ t L tkii -,...._ ....„, 1 t . \ as' i^_� . ‘ yI • io, No Areas Directly Impacted Existing bridges would be g. ; fi replaced with new bridges bc�. \ i I cIF • ." • it I\ I :.•.e 1 • NI _ r' : • y ; I _4 1 r r • ' F a A ..\r... . i elm • r ti 1 ."•m i t wr 1imimimio__ • . � • i/% - N 1 t. •• j - • Location Map: , ; i 1 u o 200 VA1 . .I Feet North s .r.► , Historic Preservation 3.15-24 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The larger bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck by approximately 44 feet. This increased overhead cover would constitute an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway, however; because the existing setting includes the modern highway and bridge spans, Package A improvements would not substantially impair the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. • Installation of the new bridge piers and decking structures would likely require a temporary construction easement on a small portion of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The railway would remain operational and would be protected from all encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and any affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. No direct impact to the resource would occur as a result of these improvements. Indirect effects to the railway would not substantially diminish the function, alignment, attributes, or setting that contribute to the historic integrity and render the canal NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5LR.1327.6—Package B: Under Package B, the 1-25 template would be widened nearly 100 feet to the east and approximately 12 feet to the west to accommodate an 8-lane highway template made up of two general purpose lanes and two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing bridges spanning the historic rail line would be replaced by new, longer bridge structures to carry 4-lanes in each direction. The northbound bridge would be 201 feet long, and the southbound bridge would be 183 feet long. Although the dimensions of the Package B bridge replacements and highway widening are larger, the effect to the railroad is the same as described under Package A. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers would be placed outside the historic rail corridor. No direct impacts would occur to the resource (see Figure 3.15-9). The larger bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck by approximately 80 feet. This increased overhead cover would constitute an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway, however; because the existing setting includes the modern highway and bridge spans, Package B improvements would not substantially impair the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Installation of the new bridge piers and decking structures would likely require temporary use of a small portion of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The railway would remain operational and would be protected from all encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. S Historic Preservation 3.15-25 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-9 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) — Package B 41.s .sin .•=Ma as ma flit as a a } e LEGEND . Historical Resources ' r4� 14111 Package B Resource Impact TiPackage B ROW Boundary 5LR. 1327.6 Property Boundary ' . Package B EOP H Bridge /Culvert . ' J Roadway Features —4 Retaining Wall \ 1: ' r - ---- J s, a Parcel Boundaries Guardrails I . 7 644.101.10411 \ . ki \\ .- # .. . . r • . ,. _ 1,., A , ... . , . . , , . . , . _. . . ,, .. . .. ._ _ . _ ,. , \ , - 4 \ ‘‘ • . \\\\ Nv , , r ., I__. _ Existing bridges would be ' \ \\Iii _ ` - replaced with new bridges r • ., \\ N , i \i 11111/4 -a \ . 4-4v>vel . „Ai, r \\1111L wt. .44. _ - t ` • No Areas Directly Impacted `•�i � 1 I CI ti illill: \ \ ,i : . I .... ( . 1 _ - .. , ; \ „ . ' . :i .. ' : . , , : _,, / ‘\ I, ' \\ \11' - : P •Location Map, rrti, ,\ l i r. 1 ` p ll0 200 iimil I Feet North Historic Preservation 3.15-26 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5LR. 1731 .1 —Package A: Commuter rail transit stations would be ID. developed at five locations along this historic rail line in the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland . These stations would include new station platforms of concrete flatwork at track level , American with Disabilities (ADA) compliant high-blocks (short raised platforms for wheelchair access to trains), various minor station amenities (trash cans, benches, etc), and pedestrian overpasses/underpasses (see Figure 3.15-10). Figure 3.15-10 Typical Commuter Rail Station Design and Cross Section N♦ ti , - y 'IC is l f 1.1 . r Vi` •. \ , - 1,^ !fir 4:4 � �..A fr. ..:4/t . ~ y� ryJ! "� I IrTell ItillitaasH. le AWL li [741 sae 4111 _ . , _ . _ _. _ _. _ .. . . - - _ __ ... Asir b w ._ • .. _ - , 19. 8,• 5. 411., 25. 5. 4" 19' 8•• PLATFORM PLATFORM /\ /N ' _ Cr - - V r i__ - 3 --t ,, 't. ' r I li t TRACKS TRACKS 50' I 50' I PARK-AND-RIDE • Historic Preservation 3.15-27 D NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The historic resource is comprised of the ballast, bed and track. In all of the station locations the existing rail line would remain in its current (historic) alignment, and thus no direct impacts would occur. Wooden and iron/steel pedestrian train crossing bridges were common elements of major railroad stations of the early Front Range railways. Pedestrian bridges and ADA components, building layout, and parking facilities proposed under Package A would, however, introduce a modern design element into the historic setting. Modern station infrastructure would be considered an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, it is not expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Because there is no direct impact associated with this property, a figure is not provided. Impacts Segment 5LR.1731.1 — Package A: The Package A commuter rail would be located east of the existing spur line and would not directly or indirectly affect the switching or track of the spur. There would be no change in the current configuration of the railroad spur or trestle bridge crossing due to commuter rail improvements in Package A. Because there is no direct impact associated with this property, a figure is not provided. Impacts to segment 5BL.400.3 — Package A: Commuter rail facilities would be developed at several locations along this historic rail line in the Longmont vicinity. In all cases the existing rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render • the railroad NRHP-eligible. Because there is no direct impact associated with this property, a figure is not provided. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges at localities along the corridor would affect two segments of the railroad (5LR.1731.2 and 5LR.1327.6). Commuter rail stations and new track along the transportation corridor would contribute to new, but visually compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting of two other segments (5LR.1731.1 and 5LBL.400.3). Taking all of these indirect impacts at specific localities into account, the proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the entire linear resource eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in a no adverse effect with respect to the entire linear resource (the C&S Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties/ 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, and 5BL.400). Package B: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges at localities along the corridor would affect two segments of the railroad, 5LR.1731.2 and 5LR.1327.6). Taking these indirect impacts into account, the proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have • determined that the Package B transit improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire linear resource (the C&S Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties/ 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, and 5BL.400). Historic Preservation 3.15-28 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.11393 (Rudolph Farm) Resource Description: The Rudolph Farm is located at 1028-1100 Southeast Frontage Road on the east side of 1-25, a short distance south of the existing SH 14 interchange. The property is associated with the Rudolph family who acquired this land in 1915. The homestead contains an intact historic farm house constructed in 1923, and several agricultural outbuildings. Eligibility Determination: The Rudolph Farm contains well-preserved examples of agricultural architecture in Larimer County, and retains its historic agricultural setting. The farm structures were built during the period of significance for agriculture in Larimer County (1880s- 1940s), and exhibit very good integrity. The property is therefore eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination — Package A: Currently, the closest farm building is located approximately 57 feet from the edge of the frontage road and 103 feet from the edge of 1-25. Under Package A, 1-25 would be widened to accommodate three general purpose lanes in each direction for a total of six traffic lanes. Package A roadway modifications would cause the frontage road to be replaced by new 1-25 highway lanes. To maintain the existing 1-25 elevation in this area, the new highway lanes would be slightly elevated from the frontage road elevation. The resulting fill slope needed to elevate this portion of the roadway would extend 28.5 feet away from the edge of the roadway into the western edge of the historic property boundary. Of this encroachment, only a 2.5-foot 4111 wide strip, 1247 feet long, would actually involve property owned by Rudolph Farm. The remainder is existing CDOT right-of-way. The closest farm building would be approximately 70 feet from the edge of 1-25. The fill slope would result in a re-grading of the existing terrain with no change in ownership or farm use. The directly impacted 2.5-foot (0.14 acre) strip of Rudolph Farm land would remain available for use by the farm in the future (see Figure 3.15-11). The east frontage road, which currently provides access to the historic farmhouse from SH 14 on the north, and from Prospect Street on the south, would be removed. Under Package A, primary access to the Rudolph Farm property would be provided from the north end of the property, connecting an existing unpaved curvilinear driveway from an unpaved east-west farm road directly to SH 14. This new connecting road leading to the existing entry at the north end of the Rudolph Farm would result in direct impacts from conversion of approximately 0.13 acre of farm land (including part of the original farm road) to re-orient the northern access driveway. The total direct impacts would constitute 0.27 acre, which is less than one percent of the 111.42-acre farm. The changes proposed under Package A should not alter the visual or auditory setting substantially. Moving 1-25 33 feet closer to the farm buildings would result in a one to two decibel noise increase, but continuous background traffic noise from 1-25 is already present and noise levels would not increase perceptibility. The historic setting of the Rudolph Farm • was altered by construction of 1-25 and the frontage road in the 1960s. The changes resulting from Package A including removal of the existing non-historic frontage road and expanding the 1-25 pavement along the farm's west side are not expected to diminish the qualities that render the farm historic. Historic Preservation 3.15-29 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Removal of the east frontage road, widening of the 1-25 mainline, creation of a new connection to the farm's existing north side driveway, and temporary construction impacts along the farm's f west edge would not diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, 1-25 would be widened, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. Although more lanes would be constructed, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way. 1-25 widening would eliminate the existing frontage road located along the east side of 1-25. The closest farm building would be 57 feet from the edge of the new 1-25 lanes. Impacts under Package B would be roughly similar in nature and extent to Package A, with the exception that a wider, 36-foot wide strip of land would experience direct temporary impacts along the farm property's west edge. Of this strip of land, the eastern 10 feet width or 0.27 acres is actually within the legal farm parcel boundary and the remaining 26 feet between the legal boundary and the frontage road edge is CDOT right-of-way, all located inside the historic farm boundary. This new fill slope would produce direct impacts to approximately 0.27 acre of the historic farm property. The fill slope would result in a re-grading of the existing terrain with no change in ownership or farm use. The directly impacted strip of Rudolph Farm land would remain available for use by the farm in the future (see Figure 3.15-12). As was the case under Package A, an additional 0.13 acre of land including part of the existing AR north driveway would be subject to direct impacts, in order to construct a new access from the interchange to the farm driveway (see Figure 3.15-12). The total direct impacts would be 0.40 acre, which is slightly greater than the area directly impacted under Package A but still comprises less than one percent of the 111.42-acre farm. The changes proposed under Package B should not alter the visual or auditory setting substantially. Moving 1-25 46 feet closer to the farm buildings would result in a one to two decibel noise increase, but continuous background noise from 1-25 is already present. The changes resulting from Package B including removal of the existing non-historic frontage road and expanding the 1-25 pavement along the farm's west side are not expected to diminish the qualities that render the farm NRHP-eligible. The direct impacts caused by proposed transportation improvements and indirect effects from temporary construction impacts associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-30 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 111 Figure 3.15-11 5LR.11393 (Rudolph Farm) — Package A . l0 tt , fill J III III III LEGEND Historical Resources '`. - ./ Package A Resource Impact is 40., 7 li IL Package A ROW Boundary . 5LR.11393 Property Boundary , 1 Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails It- Emir Roadway Features ..0 Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries An, Guardrails eltr , f.- r' tLt I 4 1 IA J. i or _ _100 ,Fir' s 'i. . 411 nor! 1110044404. . n . t: . .: .i rit-,16 Aoilift\ i *i w -4 Area = 5,630 Sq. Ft 4 . Acres = 0. 13 k litt, I . . , . 24117 I *- ', , 1 • . th_cyl' `\r_r + k , ' _S_- • . . fi . , \ ( . , I ..ter % e I ' Q+ i -= Area = 5,886 Sq. Ft ' I �" � Acres = 0. 14 I-,, f t ' r'N. --. ✓.. _ ; _7_,,\ , ,/ i + , , N • ,y« KLocation Map I I ( •n r-, r 1 1 Ill0 200 0 \\ ,_ ' t i Feet North “NI%Ilk., -0- faiiiiiibilkillOilaiiiiitiS Historic Preservation 3.15-31 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-12 5LR.11393 (Rudolph Farm) — Package B Ill viral [ all ( 1 . Q 1 I LEGEND I • 1 it ! .„_ Historical Resourcesa. 14 ti Package B Resource Impact _ Package B ROW Boundary 1 1f 5LR.11393 Property Boundary I v ■—U Bridge B EOP Guardrails Roadway Features ..... Retaining Wall � Parcel Boundaries �J Guardrails ' i "* i It i 'r• I et If 4t •• • r C +5 re A tittr I� _L - - le 4 r ' 4 r ! .0 - fft II f It at Area = 5,630 Sq. FtII tit •- Acres = 0. 13 vat Illiv 0 Ai a. . t Iv w T W i '+ } i 1 tt ik , 1 ;2: ': cj.� �. ' u r ` T l 1. -:rte. �.i. p Area = 11 ,823 Sq. Ft i Acres = 0.27 , ____,,t, . _ .., , ,, I V I �- l/ ' I -.••- `• . _ - I \ ,j, L tINNN\N _ . Location Map. ; i rat. r--N „ 0 200 .Z\ Nttlimmeimiliii_ . . . i�� l Feet North II Historic Preservation 3.15-32 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation• . 5LR.11409.1 (Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet): Resource Description: The entire inlet ditch was built as part of a larger irrigation system developed in 1892. The ditch is 10 miles long ending at Cache la Poudre Reservoir. The ditch crosses 1-25 approximately 1,400 feet north of Prospect Rd. The ditch crosses 1-25 at a drop box running east under 1-25, and continues southeast terminating at a point where the ditch parallels Prospect Rd. This well maintained segment is 3,750 feet long, 36 feet wide, and 10 feet deep. The ditch segment is concrete lined and contains a modern drop box, control house and complex system of gated box culverts that are interactive with Lake Canal. The ditch traverses cultivated fields, and is sporadically lined with riparian habitat of shrubs, willows and cottonwoods. Eligibility Determination: The entire feature (5LR.11409) is eligible under A and C, but this segment (5LR.11409.1) is non-supporting. The Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet is eligible under A for its associated with period of intensive development of successful agriculture. The inlet ditch is significant as part of engineered water storage and delivery system associated with corporate irrigation projects in Colorado prior to the sugar beet industry. This segment is non-supporting due to modifications including piping under 1-25 and other improvements. Effects Determination—Package A: Package A would require an extended culvert at STA 4050. A 75 foot long extension of double CBC farther east of the existing culvert outflow and a 10 foot long extension west of the intake at the same double CBC would be needed to carry the widening of west frontage road shoulders and the widened Prospect Road interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp (see Figure 3.15-13). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 ramps and frontage road and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT, therefore, have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. Effects Determination—Package B: Package B would require an extended culvert at STA 4050. A 75 foot long extension of double CBC farther east of the existing culvert outflow and a 10 foot long extension west of the intake at the same double CBC would be needed to carry the widening of west frontage road shoulders and the widened Prospect Road interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp (see Figure 3.15-13). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 ramps and frontage road and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore, have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. w Historic Preservation 3.15-33 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5LR.995.4 (Lake Canal) • Resource Description: The canal crosses the 1-25 corridor south of SH 14. The segment is unlined, 4,116 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 10 feet deep. It spans Boxelder Creek via an elevated flume and parallels the west side of 1-25 for 654 feet before intersecting the Cache la Poudre Inlet (5LR.11409.1), passing over it through a gated concrete flume. A short distance farther south, the canal passes under 1-25 in a concrete culvert, its waters mingled with the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet (5LR.11409.1). Eligibility Determination: The entire ditch (5LR.995) was assessed as ineligible in 1983. This segment is non-supporting due to modifications including piping under 1-25 and other improvements. Effects Determination—Package A: Impacts to the Lake Canal are the same as the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. Package A would require an extended culvert, 75 foot long east extension of double CBC and a 10 foot long extension west at the same double CBC intake resulting in a total new culvert length of 460 feet (see Figure 3.15-13). Effects Determination—Package B: Impacts to the Lake Canal are the same as the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. Package B would require an extended culvert, 75 foot long east extension of double CBC and a 10 foot long extension west at the same double CBC intake resulting in a total new culvert length of 460 feet (see Figure 3.15-13). S w Historic Preservation 3.15-34 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 -- October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-13 5LR.11409.1 (Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet) and 5LR.995.4 (Lake Canal) — Packages A and B r LEGEND ` �' T!• ' Historical Resources `' i Packages A & B Resource Impact .4 am F Packages A & B ROW Boundary 5LR.995.4 & 5LR.11409.1 Boundaries r. f i ■ :cr-- ,i I 1 Packages EOP E... Bridge / Culvert .0 , . /' Roadway Features ■....■ Retaining Vgall •� NBCIP Parcel Boundaries `,� Guardrails 4 ,, , t ■ I SB „ A is 'eStjr71.”IS"..itintest "RI I:41. : II a nom`#' It':' La C .�Y • , ,,..��4y ke; anal tea„ . • 't + ■ ., of ■ c. • I • . • Mr ' 4' II y ` C t - 1..2-- 1 .. ilt a co IN AL J N i , Isik . , , I ilir so, 8 - , Ilk ni • it , di 1• - ' , I ■ --1 111 iiii in w. a s 5� iiyy��,, ` ■ s: - - . . X ■ (Total length new 11410. .4 10-foot culvert • l / culverts 460 feet extensions \ • t , 4iferc. t '� ►', I / Dual 75-toot-long culvert extensions lv.ct,tr-7 ; . % L e ,. pa..., 375-foot-long '� .. 44 culverts under 1-25 i \ N-. _ _ ` \ l� . f ryr 100110 \ T j / A Location Map „, - ,. / iiiiiihist . . . 0 200 /\ imipet r I Feet North j;4 il_______----74".-. I It Historic Preservation 3.15.35 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 5LR.11391 (Gallatin Farm) Ilk Resource Description: This property, located on the east side of 1-25 approximately 0.75 mile northwest of the town of Timnath on CR Road 40, contains a historic wood frame dwelling constructed in 1925. The house is a side-gabled Bungalow-type structure with wide overhanging eaves and a projecting, front-gabled porch featuring a balustrade railing. The dwelling is surrounded by mature shade trees. Five small outbuildings, including three sheds, are located on the property. Eligibility Determination: The Gallatin Farm (5LR.11391) is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as a well preserved, representative specimen of a rural Bungalow type dwelling in Colorado, surrounded by its historic agricultural setting. Effect Determination — Package A: This 2.6 acre property is located east of an active rail line, and all proposed improvements to 1-25 in this vicinity are located west of this rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Gallatin Farm. Effect Determination — Package B: This 2.6 acre property is located east of an active rail line, and all proposed improvements to 1-25 in this vicinity are located west of this rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Gallatin Farm. 5LR.2160.1 (Boxelder Ditchj Resource Description: This segment of the Boxelder Ditch crosses 1-25, Harmony Road, and the northbound highway ramp at the Harmony Road interchange. The earthen irrigation ditch is approximately 12 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under the existing roadways was altered when the highway was constructed and routed through a steel pipe culvert. The ditch was originally built in the mid-1880s. The entire ditch is approximately five miles long. The recorded segment in the project APE (5LR.2160.1) is 3,194 feet or approximately 0.6 mile long. Grassy vegetation covers both banks of the ditch in most areas. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The Boxelder Ditch (5LR.2160) was officially determined to be NRHP-eligible by the Colorado Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) in 1996. The ditch was re-evaluated for the North 1-25 Draft EIS as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. The segment within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, design, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination—Package A: Under Package A, the I-25/Harmony Road interchange would be modified, including widening of the on- and off-ramps. Boxelder Ditch is currently enclosed inside a pipe underneath the existing ramps, fill slopes and mainline 1-25 traffic lanes. To accommodate construction of a new southbound off-ramp from 1-25, which would be situated 90 feet west of the existing ramp alignment, a 75 foot-long section of the open Boxelder Ditch would need to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the ramp. The remainder of the ditch IIP located within the area proposed for Package A highway improvements is already piped under (- Historic Preservation 3.15-36 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 25, the northbound onramp to 1-25, and Harmony Road, and no new direct impacts would occur in those locations (see Figure 3.15-14). A small direct impact would occur where the ditch would pass beneath a new property access road on the southeast side of the interchange. This new access road is a cul-de-sac, required to replace the existing access from the abandoned east frontage road. A total of 62.5 feet of open ditch would have to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the proposed cul-de-sac. Installation of the new culvert would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to the original condition and appearance. The two box culverts required under Package A would enclose a total of 137.5 feet of open ditch that retain integrity, but would not alter its historic alignment. These direct impacts constitute less than one percent of the entire length of the Boxelder Ditch, and would not significantly diminish or alter characteristics that render the ditch eligible for NRHP, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination—Package B: Impacts are identical to Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would also result in no adverse effect to the entire Boxelder Ditch (see Figure 3.15-14). S Historic Preservation 3.15-37 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-14 5LR.2160.1 (Boxelder Ditch) — Packages A and B 11 Y... •• 11 , i. «_ LEGEND 'S 1,1 Historical Resources II III �� /:Ir is _ ` rr in Packages A & B Resource Impact II II v „? Total impacts to ditch : 137.5 feet Packages A & B ROW Boundary i 11 II` 4 5LR.2160.1 Property Boundary 11 II II d. Packages EOP H Bridge /Culvert I ' `- - -- Roadway Features FI Retaining Wall I _ _ Guardrails II II _� Parcel Boundaries �r Open ditch placed , inside extended culvert; r II III 75 Linear Feet Impacted r, ?7 it I' II II II Ii �kit} 1 7 II I II ,� II Cs _.-r II ,,11/44. --1,r;-t--—.- .- IL .... . t ! II I1 ' ; Existing culvert .�M 1� -. ,,. I I I I = ti r'' . , f ''ii 7 . ,, ............. E=HA'RMONY_RD — __ . r ----------------______, 1 ______ ___ ____.‘r , ;- - - - - ) , . r :', ritlii, ' 'A._, f'if'iP i ' , ,, «: 1 • Li _. S. \\• . { ` I i > 1 i 't r t x- Existing culvert / - 0 t it ' Ate . i )--- 1 ! I - I I — 1/ i ' i / Open ditch placed r , inside new culvert; I ' 62,5 Linear Feet Impacted ii , \• il t �i 7 ;. Location Map 0 300 Llie I Feet II North I Historic Preservation 3.15-38 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.11390 (Cline Cottage) Resource Description: This historic dwelling is located on East CR 38, just east of the Cache la Poudre River. This is an intact cottage built in 1915 in a historic agricultural setting, and is owned by the descendents of Thomas Cline, an early Timnath settler in the 1860s. Eligibility Determination: This historic building retains very good integrity, is an excellent example of rural residential architecture from the early 20th century, and is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, Harmony Road (East CR 38) would be widened approximately 20 feet to the north along the east side of 1-25 to accommodate turning lanes at the interchange ramps. The widened segment of highway would taper down to the existing roadway width just west of the Cache La Poudre River. The widening of Harmony Road would not result in direct impacts to the property containing the Cline Cottage. The distance from the existing Harmony Road (East CR 38) edge to the historic cottage would remain unchanged, resulting in no direct or indirect impacts. The Package A improvements would not diminish the architectural and other qualities which render the property NRHP-eligible, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Cline Cottage. Effect Determination — Package B: Improvements proposed under Package B in the vicinity of the Cline Cottage are identical in nature and extent to those associated with Package A. No direct or indirect impacts to the historic property would occur. The improvements associated with Package B would not diminish the architectural and other qualities which make the property NRHP-eligible, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Cline Cottage. 5LR.8930 (Louden Ditch) Resource Description: The ditch was originally built in 1871. The entire ditch is approximately 23.25 miles long. The excavated earthen ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. Two segments of the historic Louden Ditch are located within the APE (see Figure 3.15-15). Segment 5LR.8930.1 crosses 1-25 and the existing frontage road at LCR 30 East. The portion of the ditch that crosses under 1-25 and the frontage road was placed within a culvert when the highway and frontage roads were constructed in the 1960s. The documented segment in the project APE (5LR.8930.1) is 3,316 feet long. Heavy riparian growth exists along the northwest banks of the ditch. The remainder of the ditch has been dredged within the project area and no vegetation is present along the ditch levee. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. The second segment 5LR.8930.2 of the Louden Ditch crosses 1-25 and the existing frontage road. Here the earthen ditch is approximately 8 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under 1-25 and the frontage road was altered when 1-25 was constructed in the 1960s and the ditch was placed inside a CBC. The segment occurring in the project APE (5LR.8930.2) is 200 feet long. Both banks of the ditch areas are lined with grassy vegetation. The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930) is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Both segments have experienced modifications near the highway, but much of the ditch remains in its original alignment. This ditch segment retains Historic Preservation 3.15-39 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Both segments (5LR.8930.1 and 5LR.8930.2) were found to retain sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Louden Ditch in Larimer County. Impacts to segment 5LR.8930.1 — Package A: This segment of the Louden Ditch is presently conveyed beneath 1-25 inside a box culvert measuring approximately 260 feet long. At this location, Package A involves re-alignment of the I-25 northbound and southbound lanes approximately 90 feet to the east of existing highway and widening each direction from two lanes to three lanes. The new corridor footprint would include relocating the east frontage road farther east of the current alignment. To provide adequate space for the re-aligned northbound lanes and east frontage road, an additional 225 feet of open ditch would be enclosed inside a box culvert underneath the new roadways. The new culvert would be extended from the end of the existing box culvert located on the east flank of the existing east frontage road. LCR 30 on the west side of 1-25 would be rebuilt along the same alignment, although the template would be widened slightly to the north. The west frontage road would be abandoned south of the interchange. A new road (Byrd Road) would run south from LCR 30 and is functionally intended to replace the west frontage road. At this location the historic ditch follows a parallel course close to the south edge of existing LCR 30. A 91 foot long segment of open ditch would be enclosed inside a new box culvert to pass beneath the new Byrd Drive connection to LCR Road 30 (see Figure 3.15-16). Historic Preservation 3.15-40 Draft EIS • NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 110 Figure 3.15-15 5LR.8930 (Louden Ditch) — Segments intersecting project APE I LEGEND * Historic Ditches • ---"—" —. 'gto' AlStudy Corridors l �'-. /s/ Highways 071 / . ' ,� � /\/ Arterial Roads ~i - ® . [J Regional Study Area • / Place '\ Collins Fort � City Boundaries F r ,, a Cities & Towns in Project Area I ait 1 _�t -.$ . !Jill \t I i fimntr, O Eat1—ver awe 1. — k 2$7 ;Vindscr 5LR.8930.2 1I lucerne \ 392r 5LR.8930.1Greeley t �_63 - • Loveland I i e - - ha-- Evans j i / 4 la Salle . / •r • .4,44..4WYI = ichnstann / a 85 // i lierth:Ai:! O Milliken t_ I 56 • Gila Bstr I • C, s/ 66 ._ __ -. I I 1 I ; r LongmontI ' . / , Line • I yollmar 0 f � 5 % 0 F7estona I Niwor 0 Frederick I -• r a Cwcono Fotlucx: 9 -2 , ,• _T . O Gu,banel .♦ 0 ` I Ir,.. ( + 0 76 t i { -- i V fe 1Nattenbag I._ Boulder ��ar afayene ►,Iwl \-- i Louisville t tr �. RUN, a 1 7 for N. th—Eastlake • i &norttrietd / - , icorthgte n `___ , ' '! 287 0 hxnton L. I i \•• l I ' /rt • • r _ \--N • Denver..• ,/i t- _ �.ileICI ♦ J�� V V I / f 0 2 4 6 8 10 i a 4111 , ' ' ' ' � Miles North jlJf _ i_ ) ,1\,_,...\ 44k\\ i--Al .- mop[vam.nt (N!.25_Ma0 t.rout._"m+c+,m.01 V18/2007-t 57 24 PM Historic Preservation 3.1541 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Construction of the new culverts would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would possibly be temporarily diverted during construction, but would remain operational. Ditch waters would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The direct and temporary impacts caused by placing a total of 316 feet of open ditch into a new box culvert extension on the east side of 1-25 and a short culvert beneath Byrd Drive do not affect its historic alignment or function. Impacts to segment 5LR.8930.1 —Package B: The impacts to the Louden Ditch under Package B are the similar to those described for Package A. Re-alignment and widening of 1-25 highway lanes and the east frontage road in Package B improvements would have a 45-foot wider configuration east of the existing frontage road. This results in a 45-foot longer section of open ditch on the east side of 1-25 being placed inside a box culvert extension under the new roadway. The ditch impacts caused at Byrd Drive would be the similar to Package A. The total direct impacts to the Louden Ditch caused by Package B improvements are 270 feet of open ditch to be placed in a new box culvert extension on the east side of 1-25 (as opposed to 225 feet under Package A), and 87 feet of open ditch to be placed beneath the proposed Byrd Drive (same linear distance as Package A). Package B would create total combined direct impacts to 357 feet of open ditch as opposed to 316 feet of open ditch under Package A. Temporary effects from construction activities would be the same as in Package A (see Figure 3.15-17). The direct and temporary impacts resulting from Package B are similar in nature but slightly greater than those resulting from Package A, and do not affect the ditch's historic alignment or function. Impacts to segment 5LR.8930.2— Package A: None of the proposed Package A commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: No impacts to segment 5LR.8930.2 from proposed commuter rail improvements; however, 316 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert in segment 5LR.8930.1. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be permanently compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in an adverse effect to the entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930). Package B: 361 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert in segment 5LR.8930.1. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be permanently compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B transit improvements would result in an adverse effect to the entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930). • Historic Preservation 3.15-42 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.15-16 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch) — Package A LEGEND s� t s _ E ii.-1. i M 1. � 1 Historical ResourcesIA r� •,..., Package A Resource Impact I \ " , a , , ,, Package A ROW Boundary l` ,� , l ,74 .0.--„--_,;,,, _ I +i :c:a:::: pProPi:e , cuivett _ �•, I4Au A Roadway Features .... Retaining Wall I --�. . k , _I Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails --1 + a e.y ` 1 r t Ili ri I____._ .1,,,, *till -" . l. 1 i. LE: ' II i .r• 6 i s I �: . 6 , ..,I' • - Op -.Th.\. 141 1 r , . _ • .,,, •• . ........., et ,71lle si '‘,.‘,„, . . ,..„ . . . . . _ _ (57 .,,,„,,,_: ,,, . , gr. . - - 1-, ...„ , __, r .c.4.---4._ T S - � t»� - � � __r eat `s A y j of • i .1 ig r a, . Existing culvertOil L 1 ' T^ ii ' • , verat //...... 'AT\ .,,,c, s ` j Cr` 4 . ( • .fir tai:' '� ,-�, l • _ran., : -. ELCR30 ,, _ r'' ii,„ - ___ ___ _ _ . :.. , ., , : ,..;A, 1 1 2. � .., • , . .a Open ditch placed •1 ' s t ,::41.0"- sit o inside new culvert; - {.. • i II 91 linear feet impactedf. r. - r �, 41,-;_. 7a F air 1 j Open ditch placed .' \ inside extended culvert; • ' f \ 225 linear feet impacted , rU ` i I `R i 1 ) sH. i -.. -: rt. t: F / . /` Total impacts to ditch • ' 1 of 316 linear feet ' I `y"' ti ql, . pa / DMA _ I = / .. -/ . I ' f___, • Location Map - -- Fn: � T 1\ Vt III 0 300 Q l I r I Feet North • l� Historic Preservation 3.15-43 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transpo 1 rtation. Figure 3.15-17 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch) — Package B LEGEND 'f, % = `. Historical Resources I tom. , l• ' � + a Package B Resource Impact ,: i l Package B ROW Boundary , s y I. ; f III i 5LR.8930.1 Property Boundary i, ' . r/ I Package B EOP H Bridge / Culvert - m w .� .� 1 Roadway Features • Retaining Wall ! — . — 1 Parcel Boundaries `j Guardrails % +� _ • 1 - .` i � • L* t -- \ t C217 �, ir _, 4 • I-- ID .10141 cif j x so. ,1 ',t,1 / L - •ii ,, , -r• 4 . . Existing culvert I: I Nj______ _____.-- !II �, E;L�C :34�... I ftl it's , '.Y+ _ I f s'. ' z i. Irc. 12 . 1 r I , ., . . , , c. , ,. Open ditch placed inside new culvert; i; 87 linear feet impacted . Vie I 4 r ' 111I i Open ditch placed inside extended culvert; 1 `N 270 linear feet impacted I. - ` l I '' 't '.''1 1 ., ' • , , , :-...;1 .- - --.\ 7 r,, II � ' ! Total impacts to ditch I of 357 linear feet II l , h t. r II N J II location Map � , • II °N IIG 300 0 i Feet North , � I Historic Preservation 3.15-44 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5LR.1815 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) Resource Description: The total length of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Fort Collins Branch rail line is 25 miles. Two segments of the rail line are located within the APE (see Figure 3.15-18). Segment 5LR.1815.2 is a 1.81 mile long segment of the historic railroad. The 1-25 alignment crosses over this segment of the railroad alignment just north of the US 34 interchange. The active railroad segment traverses open farm land throughout its length and runs parallel to the Loveland and Greeley Canal (5LR.503.2) along part of this route. Segment 5LR.1815.3 is a 1,053 foot-long segment of the historic UPRR Fort Collins Branch. US 34 crosses over the railroad alignment just east of the 1-25 interchange. Eligibility Determination: In 2001, the UPRR Fort Collins Branch (5LR.1815) in Larimer County was officially determined by OAHP to be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of railway transportation, which facilitated the settlement and economic development of Colorado. Both railroad segments in the North 1-25 APE (5LR.1815.2 and 5LR.1815.3) retain sufficient integrity of original location, design, and function to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire UPRR Fort Collins Branch (5LR.1815). Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.2 — Package A: 1-25 is currently bridged over the historic UPRR rail line via identical 158 foot-long, 37-foot wide concrete bridges for each of the northbound and southbound lanes. Under Package A, the 1-25 template would be widened on the east side of the northbound roadway and on the west side of the southbound roadway to accommodate four general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The existing bridges would be demolished and would be replaced by two new, 174-foot long, 75- foot wide bridge structures to span the rail line at the same general position as the old bridges. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers and abutments would be placed outside the historic rail corridor, so that no direct impacts would occur to the resource (see Figure 3.15-19). The larger bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck. Because these bridges replace existing modern bridges within the 1-25 transportation corridor, the indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway is not expected to further diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Installation of the new bridge piers and deck structures would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The railroad would remain operational. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. • Historic Preservation 3.15-45 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-18 5LR.1815 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) — Segments Intersecting Project APE 111 I LEGEND /s/ Historic Railroads and Ditches I Iron /%/ Study Corridors �L f de-..• j 8� "/ Highways L_ t •,, ic /\/ Arterial Roads \ i S [-J Regional Study Area ! Matt• .'\ City Boundaries ! Fort Collins \ / o Cities & Towns in Project Area a Ault 257i l Icnreth ti O En' i Seu+a,re ' I 287 it,4'rini5U �� I 1 Ltxeme t1 392: r 5LR.1815.2 l • �` Greeley 1 I a 34s I ,;rcki,O,tv ,I� Lavclan,l � --15741— % i T�_ [vans i / L., S:,,ie . ! 1.Y11Ih:Y.. • 5 ,tom •�.,,„ ..„6'tl 5LR.1815.3 - """_` ' �- `: Bcathaud 6Q 0 , 8J // � � 156 �% ,% I Meal II .� I -_ l a;te;�lk -- I is I �." onynumt f re T ti /. - 0 t,,estor e %O 207 — 9 ftcaaick I 1 , )<Z f 0 t:xono fart Lugo, I �2., / Gmberrel i , M tr j Erie • ii 1 1 watte, 9 Boulder: ii 0 Ii.�iis tale 'mu Louisville 1 9ightor. / . % � l .� _ Q t.1. It': - tunfield • I / r , ©u, 1-- _ . I �_ 36 _ fa m \` �. p -1,, r., vti �` �� I Cl . / f ., 1\J 9 — } �\ li / I �'\ �1 / - ,- - . ji ,, 1 . 1 Dettver ....,--- v\i t 0 2 4 6 8 10 / \ t ' ( . •A S\ ) I I I I I I Miles North -- )\........ ,, , M•t 000s.wnt PO. w 2t .n_r«.wwr_+$ ow II tae o wVItJQ7-t 37 nom 3 Historic Preservation 3.15-46 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-19 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) — Package A t LEGEND r Historical Resources jii Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary 5LR.1815.2 Property Boundary Package A EOP H Bridge /Culvert • Roadway Features I.. Retaining WallWi 1 Parcel Boundaries L—, Guardrails 1 4., The existing 1-25 bridges would be demolished and replaced with 2 new 38 foot wide bridges at approximately the same location as the old bridges i.\\:„ • k Iss„: aAmi No Areas Directly Impacted , la k\ .; i III talk& _-3' ` joil.o. ' �yL ( l__ / r I ...__ ww r. li / . .IlCIIi- , _ la . (N B' I 'SB I iii Location Map V s - i u l r \ 1-,... i 1 �. e i . VN t 0 300 __ I i�� Feet North ill S Historic Preservation 3.15-47 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.2—Package B: Under Package B, the northbound and southbound 1-25 roadways spanning the historic railroad would be substantially widened 411 (approximately 96 feet on the east side of the northbound roadway and 104 feet on the west side of the southbound roadway), in order to accommodate a new template containing two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing bridges carrying 1-25 over the railroad would be replaced with one wider and longer 174-foot long bridge structure. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers would be placed outside the historic rail corridor. No direct impacts would occur (see Figure 3.15-20). Indirect and temporary construction effects would be the same as in Package A. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.3—Package A: This historic resource crosses US 34 over 700 feet outside the construction limits of the proposed Package A improvements. No direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.3—Package B: The (lack of) effects to the historic segment of the UPRR under Package B are the same as Package A. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality within the North 1-25 APE. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would occur at segment 5LR.1815.2. The proposed transportation • improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire UPRR Fort Collins Branch (5LR.1815). Package B: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality within the North 1-25 APE. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would occur at segment 5LR1815.2. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire UPRR Fort Collins Branch (5LR.1815). Historic Preservation 3.15-48 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.15-20 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) — Package B LEGEND Historical Resources Aigigi Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5LR. 1815.2 Property Boundary Package B EOP H Bridge / Culvert Roadway Features f.■ Retaining Will F 1 A Parcel Boundaries A, Guardrails 40 S , a ■ The existing 1-25 bridges spanning the ■ railroad will be demolished. They would be replaced by a single 75 foot wide bridge. SiThe new bridge will span 101 feet more It ■ railroad than the existing 2 bridges. ■ • • 11/4111 ■ Firfal L's, "-"I i . -. Ii` Is ■ 8,. ; ■ ■ 1 No Areas Directly Impacted 1 . "547 i . ) le 0 :11.111 I' i r - r I Location Map ,; s I ■ 0 300 0 ■ • imimmiiil Feet North - , • . _ _ . Historic Preservation 3.15-49 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 5LR.503 (Loveland and Greeley Canal) Resource Description: The canal was originally built in 1861. The entire canal is approximately 31 miles long. Two documented segments are in the project APE (see Figure 3.15-21). Segment 5LR.503.2 of the historic Loveland and Greeley Canal crosses 1-25 as well as the parallel frontage road is 2.62 miles long. The canal is approximately 39 feet wide and 26 feet deep. During the construction of 1-25 in the 1960s, the original canal alignment was preserved but the integrity of the canal in this location was compromised by placing it within a CBC under the highway. The three- sided, pre-cast CBC measures 23 feet wide and 402.6 feet long. Both banks of the canal are grass-covered, and riprap is used for bank stabilization in many areas. The area surrounding the canal segment includes retail and residential development. The earthen ditch segment 5LR.503.4 follows the historic channel alignment through the old town area of Loveland. The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Eligibility Determination: In 1984, the Loveland & Greeley Canal was evaluated by OAHP as NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important contribution to agricultural development in the Loveland area. The Loveland and Greeley Canal is nearly 150 years old and evokes the historic agricultural era and conveys the important contribution that irrigation canals made to local history. Segment 503.2 retains physical integrity except where it was placed in a culvert beneath 1-25. Segment (5LR.503.4) retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented • below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Loveland and Greeley Canal in Larimer County. Impacts to segment 5LR.503.2 — Package A: Package A involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing three general purpose lanes in each direction for a total of six traffic lanes. Although more mainline travel lanes would be constructed on 1-25, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way without affecting the existing culvert conveying the canal underneath the highway. A new US 34 interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp would be constructed outside the existing highway right-of-way and would cross the Loveland and Greeley Canal east of the existing culvert opening. The existing box culvert must be extended an additional 70 feet on the east side of 1-25 and the north-bound 1-25 on-ramp would be built over the top of the new extended culvert (see Figure 3.15-22). Construction of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access. The ditch would likely be diverted temporarily during culvert construction but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from construction- related sedimentation. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. • Historic Preservation 3.15-50 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The 70 foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under Package A would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment. This change would affect only a small fraction of the 31 mile-long channel, and would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have therefore determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Loveland and Greeley Canal (5LR.503). Impacts to segment 5LR.503.2—Package B: This Package involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. Although more lanes would be constructed, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way with the exception of a new US 34 to north-bound 1-25 onramp. Effects to the historic canal are the same as would occur under Package A, and involves extending the existing three-sided CBC beneath 1-25 an additional 70 feet to the east to accommodate the proposed new 1-25 onramp. Temporary impacts due to construction of the US 34 ramp and installation of the new culvert would be the same as for Package A (see Figure 3.15-22). Impacts to segment 5LR.503.4—Package A: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: The 70 foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under Package A would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter • the canal's historic alignment. This change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Package B: Although 70 feet of canal with integrity on the east side of 1-25 would be placed in a culvert extension, this change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render the canal eligible for the NRHP, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-51 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-21 5LR.503 (Loveland and Greeley Canal) — Segments intersecting project APE I I LEGEND ( * Historic Ditches _.-1 VVellinglon #%/ Study Corridors .e / Highways '� _ �/\ , /\/ Arterial Roads [J Regional Study Area I 1C(1 � Nat" \, City Boundaries ! Q Fall Collins vAtm � o Cities & Towns in Project Area I 27 i � 1 I . 1 I nl 0 7 1 L. ii 28 .... ; 392' 5LR.503.2 Greeley ''i • I • It---------F-631 �. 34 ` , "I""'�'`f � 1 'GadsiCity I Lovelmd - 3 34 5LR.503.4 - ____ _ ____ - Earls - -- i la Salle < r a [ampo Johnstown / ' , 85 ✓/ I Fy_r•hor.w.. • Milliken / L-i ` I Gikrest I I A / II 1 l;ea, r _I__ _w Platteville 66 I i UIl(]III(Inl I� I • k,n,e •Xi:l` % a Fo[ t"xw % 3 N?r.oi 87 O Frederick , I f Oxmo Fat Lugo' :i • 76 a I .Ir ' Oranenbera_ 'Boulder I 7 �4 I -Lafayette_. I 7 . Louisville I • • ex\ ply; , �� Suoen cr Cr - N. I . -_1 T , ". Broom}ierd - - _ --...` I N. 36 287 r' 9 Thor Mal - I ' ...._CC ice. F ` < it / i ,- •1 I rr .. 1- ; Deriver•—r 70 '----- -j"---1 - I ® I ! •• i ,$ I $! I _.1� Va!ull�iN: i i ,, • 0 2 4 6 8 10Miies North II M.p c mod ,N 4$3-M�1M.pN11-40100 171.11;v10/7007-1 37 29 PM Historic Preservation 3.15-52 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 ik October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-22 5LR.503.2 (Loveland and Greeley Canal) — Packages A and B 9 I a - - LEGEND 1 (--A .II \ Historical Resources ■ "' le ■ Packages A & B Resource Impactil ■ Packages A & B ROW Boundary ■ 5LR.503.2 Property Boundary • ■ Packages EOP H Bridge /Culvert I ■ 4 t ■ r Roadway Features ill... Retaining Wall ® c � ■ Parcel Boundaries �, Guardrails ■ ■ 1 a. ■ I .� 6 14111 .. I VF etifr I . • • 1 ■ ti ••■ e t \ \ .. lr_\ • ` r fee Existin culvert ■ a= 4 g f, r I I ■ r- r 41"4 :lc • „r t'. \ tZ , I - . ,,,.. ,, ,' Open ditch placed inside extended culverts; v: Li 70 Linear Feet Impacted 4 • '4 r r, r i _%,911).." P.n. . _. _ as: fi t J. IP ir . Asp, . is er I . t it W l 1 M' h I Ir..1 I ft. i , \ 6 N - .. �- _ to 1 'N _ }°� - •, _ ` , n IP / t- . • •. Location Map 1 - ; 1 _. • } "' A al - ,. IA. , i_ 1 �. ,�� - II VN 0 200 _ ' _ •" t I Feet North . e • e , I I r s _ _ t r Historic Preservation 3.15-53 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 5LR.8928 (Farmers' Ditch) • Resource Description: This irrigation ditch was originally built in 1864. The entire Farmer's Ditch is approximately 15 miles long. Three segments of the ditch are present within the APE (see Figure 3.15-23). Segment 5LR.8928.1 of the Farmers' Ditch crosses 1-25 parallel to US 34 in the vicinity of the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. Here, the earthen canal is approximately 16 feet wide and 1.5 miles long. The levees and banks along both sides of the ditch are grass-covered. The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Segment 5LR.8928.2 is the portion of the irrigation ditch west of 1-25 and within the northeast quadrant of the interchange to where Farmers' Ditch crosses US 34. The ditch has been lined with concrete, realigned and modified by commercial development and the construction of 1-25 and US 34. The segment is 1.8 miles long. Segment 5LR.8928.7 of the historic Farmers' Ditch generally runs perpendicular to 1-25 and crosses the proposed Package A commuter railway alignment. The earthen ditch is 151 feet long and 9 feet wide. Grassy vegetation lines both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes industrial and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928) is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.7 retain visual and structural integrity within a semi-rural setting, and both segments support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5LR.8928.2 of Farmers' Ditch has been modified to the point that its remaining features no longer support the eligibility of the entire resource. •Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928). Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.1—Package A: Under Package A, the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a CBC would be conveyed an additional 65 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overly the ditch culvert. Figure 3.15-24 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway improvements would result in temporary impacts to the ditch. A temporary construction easement may be acquired. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.1—Package B: Under Package B, the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a CBC would be conveyed an additional 65 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overly the ditch culvert. Figure 3.15-24 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction impacts would be the same as those for Package A. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.2—Package A: The Farmers' Ditch segment 5LR.8928.2 runs parallel to the north side of US 34 until it reaches the west frontage road of 1-25 where it flanks the north side of that roadway as an open ditch for several hundred feet. The ditch enters a pipe where it crosses underneath the west frontage road, 1-25, and 1-25 ramps. The ditch • remains underground, inside a culvert pipe, until it daylights at the east frontage road. Historic Preservation 3.15-54 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Under the Package A improvements, direct impacts to the ditch would occur in four places along this ditch segment. Direct impact would occur at two locations on the west side of 1-25 where this historic ditch parallels the north side of US 34. Approximately 1,225 feet of open ditch west of, and an 1,090-foot-long stretch of open ditch east of Rocky Mountain Avenue, lies within the proposed wider US 34 roadway template. The open ditch would be encased inside an underground pipe to allow construction of the wider pavement and side slope. Two direct impacts would occur on the east side of 1-25. These include a 115 foot-long portion of open ditch on the northeast quadrant of the I-25/US 34 interchange, which would require the ditch to be encased inside a culvert beneath the proposed new northbound 1-25 on-ramps. A short distance farther to the east, the same ditch flows under US 34 inside a CBC. Proposed widening of the US 34 roadway in this location would require culvert extensions of approximately 44 feet on the north side of US 34 and 65 feet on the south side (5LR.8928.1) of US 34, totaling 109 feet more open ditch that would be conveyed inside a concrete culvert (see Figure 3.15-25). Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway improvements would result in temporary impacts to the ditch. A temporary construction easement may be acquired. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.2—Package B: Package B improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange as well as US 34 and the Rocky Mountain Avenue intersection would result in very similar direct impacts to the historic Farmers' Ditch as Package A (see Figure 3.15-25). • Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.7—Package A: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: Ditch segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 would experience temporary construction impacts during culvert installation and highway construction activity. The direct impacts to these same segments cumulatively amount to 2,539 linear feet or 0.48 mile of open ditch requiring placement inside underground pipes and box culvert extensions. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment in much of the I-25/US 34 interchange area has already been compromised by numerous culvert installations, realignments and other modifications and no longer supports the qualities that make the entire ditch NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA AND CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928). Package B: The proposed transportation improvements would result in temporary and direct impacts identical to those associated with Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B transportation improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928). • Historic Preservation 3.15-55 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-23 5LR.8928 (Farmers' Ditch) — Segments intersecting the project APE III LEGEND * Historic Ditches -k A/ Study Corridors ..,< "es . = 1.. , Wellington ' ., �. : 'i i• "/Highways�,,,, /\/ Arterial Roads '`,i• k •I — Eger , LJ Regional Study Area i .\,le 7City Boundaries ' Fort Collins �\ • Cities & Towns in Project Area . Au"ii: 1 s t 1 I Tmnath l 0 Eats: 5LR.8928.2 : . i �. ti'/niG;r S 392 . Lute;I i i . i I 34 i t • Garden City' f —s---- 7i LovelandLR.8928.1 Lvtin„ • 5LR.8928.7 I la aae . :� '• ₹ Campion iciinsw i t 8er hood I I a Millik, 85 / LI • • / s Gila i i / I' I i I Meaa i1 ..� Platteville 66 1 -i Jt,rir/� 1 l _:� tingmont , I r- _, ` �— — T— lone I IIHrI /' •'�r•' Vol lmar 0 i / v (restate j Niwo '- Hill Frederick 1 f + •i 'halo Fat lu,rto•I �i -- '" L' Gut artel i ' - r 1 _ • Etie-- l 76 i a , Wattenberg Boulder 7 , l g — j_ . -talavette`►nl,_ �� I 'V �i'1 Laliswlle1 -la - Etghton : -- je iice t • • SN..,„,. ' -Eastlak e e-� . --�- Broomfield 9 I ''‘.. tin Northglein \. get°t 7 Thom()) / L t� / • 72 ,- .\ - --. , : , :, I nver •• i� / � 70tame A ) • !f1 ,0 2 4 6 8 16 North1 ` •_..� �� -STh�--} I I Miles 1 1 AMP DOarwr�1 M 4n M&te.rplal,_tvnro m.01 I U19,19A7-1 37 19 PM Historic Preservation 3.15-56 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ID Figure 3.15-24 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch) — Location Map 4„. ma, le v.,1 _ J' I j ! f1!u! t1'Resources •//0. ,_ . ,_ . y.: I , f',.�' • Package A Resource Impact rawy"- ' t � i c IS rPackageAROW Boundary . t$:c: 5LR.8928.1 & 5LR.8928.2 Boundariestrefs--=1 0 i t Location Map Boundary H Bridge/Culvert e—,— * -_ I i k' �__ - `. Roadway Features tttl—� Retaning V46N ti '•� b, i `_t} _ 5LR.8928 Z Guardrails --1-.. "---1"-- • • ' — = "' 4t..ir- i 1 ;L:Parcel Boundaries `� = ��~� i `_ t . ( t ) -ti i , .• P I t r + ; irk-1 i 1 I I 1 ll .. i 1 . . rial r f :,, t : !, 1 \ 11 t, ta ii ♦ I. • - x.: _ f . � _- s 34 I. i { _ ( tent. . Jr. 'f �1 t i C j Cd • OD st ll . c : i se i i i s t7. a ; i1 Location Map V V , - .'• 0 700 ^ ,a...� ---' ' ' Feet ! \ _,,.- E LCR 20E .-- North _ I f ' . S Historic Preservation 3.15-57 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-25 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch) — Packages A and B ilsk\\ LEGEND J Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact ° 1 Package A ROW Boundary 41 fit . 115 Linear Feet Impacted y F 5LR.8928.1 Property Boundary isk, ' i . iiii. w.; 4 Package A EOP H Bridge / Culvert L-'a ' Roadway Features II—. Retaining Wall It 44 Linear Feet Impacted IParcel Boundaries 46.A Guardrails 419 0114- tt, .pit 4 • r Nib: , 4. ..3. 44 VP Li - ' 65 Linear Feet Impacted 1 , _ , it 1. ,, , e .„,,,. ...., 4.1 160.• 06 •.... 6: 411 • allar I. tte 11/4 it - - : 4 ay 6.1 ..„ a a bi . ..... ' W1 ,225 Linear Feet Impacted r f ,, 1I jilt Y TIO i ref A . liailp s . ; .; II II I -.IIIIIIIIIIII(liali Ijal 4 allegiallalliii,„ 6 i • --- • \ 1 . ... __ a__ -�.� _ li a._ . 1 MI. 1 juk _ � %-- .. 34 - .. . .,...s1.:---- .b- 'f __ _ _ . },'=.-'i' may . .- .: � c;xsL_il''!li1�i��+.� �M+-t.leaFrt=:3Bld.:riiJ1 I .. : �' , 1. .mil ` _ `` �4 �•• A. .. G. a i. 4 4 ri r` or Pr i % �,. . a 1 ,090 Linear Feet Impacted -- . 4 '" imp- r P4 i ,-Ifs; �� ' ! ,j a. Location Map - nest.m. i �� Ill g a .-.- - - - - - _ . 34 -- 0 3Q0 . . Mk *AIL I Feet North —V- - Historic Preservation 3.15-58 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farml Resource Description: The Schmer Farm is located at 5464 East US 34 and dates to the early 1900s. The 124- to!:ti t.acre property is a fairly completeu1� example of a Larimer County farm from • _ the turn of the century. The farm is " operational and includes a well � preserved farmhouse, barn and c f, r, outbuildings. Eligibility Determination: This historic farm is NRHP-eligible under Schmer Farm Criterion A for its association with early agriculture in the Loveland area, including sugar beet cultivation. It is also NRHP-eligible under Criterion C for containing excellent examples of agricultural architecture. Effect Determination — Package A: This historic farm would be directly impacted by proposed improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with Package A. Direct impacts to the site would result from the construction of new interchange ramps, including long curving, elevated ramps from westbound US 34 to southbound 1-25, and a new southbound on-ramp from eastbound US 34 on the southwest quadrant of the interchange, replacing the existing loop ramp. Land taken from the farm would be necessary to provide a foundation for support piers for the new elevated flyover ramps between US 34 and 1-25. Additionally, land would be needed from the farm to allow • construction of fill slopes used to support the widened highway lanes and near-grade ramps, located just west of the existing southbound on-ramp. Construction of these new ramps would create direct impacts to as many as 5.09 acres of land along the east edge of the property. Another small area of direct impact would occur west of the farmhouse, where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse, gas station, and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange. A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be directly impacted in this location. The combined 6.61 acres of open farmland subject to direct impacts under Package A amounts to approximately 5.3 percent of the total 124-acre occupied by this historic farm. No direct impacts to the historic farm building complex along US 34 would occur under Package A (see Figure 3.15-26). Under Package A, traffic noise is expected to decrease approximately four decibels from the No-Action Alternative levels in the vicinity of the Schmer farmhouse due to shielding of highway traffic noise by the new on-ramp in the 1-25 interchange. The on-ramp which brings westbound US 34 traffic directly to southbound 1-25 is elevated 30 feet higher than the existing highway feature in the area and introduces an additional transportation element into the setting of the Schmer Farm. Transportation features have been part of the rural atmosphere and setting of the Schmer Farm since the 1960s, when Interstate 25 and US 34 were completed. The new indirect effects to the farm setting would not substantially impair the function, setting, or architectural qualities that render the farm NRHP-eligible. The farm would remain operational and would be protected from encroachment during construction. The transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT • therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Impacts from Package B are similar in nature to those expected under Package A. This historic farm would be directly impacted by proposed Historic Preservation 3.15-59 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with Package B. Direct impacts to the • site would be slightly larger than in Package A due to the additional managed lanes on 1-25 creating a slightly wider highway footprint. Construction of these new ramps would cause direct impacts to as many as 5.48 acres of land along the east edge of the property. . Another small area of direct impact would occur west of the farmhouse, where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse, gas station, and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange. A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be directly impacted in this location. The combined 7.0 acres of open farmland subject to direct impacts under Package B amounts to approximately 5.6 percent of the total 124-acre occupied by this historic farm. Indirect effects would be the same as for Package A (see Figure 3.15-27). The transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-60 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Ill Figure 3.15-26 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm) — Package A �i ' t...at _t I LEGEND i • �I I I Historical Resources a . ._ I a /14; I . Package A Resource Impact r 1 ,. Package A ROW Boundary a 4 + , \ , • : \ i b, 5LR.11209 Property Boundary , i ' Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails ' a' _ ,_ s: \ Roadway Features Mrs Retaining Wall I, .t .- M, '_.- - I Parcel Boundaries �, Guardrails ' \'ii,• 1 i i s I I ill ra- - - - ..7%....c- a`-7.:_ • , ..ii " . " M.• r I orra I. !it O.i . • -. ' i '1 LS!. r r t , i 41 It ALI if 1 � ._� !i4ç- iJp' Area = 66,341 Sq. Ft \ �/ \i 1 Acres = 1.52 1! • I i � , (IA; 14 1 Il ' i fit: 1 j ✓?) �I , 1• • . .- . , .:. _. ., ,il. i If r ti. l 1 L. • '- Area =221,661 Sq. Ft 1 li f I3_It • Acres =5.09 1r a I ( I ,., , 'p = ' r 1 1 _.a All I r, �, i11� .13 FS: - .r-j I I f:. ' '•i'"1- - i Indirect effect to farm setting caused I i by elevated ramp structures. I � ; '1 • 8 ! ; Ramps would be at least 30 feet ' i' i "' >+ -`�' higher than existing roadways. i ' *' :pit ? { II I j" M S� . ' . __ _ .F� l ', I I EI 4 - :At i location Map 1m - i II , . ., Irrti._ r� I i tilt ....., ------ Lam. E lit 20E tiltB'IIIIIII I� I I 0 400 D IIMMMS=I Feet North ' I I ! 1 r � • Historic Preservation 3.15-61 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-27 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm) — Package B 111 LEGEND ". r .. . . ` " ._.: • �; • 'iIiI x t ti }111 Historical Resources t f 1 + I M t 1 alPackage B Resource Impact •t I I 1 Package B ROW Boundary ti • l' _ - . ' I . 5LR.11209 Property Boundary ` ' ` R ; •$ , `._ I I Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails • 4.�� 1. `� i► , \ Roadway Features U . Retaining Wall la ' ''"S es; -�._' _ - I if '' 1 I I I 1 I Parcel Boundaries `a Guardrails is - �+t. ! tl • i III 1 I 0. .-- / i I iit 01 II _ h1Ilhvr I -� - - - • .- -- '_ Rd . At . \ 1; I? ti. ti ; I t 1 it tI , Area = 66.302 Sq. Ft l l h Acres = 1 .52 • 11 l VI Il ILI lIl !. l illy i IIill ; II ��I,t ► i i Ill ' r 1 i� ii • 1 ill I , Ill 1 " ' ivArea = 238.569 Sq. Ft i I I I l I • Acres = 5.48 ' t. 11 1. -i. I= I . It Indirect effect to farm setting caused by I Ii ; ! "' , elevated ramp structures. I l ; i ei irth s Ramps would be at least 30 feet higher J i , , I than existing roadways. i — I I VP � _ / I location Map - , 0 400 - _ ≥�_ : •INIIIMMONIMINe E LCR 20E- 11111 '111111111 II Feet North iiiIIIIPON. it i I`' `i' I it t I 6 Historic Preservation 3.15-62 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514 (Great Western Railway) Resource Description: The total length of the entire historic Great Western Railway (GWR) is 110 miles. Six segments of the GWR resource in Larimer, Weld, and Boulder counties pass through the North 1-25 Draft EIS APE (see Figure 3.15-28). The 15.7 mile-long GWR Loveland to Buda section (5LR850) was built in 1902-03 by the Loveland Construction Company and contains Larimer County segments 5LR.850.1 and 5LR.850.5 as well as Weld County segment 5WL.841.11. Segment 5LR.850.1 is approximately 1,241 feet long. The GWR is conveyed over 1-25 in this portion of the APE by a non-historic bridge. Segment 5LR.850.5 is approximately 551 feet long. Segment 5WL.841.11 is the first end-of-track point for the Loveland to Buda section, and the portion within the project APE is 784 feet long. The GWR Johnstown to Liberty section was built in 1905-1906 and is 12 miles long. Within the APE in Weld and Boulder Counties this section contains segments 5WL.841.9 and 5BL.841.1. Segment 5WL.841.9 is 1,241 feet long, and segment 5WL.841.1 is 784 feet in length. The Boulder County segment (5BL.514.1) of the GWR Johnstown to Longmont section was constructed in 1903, and is approximately 2.1 miles long. Eligibility Determination: The entire GWR, in Larimer County (5LR.850), Weld County (5WL841), and Boulder County (5BL.514), is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important role in the economic development of the Colorado Front Range. All of the segments passing through the APE (5LR.850.1, 5LR.850.5, 5WL.841.11, 5WL.841.9, 5WL.841.1 and 5BL.514.1) retain sufficient integrity of location and association to support the • eligibility of the entire linear resource; however, those portions of the railroad spanning 1-25 have been modified and have lost integrity of design and workmanship by being placed on a bridge during the 1960s. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire GWR (5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514). Impacts to segment 5LR.850.1—Package A: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans 1-25 via a non-historic 210-foot-long steel girder railroad bridge. Package A involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing three general purpose lanes in each direction or a total of six traffic lanes. In order to accommodate this wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over l- 25 with a 295-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 85 feet longer than the existing structure spanning 1-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge (see Figure 3.15-29). • Historic Preservation 3.15-63 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-28 5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514 (Great Western Railway) — Segments Intersecting Project ect APE IIILEGEND 1 LI "/ Historic Railroads and Ditches l . Wettngton ' Al / Study Corridors , - _j /N/ Highways 287 //1 /\/ Arterial Roads � Pierre , [_J Regional Study Area \Th. p I: City Boundaries Fort Collins \� /� i a Cities & Towns in Project Area j e F — P �� 14 / 257 \f 1 �ctn,.t�p, If I 287 5LR.850.5 La_r, ri ! v:r \ 392 S Greeley r, 1, tovelai I ii' ' C i 5LR.850.1 ,,=t. /: 1 La Sane . r I - ramp; JdnvitLye t / —_ -Y. tBertharl 0 1tiL iS i, 8� / 1_4 5 - 5WL.841.11 / I k:rt II ', sea:, 5WL.841.9 i I ' i I ' ung nt L.n� I 56L.514.1 �, :, a a • - - 't't , mite ' wott 7 0 rre.lt?iuk / Pts-O"-I ra+. L pc 1 ._ i i le fit-r - I..t.`Boulder I - - I ` i' Louisville I sightrr, ; - L, Saler '� � EaSi�akE - ` �� 1 &oont field • , �� 36 287 p Nnenn / -- _fi / 1 �� 0 Thomtm 5\ \ / �... DerryeI�% may I ® 1 • /•--�........ I ;�' / 2 4 6 8 10 I Miles North r J )1\---- -.N.‘-\- ---1 CI ........,, ,...i.„...„......_,..MO) tnvmo*-tyr29t. Historic Preservation 3.15-64 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-29 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway) — Package A LEGEND Historical Resources Jj I ` Package A Resource Impact I .. t _ rl Package A ROW Boundary , 5LR.850.1 Property Boundary • l I i r...1 Package A EOP H Bridge /Culvert 1 Roadway Features . . Retaining Wall j Guardrails . -. 4 Parcel Boundaries �J 1 • • 41- •_ I _ _I• r r Location of existing bridges • {t .l H • R 94 • C �_r'=. `' % L I r , • .. .t ilt... " ... __. . _ . .• ' , , + ' r Ti is' 7^ '. -• , , . 1 J, _..-J1 }. to r-E LCR 20E , • • ' ' ,,,y ' w - ;all 150,13_ set I,I ...10.4......thh Sap. AS Y . _ i - .., 85 Linear Feet Impacted, , i, 85 Linear Feet Impacted ,i. ass _ . b iii ilk, _ 4- • --• h " f alill ilk • fl . //` 4. . t C ' / \ .y "If 1 . •IT, XI all f i . 1 i I tHw.1. illitie i `` * - r I ' New bridges would replace the existing bridges over the " " ` railway. / . To construct the new bridges, a "shoo-fly" structure i .+1 ; • would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the • ' north side of the exsting bridges. i -.• i The track impacted by this "shoo-fly" are indicated in red. �� /' } is I • / •\ •' / ( , J u .a . \ " ' ocation 4 Map L -•• t •• 0 200 Q J.- r I Feet North R L` *Let to- ...r 4• ' AI Historic Preservation 3.15-65 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-30 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway) — Package B I -- t i . - LEGEND Historical Resources Mil Package B Resource Impact • j Package B ROW Boundary I 5LR.850.1 Property Boundary I j Package B EOP mi..... Bridge / Culvert . , 1'+ Roadway Features fifff�e Retaining Wall 5` a",.A-...)• IParcel Boundaries `j Guardrails i i i t , I I ,ii ' 1 i r' i .. , • I I I Location of existing bridges . - Y pi q F I ' I I o 111 . .__ . ..,,_ , • --sir - �*.-gill • s' a 1I , - / - (7i=.. - '� ^ _ - • a - --- •if - -. liiiiiiiiiu?Ir ' 's • ,vim Ill ` - ■al/ , ..1 ,4 : ' 1 �: It ,,. 120 Linear Feet Impacted • i 120 Linear Feet Impacted _ Fir • • S • t • A:ll st: i• * ,i 7-", . d - _ . y'~"11 New bridges would replace the existing bridges over the s , , • "` .,,,,,i_ i _� �' - railway. -.13-'7011 . . I. till l- , To construct the new bridges, a "shoo-fly" structure — - . \ - I • would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the • north side of the exsting bridges. , ti vt,r _f/ �'• ,� - The track impacted by this "shoo-fly" are indicated in red. e•,\ /, 4 i ,„ Locattion Map �` —i- . - f ,t s.- S. • rT� f� 1 LmmilimJ Feet NorthIsetit. i 9 Historic Preservation 3.15-66 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • In order to replace the existing bridge with a longer structure, it would be necessary to construct a temporary "shoo-fly" structure, whereby a section of railroad would be temporarily re-aligned to cross 1-25 on the north side of the existing railroad bridge. This measure would prevent a disruption in rail service, while the old bridge is demolished and the new bridge structure is being constructed in its place. A new rail crossing would be constructed north of the existing bridge. The shoo-fly structure would require altering the existing historic railroad grade at either end of the existing bridge (approximately 85 feet at each end to provide a smooth transition to the new alignment), curving to form the bypass of the existing bridge. Once the latter step has been completed, the shoo-fly would be removed, and rail traffic would be restored to its historic east-west alignment. The bridge replacement under Package A would place an additional 85 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of 1-25 on a bridge, only 85 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be altered by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans 1-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to segment 5LR.850.1—Package B: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans 1-25 via a (non-historic) 210-foot-long steel girder railroad bridge. Package B involves widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes • plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. In order to accommodate this much wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over 1-25 with a 330-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 120 feet longer than the existing structure spanning 1-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge. Similar to Package A, construction of a shoo-fly would be needed during construction (see Figure 3.15-30). The bridge replacement under Package B would place an additional 120 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure relatively similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of 1-25 on a bridge, only 120 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be altered by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans 1-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP. Historic Preservation 3.15-67 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-31 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railway) — Package A II , I l I l LEGEND ,` Historical Resources swat. t • Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary 5WL.841 .11 Property Boundary PIP Package A EOP H Bridge /Culvert Roadway Features ■—a Retaining Wall I , lik Parcel Boundaries A„, Guardrails I i I The existing bridges spanning the railroad would be demolished. New 1 bridges would be constructed for each NB and SB highway configurations resulting in wider ' spans over the GWRR. The NB bridge would occupy much of the same area as the existing 1-25 I. A 4 bridges. The SB bridge would span • p , an entirely new section of the i railroad. - I , . _ , I11L1f ► . . _ . , I f --- 1 s slis . Existing and future at-grade _.__.. . , I a , crossing No Areas Directly Impacted .C ,- I I. 9 t ;1'. J �' I 1 , - 9 iii i1 ;! i" - '-' l I I ) / 4 • i l Location Ma4 ; • I VN s 0 200 Z\ limmm.1 Feet I North I I. t Historic Preservation 3.15-68 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5WL.841.11—Package A: In this location, the existing 1-25 northbound and southbound roadways span this historic railroad with twin 82-foot long, 38-foot wide concrete slab bridges. Neither bridge is historic. Under Package A, the northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned to the west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing three general purpose lanes in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new, approximately 24 foot-wider, 79 foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The old bridges would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, so that no direct impacts would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-31). Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the bridge deck. This increased 48 feet of overhead cover due to a wider bridge decks would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5WL.841.11—Package B: Under Package B, this section of 1-25 is in the transition zone between a highway section containing two general purpose lanes with one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction, to a wider section containing two general • purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction(see Figure 3.15- 32). The northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned to the west of their current alignments, and these new roadways would span the historic railway on two new, approximately 70 foot-wider, 79-foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures similar to those proposed for Package A. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, and no direct impacts would occur. The old bridges would be demolished. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-32). • Historic Preservation 3.15-69 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-32 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railway) — Package B v ■ LEGEND I Ja II Historical Resources ell Package B Resource Impact • • ' - j Package B ROW Boundary • . 5WL.841 .11 Property Boundary • ■ 1 I Package B EOP H Bridge / Culvert Roadway Features M —M Retaining Wall • • I Parcel Boundaries A—J Guardrails • • • 0 • i M • • • ■ The existing bridges spanning the is railroad would be demolished. New bridges would be constructed ■ ■ for each NB and SB highway configurations resulting in wider spans over the GWRR. The NB • • bridge would occupy much of the same area as the existing 1-25 ■ ■ R'" ; bridges. The SB bridge would span an entirely new section of the railroad. • ■ III HIV ILoricti IL__rr._n a • i-. '' - .....„,..„ 411 _ ::_____ __ _., , . -4r.,!-q••pF _T� tti t •- • ii Existing and • future at-grade ■ crossing - • -_ , J �� No Areas Directly Impacted i I IIIl1. ' H'!ll r - I ■ ' . _ t s 11 rli I I r , r /`. v.. I t • l a. I l I J 1 ' • NA SB } i. : _ ;' • II Location Map - , V • 0 200 • —' l Feet North II Historic Preservation 3.15-70 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 3.15-33 5WL.841.9 (Great Western Railway) — Packages A and B i LEGEND . Historical Resources IIIPackages A & B Resource Impact r Packages A & B ROW Boundary 5WL.841 .9 Property Boundary Packages EOP H Bridge Culvert Roadway Features f—II Retaining Wall 7-41 Parcel Boundaries A...J Guardrails i The existing bridges spanning the railroad would he demolished. New bridges would be constructed for Existing and each NB and SB highway1\-\ future at-grade configurations resulting in wider / crossing spans over the GWRR. The NB ! ibridge would occupy much of the same area as the existing 1-25 bridges. The SB bridge would span Lae an entirely new section of the ''s' railroad. The combined width of the 0 (' --or ' \two new bridges would result in 62 .4 ' feet more overhead cover of the I railroad than the existing bridges. • 4 ,�/_�Jy I J • i . . . i i • •L t _- i es ---_- No Areas Directly Impacted ' ^ 7 \ S. • - , i s t . i - ; : L. - 's ' 1 / / C . 1 / --__--� la ' 1 1 • / i r .. •/ ` r It . t i NB •/ i Location M p " A rti t� r 0 200 4 . F • Imil Feet d North • __ i Historic Preservation 3.15-71 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural • terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting. However, the new bridges would place an additional 140 foot long portion of the railway underneath the new bridge decks. This increased overhead cover due to wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway, however; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5LR.850.5—Package A: This rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment, and would continue to tie into the railroad mainline corridor west of Cleveland Avenue that would contain the proposed commuter rail line. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not to be expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Impacts 5WL.841.9— Package A: Under Package A, the 1-25 northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be widened from 2-through lanes to three general purpose lanes in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new 82 foot-long, 63 - to 75-foot wide, pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The old (but non-historic) 103 foot long, 38 foot wide, rolled I-beam bridges, which spanned the railroad, would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, so that no direct impacts would occur. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges, thus the railroad would have 62 feet more • overhead cover. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-33). Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the highway bridges. This increased overhead cover due to the new bridge decks would indirectly affect the historic setting of the railway, however; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5WL.841.9—Package B: Under Package B, the northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing two general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated managed lane in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadway alignments would span the historic railway on new 82 foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder- type bridge structures. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges, thus the railroads would have 62 feet more overhead cover. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, and no direct impacts would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-33). • Historic Preservation 3.15-72 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place an additional portion of the railway underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to the wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway, however; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5BL.514.1—Package A: The commuter rail improvements in this area call for the addition of a dedicated commuter rail track parallel to this existing commercial railroad track. In all cases the existing rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not expect to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: 170 feet of railroad track at segment 5LR.850.1 would be directly impacted as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). New commuter rail track along the transportation corridor would contribute to modern, but compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting at two localities (5BL.514.1 and 5LR.850.5). The impacts to these segments associated • with the proposed Package A transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer, Weld and Boulder counties (5LR.850, 5WL.841, and 5BL.514). Package B: 240 feet of railroad track at segment 5LR.850.1 would be directly impacted as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). The impacts to these segments associated with the proposed Package B transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer and Weld counties (5LR.850 and 5WL.841). • Historic Preservation 3.15-73 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator) • Resource Description: The Zimmerman Grain Elevator is located on the east side of 1-25 adjacent to the GWR (5LR.850), and was built in 1917. The bolted steel panel elevator structure is an intact example of a specialized agricultural building that was important to dryland farming in Larimer and Weld counties in the early 20th century. It is one of several similar steel panel grain elevators built along the railroads of the Front Range during the early 20th century. Eligibility Determination: Based on its important association with Larimer County agriculture and as a well-preserved example of a pre-fabricated early twentieth grain elevator, this property is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Effect Determination—Package A: 1-25 is depressed in an underpass beneath the GWR to the west of the historic grain elevator. Under Package A, 1-25 in this area would be substantially widened to accommodate three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned and widened approximately 21 feet to the east. A retaining wall and guardrail would be installed along the west edge of this frontage road, to protect the road and traffic from the steep slope of the highway cut. No right- of-way encroachment or other direct impacts to the parcel containing the historic grain elevator would occur under Package A, although the distance between the building and the east edge of pavement of the northbound 1-25 roadway (in the underpass cut) would be reduced from approximately 223 feet to approximately 170 feet. Although 1-25 would be wider and closer to the historic grain elevator, it sits depressed below the elevation of the grain elevator, and the historic agricultural setting has already been compromised to some degree by the original construction of 1-25 adjacent to the property in the 1960s (see Figure 3.15-34). • The improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish the historical and architectural characteristics which render the property eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Zimmerman Grain Elevator. Effect Determination—Package B: Under Package B, 1-25 in this vicinity would be substantially widened to accommodate two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned and widened approximately 21 feet to the east. No right-of-way encroachment or other direct impact to the parcel containing the historic grain elevator would occur under Package B, although the distance between the building and the east edge of pavement of the northbound 1-25 roadway would be reduced from approximately 223 feet to approximately 143 feet (see Figure 3.15-35). Although 1-25 would be larger and closer to the historic grain elevator, the setting has already been compromised to some degree by the original construction of 1-25 adjacent to the property in the 1960s. The improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish the architectural characteristics which render the property NRHP-eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Zimmerman Grain Elevator. • Historic Preservation 3.15-74 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. ID Figure 3.15-34 51.8.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator) — Package A • • u . I 1 ( 1 1 1 . -. - i I. LEGEND Historical Resources lg Package A Resource Impact t Package A ROW Boundary a -- i ll 5LR.11408 Property Boundary ttttttr. IPS l- Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails li I ID 111100 Roadway Features M--El Retaining MN 0 ` Al Parcel Boundaries A, Guardrails • --. , _- : . , , _ . ._ ni9 r. . 1... ...... , resT ir I V. 0 • '. I 0 — if 1� O ' OP c'..ti. 1 iii——. ..lilt No Areas Directly Impacted • • E LCR 20E ' -. 1 • -«•. T. -*� �'- nor l`N• • - j' r 4:71 _, - - 191 • -."\J7 1.� Y • � •+ r t I f:e , _ . rest- •.47 " it s 34 ,A 4 'Novi MF n .* _ ` t I �, , 1 1 / IV'� J .J 1 I ' l r . a' r . r. . j 1 S • Y. it 'r Y `location Map. 4 _ O 0 150 /� �! "' L� Feet / N. . , Left ., a • North Historic Preservation 3.15-75 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-35 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator) — Package B ______ _ _ _ _ . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. LEGEND1 „ .ii, Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5LR. 11408 Property Boundary JPackage B EOP H Bridge Guardrails ' Roadway Features M..♦ Retaining Wall i E .r 4 Parcel Boundaries ins Guardrails 1 1 Y a • , a- i• -w . k ' a. . . I III - - : . . • - __ _. - . IF No Areas Directly Impacted • -- - , . .tea__ II Mit 'egg' _ _. r - 0 Oki. . ...).. _ 4* Ili said -, • • 1illINIDDY " 1113"PCIP71" t u. • . ...__ci • 0. • . 4. tv. • - st„... .. `—�_w��i i c-2-c- 1 -LT- i ti,_. 0 I-_._ / • . . ..... is p 1 f jr `I iiy • /10 iI II^ • , ... �;(t :. � � ,_ • I 7 J 4y " °" j�4 I -- vr-- i :..i , . 1 .,./. , I , , , • Location Map '- I . A IN' It' 0 150 � • Is I Feet North 1 _ e Allir pit I Historic Preservation 3.15-76 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm) Resource Description: The Hatchf `" } °' '• mu r Farm is located at 640 Southeast Frontage Road in Larimer County. This property includes a historic balloon- framed barn, which is unique for this area. The barn was constructed circa 1920.The barn is surrounded by farmland. ._ Eligibility Determination: The Hatch Barn significance of the Hatch Farm is attributed to the architecture of the barn. The Hatch barn retains very good architectural integrity, is an excellent example of a specialized type and construction method of agricultural architecture, and has been determined to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template in this vicinity would be changed from the existing two general purpose lanes in each direction, to a wider footprint containing three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, the Package A design calls for the construction of two water quality ponds on the east side of 1-25, extending into this historic property. Ponds in this area were placed to avoid wetlands and Section 4(f) protected parkland along the Big Thompson River. The northernmost water quality pond would extend nearly 300 • feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 0.9 acre in size. The southernmost pond would extend approximately 104 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 1.2 acres in size. Together, these ponds would impact approximately 2.1 acres of land within the site boundary, or approximately two percent of the area of the 106.78-acre historic farm property (see Figure 3.15-36). The planned ROW allows for a 10 foot-wide, continuous maintenance easement along the retaining walls and southern basin, which can be accessed from the unpaved county road. The northern pond is accessible from both a 10 foot-wide easement along the toe slope and existing farm driveways. The proposed water quality ponds would be visually unobtrusive. The historic barn would not be directly or indirectly affected by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with Package A would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-77 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-36 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm) — Package A III 2 lit III! 11. I 111 ' '11 111111 t! - - - - - w .r • LEGEND Historical Resources 0 • i. It Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary a. 5LR. 11382 Property Boundary i ue r , . _ i Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails Roadway Features �.. Retaining Wall I Lr'- l Parcel Boundaries A., Guardrails - I , z t • I rair ti , -1 E L C R 20E 1f I ---7r 4-,n1'�'�a " ; te. - . . , ArYffik. •i . r # 1 affra . - -- .., , - If , LA, . - 4 IC det li r , li • ® �•r ...e0 �� ! t is1-5e4e- la ' 4 41‘. 1 • ♦ .. tr. , I !f 1S `' + _1 i •L i • awl ♦ -1 l Irr 4. _ re ., ' it• AI MiSte ii• t . - , t , :474. . i ' e . , . ... ., . it Ilawer T*4** " . - ', A ' fl Ro 'r, = : � ►� , t� Area = 39,096 Sq. Ft _ L _ _ !►. Acres = 0.9 - r --" .' _ I c. ►' J , l t _ 1 a , ' . L 934 '; -OP Area = 52,292 Sq. Ft /- Acres = 1 .2 1 i >, I i • . s 1 1 s f tip • v. .t -- . i 4.In' Illtis 2 . •, Location Map _ I ,r • 5 ID. St r fa,. _ - . n 0 300 ' ► a j - ,r� �" 'a► ' LI� Feet 0 41 ‘' . . t 1 . I 4 North ►( <. ,,.--• n Historic Preservation 3.15-78 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Effect Determination—Package B: Under Package B, the existing 1-25 template in this vicinity would be altered to include two general purpose lanes and two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, the Package B design specifies the construction of two water quality ponds on the east side of 1-25, extending into this historic site. The northernmost water quality pond would extend nearly 286 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 0.87 acre in size. The southernmost pond would extend approximately 91 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 1.33 acres in size. Together, these ponds would impact approximately 2.2 acres of land within the site boundary, or approximately two percent of the area of the 106.78-acre historic farm property (see Figure 3.15-37). The planned ROW allows for a 10 foot-wide, continuous maintenance easement along the retaining walls and southern basin, which can be accessed from the unpaved county road. The northern pond is accessible from both a 10 foot-wide easement along the toe slope and existing farm driveways. The historic barn on the Hatch Farm property would not be directly or indirectly affected by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with Package B would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • • Historic Preservation 3.15-79 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-37 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm) — Package B III RI wJ• ••I I.-.I.. 1 s' I r _ - ' -. - • _ • - LEGEND I q11 �' f Historical Resources I It - Package B Resource Impact _ f Package B ROW Boundary I : 5LR. 11382 Property Boundary t !• r i Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails Roadway Features Ili Retaining Wall ',. +r — `I, r eI Parcel Boundaries L A Guardrails jIIH I I I tpt-; a.. mom= SS it ILI 1 1 Iiii ,s..i E LCR 20E - .kilit ' 793171•11 • , 1ng! I . a , • . I .. a I •• • Agyrk glit Or Snit illire • - 1114 iip ... , -, it'll. 1 LIII 11 -11IIIIIIIta t - i - w re n mi. ' ~ _ cif trneim, it -1 lc f ;frire , ` .; ' II , ' rev 4 , _414 sr . . i 1 6ti er- . - * .TM r 14' I - ;,,R ., _ ' - •* .t 1 �, r +r Area = 38, 114 Sq. Ft Acres = 0.87 \ .44 K Il'- -._..___. �„` _ f 9 i tie-7 1 .tt 1 I • I' • ., '5 1_ s+ y �*f ` , y ' � *i I r lir �/ I 1 ;• L i I 71 r i , I - • a etr' y, _ f�. •- f li 4 I1 l n i I , • se‘•‘.." r. - .-e, IIPIMIIIIMIIIIIIr jc?1-ill 111,i , : ,. r F • Area = 57 774 S . Ft - t Location Map �'� .Er i -tiitA Acres = 1 .33 s dido ` t bf 0 300 I I I *, ;. j ' • 'f=1 Feet North iliki i . .. 111111' t IA illi it a Historic Preservation 3.15-80 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.8927.1 (Hillsboro Ditch) Resource Description: This segment of the historic Hillsboro Ditch crosses 1-25 just south of the I- 25 and US 34 interchange. The irrigation ditch was constructed as one of the first cooperatively owned ditches in the area. The entire ditch (5LR.8927) is approximately 19.25 miles long. The documented segment in the project APE (5LR.8927.1) is 2,065 feet (0.4 mile) long. The ditch channel is approximately 20 feet wide. Sparse riparian growth covers both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area is primarily rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The entire Hillsboro Ditch is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Outside the 1-25 right-of-way, this segment of the functioning ditch appears to maintain its historic alignment and its association with the rural landscape through which it runs. The segment (5LR.8927.1) within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, 1-25 would be expanded to 8-lanes, containing three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The Hillsboro Ditch is presently conveyed beneath 1-25 inside a modern CBC. The box culvert would be replaced with a new, 135-foot longer box culvert of the same cross section dimensions, 14 feet wide and 14 feet tall. That portion of the Hillsboro Ditch already inside the 1-25 culvert has lost integrity. Widening of the I- 25 southbound lanes, ramp and the associated slopes under Package A would require 90 feet of land west of the existing road slope edge. This requires enclosing 90 feet of open ditch on the east side of 1-25 in a new culvert to allow for the expanded highway construction. Similar widening of the highway and fill slopes along the northbound lanes requires that 45 feet of open ditch be enclosed • in a culvert on the east side of 1-25. A total of approximately 135 feet of open ditch would be subject to direct impact from Package A transportation improvements (see Figure 3.15-38). Construction of the concrete culverts would require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access, and would require a temporary easement. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from construction-related sedimentation. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the preexisting culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible. The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25- mile linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). Effect Determination—Package B: Package B specifies that the 1-25 section would be improved to an eight-lane facility and would contain two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. Direct impacts to the Hillsboro Ditch associated from Package B are nearly identical in nature and extent to those associated with Package A (see Figure 3.15-38). Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the preexisting culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible. The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25- mile linear resource. FHWA, • FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). Historic Preservation 3.15-81 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-38 5LR.8927.1 (Hillsboro Ditch) — Packages A and B . • li 0 1 LEGEND "O1 I Historical Resources A Packages A & B Resource Impact ■ Packages A & B ROW Boundary ■ 5LR.8927.1 Property Boundary Wail' ■ Packages EOP H Bridge /Culvert v Roadway Features IH■ Retaining VValI ■ - I Parcel Boundaries A S Guardrails ■ i .. III ■ - ■ ti ■ 11( ■ A ■ y I ■ Open ditch placed I • inside extended culverts ■ ' '. i t• 4 , s il • 1111 ■ i k - DL AI • tb-C _t. 4 ILI ' lit \ 1 ■ 90 Linear Feet Impacted \ ■ 45 Linear Feet Impacted l ti ■ I. i _._ ) i .. ■ ■ i O I � . ■ ■ - ; 17a 1t / — 'I I i .< i , - .,\ ,\ J , ,\\ / ■ ■ \ - )/ ■ iiiLocation Map ■ ■ FIN ■ ■ - .. o 200 041 ill Feet North ■ ■ Historic Preservation 3.15-82 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm) Resource Description: The Mountain View Farm is located at 5531 SH 402, just west of the 1-25 and SH 402 interchange. The farm was originally patented in 1895 and contains a farmhouse and associated farm buildings. Eligibility Determination: This historic farm is significant for its association with early agriculture in Larimer County including sugar beet cultivation. The farmhouse and associated farm buildings retain good integrity, and are significant examples of agricultural architecture. For these reasons, the Mountain View Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Effect Determination — Package A: This historic farm would experience direct impacts associated with proposed improvement of the l-25/SH 402 interchange. Package A would re- align the 1-25 southbound off-ramp west of the existing off-ramp, and would require the acquisition of a 60 to 100 foot-wide strip of cultivated farmland at the east edge of the historic farm property to accommodate the proposed new off-ramp from southbound 1-25 to SH 402. Another direct impact would occur near the farmhouse as a result of widening along the north edge of SH 402 to add turn and through lanes at the off-ramp. The new width of roadway along SH 402 would convert a maximum of 100 feet of farm property at the intersection with the southbound off-ramp, tapering to a 20-foot wide strip of new transportation right-of-way near the driveway to the farmhouse. The highway overpass and ramp intersections would be approximately 22 feet above the highway at the bridge similar to the existing interchange configuration. However, the Package A design necessitates extending the slope from the elevated overpass and ramp intersections westward to the existing grade of SH 402 much • closer to the historic farm house than is the case with the existing interchange configuration. A total area of 4.76 acres of land would be converted from open farmland to paved roadway and fill slopes within the historic farm boundary. This area amounts to approximately 3.5 percent of the 136.22 acre farm. No historic buildings would be directly impacted by these transportation improvements (see Figure 3.15-39). However, the presence of the existing 1-25 highway ramps and interchange already introduce modern elements into this agricultural setting. Under Package A, the fill slopes and ramps are moved closer to the eastern edge of the farm, and would be slightly taller than the existing slopes, ramps and overpass. Another change would be construction of a proposed new park and ride parking lot on the south side of SH 402 near the farm. Traffic noise generated by 1-25 would decrease two decibels because the highway would be re-aligned to the east, away from the farmhouse. Although the new southbound off-ramp would be built on a new alignment closer and elevated relative to the farmhouse, noise from existing traffic and the closer ramp would not substantially alter the agricultural setting or diminish the architectural characteristics that render the property NRHP-eligible. A temporary construction easement may be requested along the western edge of the property for to allow haul roads, construction access, and/or staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this temporary construction activity on the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction-related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature, but would not permanently affect the character of the farm setting. Thus, • indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities are not expected to substantially diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings NRHP- eligible. Historic Preservation 3.15-83 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially • diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination—Package B: Anticipated impacts to the property under Package B are similar in character and extent to those expected from Package A improvements. A total area of 5.28 acres of land may be subject to direct impact. This area amounts to approximately four percent of the136.22-acre farm. No historic buildings would be directly impacted by these transportation improvements. Indirect effects to the historic farm would be the same as with Package A (see Figure 3.15-40). The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • • Historic Preservation 3.15-84 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 3.15-39 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm) — Package A LEGEND Historical Resources 1 _Al Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary 5LR.11242 Property Boundary ti Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails . . Roadway Features RU Retaining Nall _ I i Parcel Boundaries L.,A Guardrails 11 1 • 41 / I • \ \ • )fr s 0 T , T • i I \ • • .. . \ \ ---a.,` Area = 207,442 Sq. Ft 1 I ° Acres = 4.76 �- 0 1 Ti NA 'tit l kft enig*Set 1 ' `r } \ \ ;i r I . 11} w r ` �1 TI t - MI +fig 1\ 1 - i Fortiiiortfr,_ giire ittetr r \ 11\ . 1 1111 iltes 4L: °Location Ma - -►--- I rt-t.• N. r r '1 7\1 • 1 0 400 !V\ {� Feet North Historic Preservation 3.15-85 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-40 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm) — Package B 0 II LEGEND Historical Resources IIII Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5LR. 11242 Property Boundary _ —1 Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails Roadway Features .. .I. Retaining VVall Parcel Boundaries A S Guardrails . \\..\\ ci { i I _ • iI I \ r I nu It . H 1 II l _ i Area = 230, 144 Sq. Ft. \ ,� Acres = 5.28 I I q a. ,,, \ \ \\\ , • _ _ 4 X11 \n ._ A tv : • .____ . * c. = 4. ,, • \\ __ . ,y / .__ _ -47 , ... .. . irx- go, III • =/ Tell r , \II1JA 11 11 , .. . ., •., ,,, ,, ,-, Location Map -.4 i ,. ,�________________ r __.\\._ \\\0 4000 \` mt� Feet North1 I 11 Historic Preservation 3.15-86 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . SH 60 To E-470 There are also five historic properties in this section of roadway. 5WL.5204 (Bashor Farm) Resource Description: This historic farm is located at 3807 Weld CR 48 and contains an historic barn that was owned by the Bashor family for nearly 50 years, from 1928 to 1977. Belva Bashor was the granddaughter of Peter Turner, whose homestead became the town of Berthoud. Eligibility Determination: The historic barn on the Bashor Farm retains very good integrity and is an important example of agricultural architecture. The Bashor Farm therefore qualifies for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, CR 48 would be widened 20 feet west of 1-25 to allow construction of extra pavement and slopes and would taper to the existing roadway width near the Bashor farmstead. The new roadway would be raised in elevation at the 1-25 crossing, but would drop from an elevation of approximately 22 feet above the highway down to the existing roadway elevation within the vicinity of the historic Bashor Farm. No direct impacts would occur to the historic property. The change in width and elevation of CR 48 would not diminish or alter the architectural qualities which render the property NRHP- eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Bashor Farm.• Effect Determination—Package B: Impacts in this area under Package B are virtually identical to those associated with Package A. Under Package B, CR 48 is widened on the west side of 1-25 and the elevation and roadway width tapers down to the elevation and width of the existing roadway in the vicinity of the historic Bashor Farm. No direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Bashor Farm. 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm) Resource Description: The Bein Farm is located at 3766 CR 48, near the 1-25 and SH 60 interchange. This property was owned by Fred Bein, a pioneer Berthoud stockman and farmer and one of the most widely-known residents of the Berthoud community until his death in 1933. The property contains a variety of farm buildings constructed in the late 19th century. Eligibility Determination: The Bein Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early ranching and farming in the Berthoud area during the late 19th century. Effect Determination — Package A: This historic farm is located on the west side of the mainline of 1-25, and on the southwest quadrant of the l-25/SH 60 interchange, both of which would be improved under Package A. Package A calls for the widening of 1-25 in this area to accommodate three general purpose lanes in each direction. The proposed wider highway template would require the acquisition and permanent conversion of a 120-foot wide, 5,600- foot long strip of cultivated farmland west of the existing southbound 1-25 lanes into new highway and slopes. Historic Preservation 3.15-87 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. West of 1-25, SH 60 would be widened to provide for a safe transition from the interchange • ramps to the existing roadway section. The new SH 60 roadway would consist of four general lanes and turning lanes at the interchange, tapering back to two general lanes on the west side of the existing driveway to the farm building complex. The combined 1-25 widening along the length of the Bein Farm, re-alignment of the southbound on-ramp from the SH 60 interchange, and the widening and reconfiguring of a tapered section of SH 60 on the west side of this interchange would cause direct impacts to 17.94 acres along the east and north edges of the property. This comprises approximately 6.2 percent of the historic farm's total 288.45 acres. No farm buildings would be directly impacted (see Figure 3.15-41). There would be no change to the historic access to this property. The retaining wall along the southbound off-ramp is located on the opposite side of the interchange from the historic farm and would not result in an indirect impact to the property. This would not diminish the function, alignment, attributes, or setting that contribute to the historic integrity or render the farm NRHP-eligible. The direct and indirect impacts to the historic farm building complex along SH 60 that would occur under Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Package B calls for the widening of 1-25 in this area to accommodate two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The resulting direct impacts from widening of 1-25 are similar to Package A, but • require a modified southbound 1-25 on-ramp to connect with the wider TEL section in Package B. Impacts resulting from modifications to SH 60 are the same as Package A. Total direct impacts to the farm would be 20.04 acres along the east and north edges of the property, comprising approximately seven percent of the historic farm's total 288.45 acres. No farm buildings would be directly impacted (see Figure 3.15-42). Indirect effects would be the same as with Package A. The direct and indirect impacts to the historic farm building complex along SH 60 that would occur under Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-88 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1541 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm) — Package A lb LEGEND r I Historical Resources i t 1 Alli Package A Resource Impact _ , _ i - ' - Package A ROW Boundary --= • -- - _ -_ __� _� — - - - -- I i._ 60 ti., _ . ,�1Si-nir I j^.. 5WL.5203 Property Boundary i err - 11, Package A EOP IH Bridge Guardrails i Roadway Features M.. Retaining Wall , 1I I / di AwlsGuardrails i Ili 1t I .. / ,, Parcel6oundarirs iqi% I 1 /I , / SiiLe 4• . .' ,/ t /IIP ,popq,,, _ -,_ 4.,,,k witawarawastio , . it l -.t- T7i I i II ,. • IIIIILH ,41 ® Area = 781,428 Sq. Ft Acres = 17.94 / l l =i 14 , I 1 l I t i i / 1 / — - i 1/407,-k 1i / ,F I . ' 1 1—.:{--=7_ ; . - - N ! i_ ,•Location Map P 0 700 , ,• I I Feet = • •/ 1,4‘,". ." pc , North -r` �_ I ,- Historic Preservation 3.15-89 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1542 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm) — Package B i 1 : i 1 LEGEND if .-‘ i I LI' Historical Resources x ri . Package B Resource Impact w_ ?, - _ 6 " Package B ROW Boundary 0 r. 5WL.5203 Property Boundary MI Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails 17 1 Roadway Features Nam Retaining Wall F • __. I r1 � Parcel Boundaries � Guardrails� ; I ` I }: I izi ., 4,4 k IlHe , //, , I i4ili,l.riiri'rr:;,.,,tF{{Iij1 i ., a, , - i ‘, . _ , I , . , Area = 873,197 Sq. Ft Ii ��; i Acres = 20.04 . • I I t _• II r .81 •rte- r a I .......... , ......_ __ ...,_____ ......„.. ... . . I , ...........- , a ......,.........„._ . 4%12:Omar I Wan" eim T�� ' i •.-- .- L, , I , . i i 'i 1 ..., t. ..,_ , _. i _ i ?, . . : s r I • /1 1`'N• Location Map4 . _ ' I !drily. a - . 0 7007\14 , M if' INImiNii=1 II Feet North I II ' - Historic Preservation 3.15-90 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.3149.1 (Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence) Resource Description: The ditch crosses 1-25 along the south edge of CR 48/SH 60 and is conveyed underneath the 1-25 ramps and mainline highway lanes inside a 660 foot long concrete culvert. The ditch segment is 2,456 feet long, 20 feet wide, earthen, 5 feet deep and has rip-rapped banks. Handy and Home Supply ditches combine to flow into a concrete diversion gate that funnels water under SH 60, west of 1-25. The grade drops off steeply eastward from 1-25 into 3 drop boxes. Eligibility Determination: The entire Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Segment 5WL.3149.1 fails to support the integrity of the greater site because it has been modified by recent development. Effects Determination—Package A: Package A would require modification of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60/CR 48 intersection turning radius (see Figure 3.15-43). The outfall of the 660 foot long culvert similarly would require a 50-foot extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60/CR 48. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 and frontage road and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Handy/Home Supply Ditch • Confluence. Effects Determination—Package B: Package B would require modification of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60/CR 48 intersection turning radius (see Figure 3.15-43). The outfall of the 660 foot long culvert similarly would require a 50-foot extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60/CR 48. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of 1-25 and the frontage road and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. S Historic Preservation 3.15-91 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1543 5WL.3149.1 (Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence) — Package A and B Il . . . . , stilt. LEGEND ' 3 i Yst, t Historical Resources , ,: Packages A & B Resource Impact f Packages A & B ROW Boundary P� t 5WL.3149.1 Property Boundary - } ?' . ' , y .•- • j Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert • \ \`�'j' Roadway Features �■ Retaining Wall ■ Guardrails L �� Parcel Boundaries `r ■ 11 ill: • ■ Total new culvert •New culvert intake grate modificationI would be 720 feet long of approximately 10 feet ■ il 1 1 II :d i ________Y7„7"..,...°.;' . II-csiik, \ : it . ,_ 1 ■ *run, , ; .- ,, , _ , , I .. . - asirt_100 . vp , y / ■ , . . . - I •r II I ■ f e c [Existing culvert 660 feet long - 1...' 50 foot long culvert extension ■ tt '-- / I III _ , , — r 't �" I v, .a45) i ■ , r • 1 • ji/ostl , , , ist,': NB . • 't SB I / ,, •II ■ A location Map . ■ VIN • , 1 I 1 0 200 isDui I Feet North ■ __ --Al Historic Preservation 3.15-92 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 5WL.864 (Great Western Railway Buda Siding) Resource Description: Buda Siding consists of the original beet scale house and platform scale that was built by the Great Western Railway (GWR) in 1903. The GWR was associated with the Great Western Sugar Company, which owned sugar factories in Colorado, including at Longmont and Loveland. Buda was a railroad "beet dump" or receiving and shipping station for the local farming community. It also served as a passenger ticket office. Eligibility Determination: This site is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the historic GWR and the sugar beet industry in Colorado. Effect Determination — Package A: This site lies well outside the 1-25 corridor improvements planned under Package A, and would not experience any direct or indirect impacts either to the rail siding or the associated sugar beet weigh station. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Package B: This site lies well outside the 1-25 corridor improvements planned under Package B, and would not experience any direct or indirect impacts either to the rail siding or the associated sugar beet weigh station. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.2985 (Little Thompson River Bridge No. C-17-BN) Resource Description: The historic Little Thompson River Bridge (CDOT Structure No. • No.C-17-BN) is a steel, rigid connected camelback pony truss structure located on the frontage road adjacent to 1-25 near the SH 56 and 1-25 interchange. The structure was built across the Little Thompson River in 1938, prior toatr 1 construction of I-25. Eligibility Determination: This — historic bridge is an intact, early example of a common bridge type, the camelback pony truss, and was listed " *•— on the NRHP under Criterion C in Little Thompson River Bridge 2002. Effect Determination — Package A: This historic bridge carries the existing 1-25 east frontage road over the Little Thompson River. The east frontage road would remain two lanes, but would be widened to improve shoulders north and south of this bridge, up to the bridge approach slabs. The historic bridge structure would be retained and utilized, and no physical changes to the bridge abutments, decking or truss structure would occur. Because the setting and use of the bridge would remain unaffected by this minor widening, no indirect effects to the property are expected. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in a finding of no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-93 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Effect Determination — Package B: Same as Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm) Resource Description: This historic farm is located at 17820 East 1-25 Frontage Road, near CR 38. The site contains various farm buildings, a reservoir, and farmland used by the Olson family who were early settlers in this area. The Ballinger Reservoir has an early water appropriation date from 1887 making it one of the early irrigation features in the area. The site boundary is based upon the historic boundary of the Olson Farm, and spans 1-25. The boundary encompasses 155.37 acres, although 13.7 acres comprising the existing CDOT 1-25 right-of-way is considered a noncontributing portion of the site. Eligibility Determination: The Olson Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agriculture in Weld County. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for three general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing 1-25 east frontage road would stay in its present alignment, including its crossing of CR 38, but the area needed for the frontage road turning lanes and paved shoulders would be widened along the west edge of the eastern portion of the Olson Farm property. Direct impacts to this portion of the site would be confined to a strip of land 2,740 feet long, and approximately 110 feet wide at CR 38 at the north end of the property and 30 feet wide at the south end. This impact corresponds to the new toe of slope for the east frontage road which would bury the farmland currently located adjacent to the frontage road. A retaining wall would be installed along the • edge of the frontage road to prevent direct impacts to the Ballinger Reservoir (a contributing feature of the NRHP-eligible farm) located mid-way along the east side of the frontage road. A total of 3.99 acres of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to direct impacts under Package A (see Figure 3.15-44). A strip of farmland measuring approximately 140 feet wide and 2,740 feet long located west of 1-25, would be buried below pavement and fill slopes for the widened southbound 1-25 lanes. This would result in 8.75 acres impacted due to the western re-alignment and widening of the 1-25 roadways. The total area subject to direct impacts under Package A is 12.74 acres, which comprises approximately nine percent of the total site area of 141.67 acres. Increased highway and frontage road traffic resulting from Package A improvements would generate noise levels one decibel more than the No-Action Alternative. This increase in noise is barely perceptible and would not affect the characteristics which have rendered the property NRHP-eligible. Since the 1960's when 1-25 was constructed, modern transportation elements have bisected the historic farm. Modern residential subdivisions have recently been constructed adjacent to the western property boundary. The additional 1-25 and frontage road widening, installation of a new retaining wall near Ballinger Reservoir, and modification of CR 38 overpass would increase the amount of intrusive transportation elements within the property boundary leading to an indirect effect on the historic property, however; these transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the historic setting which renders this property NRHP-eligible. • Historic Preservation 3.15-94 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 - - - October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ill Figure 3.1544 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm) — Package A LEGEND ii ,‘\Nk Historical Resources I Package A Resource Impact \ Package A ROW Boundary 5WL.5198 Property Boundary ' Package A EOP i Roadway Features FI. Retaining MID 1 Parcel Boundaries A s Guardrails \ \fit Ir - let • ' i , r I r � — SF -- — ff WCR 38 �i i i ?/' 1 . .: / 'I 1 4 . . . ,. ;1';','‘.. - • . . / • - -- t- : - / �' -wa"......"""...""*".. 0.0•01.47- t. * Area = 173,764 Sq. Ft I // ; ! i! Acres = 3.99 Area = 381,085 Sq. Ft 4 Acres = 8.75 �I I E• i .. l 1 1 i• XilledmitHit 1 MC -"_•"••••-- ',\ _tir"- • ' I it s. #110\ • A l Ballinger Reservoir _...)7 --...,. R t o‘ t\ I. � r � � 1 J ,- . , r Total impacts of l ,t 12.74 acres • �. t T 1 j, I AO • 1 ti Nr, -r(r.•. , - . �.. I ' {. _ C. • lich: ,1• , wi" " Location Mall ! i >* � ` ` • J ! rrn•.. R14r 4' - i -' HUH � .:0 400• t1I ` "' 'FeetNorth s. ' 1 lu �- - Historic Preservation 3.15-95 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Temporary effects due to installation of the new bridge across 1-25, roadway widening and the retaining wall at Ballinger Reservoir would likely require a temporary easement on portions of • the historic property for equipment access, haul roads and other construction activities. The farm would remain operational and measures to protect the property from erosion, dust and water-borne sediment dispersal would be implemented. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Due to the site's bisection by the wide 1-25 corridor, and the lack of direct impacts to the contributing historic farm buildings and reservoir, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Olson Farm. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for two general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated lane in each direction. Direct impacts to the site under Package B are similar in nature to those associated with Package A. Direct impacts to this portion of the site would be confined to a strip of land 2,740 feet long, and approximately 120 feet wide at CR 38 at the north end of the property and 30 feet wide at the south end. This impact corresponds to the new toe of slope for the east frontage road which would bury the farmland currently located adjacent to the frontage road. A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent direct impacts to the Ballinger Reservoir. A total of 3.99 acres of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to direct impacts under Package B (see Figure 3.15-45). A strip of farmland measuring approximately 145 feet wide and 2,740 feet long located west of 1-25, would be buried below pavement and fill slopes for the widened southbound 1-25 lanes. This would result in 8.82 acres impacted due to the western re-alignment and widening of the 1-25 roadways. The total area subject to direct impacts under Package B is 12.81 acres, which comprises approximately nine percent of the total site area of 141.67 acres. Indirect impacts would be the same as Package A. Due to the site's bisection by the wide 1-25 corridor, and the lack of direct impacts to the contributing historic farm buildings and reservoir, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Olson Farm. S Historic Preservation 3.15-96 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.15-45 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm) — Package B LEGEND Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5WL.5198 Property Boundary Package B EOP M..Roadway Features � � Retaining Will ` ssad '- ----1 Parcel Boundaries A, Guardrail.. , ( ,� crest- I WCR38 ' r _ . , t , it . . _ . . r a - - - _ - -- 1 i ,,, y ' llil 4 o..., ` n ` ' :IS gll ,,, • , f , , .. .,..,. it, :, .., „.. - . 0 . - _,. , i. _ r- am, . . : , Area = 384,225 Sy. Ft • Area = 173/66 Sq. Ft • . . , j Acres = 3.99 - - i Acres = 8.82 ....-Ir^---1 . -0 • .- is , - id tri\L __ , ; _ . ,, , , I t • =` yI f Ballinger Reservoir i' aa 1 } 1 t � ' A Total impacts of :s- r . • 12.81 acres t `' : ......:.4. - -- 3 - i --- e y,40010WMANti*-- - - — - L �^ -• r ,,\ / ! , t 1, � ' ~i - • i ii ` ' .' I Location Map's-- : ) .,. - .';LY,, . ' 1 . 11110 I 0 - T_ — _ . 0 400 4. F� '= 'II � IFeet n ...v.x.z.• -North hIIII �� - Historic Preservation 3.15-97 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5WL.1978 (Rademacher/Hilgers Residence) • Resource Description: The Rademacher/Hilgers residence is located at 3865 SH 66. This property contains a Craftsman Style house built in 1920 that remains largely intact. Eligibility Determination: This early 20th century farmhouse retains very good integrity, and is an important example of Craftsman Style residential architecture in a rural setting in Weld County. The property qualifies for the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, 1-25 would be reconfigured for three general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing 1-25 ramps would be rebuilt under a currently planned and programmed interchange project. There would be no changes to ramp widths or alignments, thus there would be no direct impacts to the historic property by future l- 25 mainline improvements associated with Package A. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts to the historic farmhouse and the qualities that render it NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Rademacher/Hilgers Residence. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for two general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated lane in each direction. All widening and lane additions would be constructed within the center median of the existing 1-25 footprint. The existing 1-25 ramps would be rebuilt under a currently planned and programmed interchange project. There would be no changes to ramp widths or alignments, thus there would be no direct impacts to the historic property by future 1-25 mainline improvements associated with Package B. • Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts to the historic farmhouse and the qualities that render it NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Rademacher/Hilgers Residence. • Historic Preservation 3.15-98 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5WL1975.1 (Last Chance Ditch' Resource Description: This 1.04 mile-long segment of the Last Chance Ditch generally runs perpendicular to 1-25 and crosses the frontage road and highway. The entire earthen ditch is approximately five miles long. Its channel is approximately 10 feet wide. This historic ditch is currently conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road in CBCs. Recently, the original ditch east of 1-25 was realigned. The levees and banks along both sides of the ditch areas are covered with grass and sparse riparian vegetation. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The Last Chance Ditch was officially determined eligible for the NRHP by OAHP in 2003. The entire ditch (5WL.1975) is eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Although this ditch segment (5WL.1975.1) has recently been realigned east of 1-25, the integrity of location and design remains pristine within the protected rural setting of St. Vrain State Park on the west side of 1-25. The segment within the project APE (5WL.1975.1) retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the ditch would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Package B: In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane. The existing east frontage road would be realigned to the east. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the ditch would occur under Package B. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.1974.1 (Rural Ditch) Resource Description: The entire Rural Ditch is approximately 4 miles long. Two segments of the ditch are present within the APE (see Figure 3.15-46). Segment 5WL.1974.1 crosses 1-25 diagonally from southwest to northeast immediately north of SH 119, passing under SH 119 and 1-25 in two existing culverts. The segment length is 3,327 feet, and is a 10 feet wide earthen ditch. Segment 5WL.1974.3 of the historic Rural Ditch crosses northwest to southeast within the project area. This segment (5WL.1974.3) intercepts waters of Idaho Creek at the southwest edge of the APE. The excavated 5-foot deep, earthen ditch segment is 1,253 feet long and 20 feet wide. Both banks of the ditch areas are covered with grass. The surrounding area is rural in character. S Historic Preservation 3.15-99 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-46 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch) — Segments intersecting project APE I t 1 r LEGEND * Historic Ditches - -..-� Weevtgtort `\ Al Study Corridors ,/.' \`.\ al /N/ Highways r. /a if •.,, /\/ Arterial Roads I I S — — Piece , LJ Regional Study Area . \, I Form Co mm '� City Boundaries _ /`a Cities & Towns in Project Area i T Ault X57 t-ji i J iim ath 4 Sev9ar ae Eata• I 287 Winlsar i I Lucer t I — Greeley r — TT_ 26.Etr� 13 j .Li1 I cocas,cav j Lo:t;lan,a I i jTilt r Eh I ` % e ; _ La- a. e ,amp�a i khnS. Iouy� / I- _is /Beethanl t= • Millikat 8J / L _56 - r----/ /1lulu s�, ! I� I Mead I. I . / . I� ii a�teville II 5WL.1974.1 ongmont , kvle ! • 5WL.1974.3 % "l" a ,i %„ a F rester* S Mwot lT! O r.edesick 1 t . I 7' 1 - -- - v -1 ii-i—F .- % '0. —.I - a Ltdeuno Fat Loa, 0 1, Gurtmerrel ,1 i 1 r f,- _� Erie I 76 . rI a , I -� Wattentw+q 1 'r `Boulder — 0 Itcç'°'> - ffr4ztT'7 _ �`• �i �� i Eastlake r ti-�/ �� _ " `.E4 cornfield t • I- 93J ' \r. '• . ' L!Vorttglenr __ I : �;JhurtAOn /: I / �'_ d _ , ± ,` ✓ -r . / r A is l Denver- • 70 - _-"--`"1 ti, : ; ! �� t l I 2 4 6 8 1I Miles North �- ,y I I MlOOONMm IN F75_h,ilp_irnpUl._t70100 nu0! tll&7001—t!I 7p PM L 1 • Historic Preservation 3.15.100 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Eligibility Determination: The entire ditch (5WL.1974) was determined to be not eligible in 1993. The entire Rural Ditch is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado. The 5WL.1974.3 follows the original historic alignment of the ditch, and therefore supports the eligibility of the entire linear resource. The segment 5WL.1974.1 is modified by adjacent development and road crossings at SH 119 and 1-25 and does not support eligibility of the entire resource. Effects Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Rural Ditch. Impacts to segment 5WL.1974.3—Package A: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across this historic ditch segment. Approximately 130 feet of open ditch would need to be placed in a culvert beneath the new railroad embankment, ballast, bed and tracks (see Figure 3.15-47). Installation of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. • Although the segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. Impacts to segment 5WL.1974.1—Package A: The ditch is in a non-improvement component of Package A and results in no impacts. Impacts to segment 5WL.1974.1—Package B: Under Package B modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new BRT lanes in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Package B. Summary Effects Determination: Package A: 130 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert at one segment locality. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA AND CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the historic resource 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch). Package B: Because no direct or indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Package B, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic resource 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch). S Historic Preservation 3.15-101 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1547 5WL.1974.3 (Rural Ditch) — Commuter Rail 111 LEGEND r. .. - . 3 Historical Resources .` Package A Resource Impact # Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary la : • 5WL.1974.3 Property Boundary - *-4.4 ! CR 2050 Package A Comm Rail Footprint �L7__ y t It 1. _• at rpm,-- Commuter Rail Designitiiiip 1 Parcel Boundaries H Bridge / Culvert + 1 ;gip " ,,.• 4' a n �r � { o I s . •.t p _ y t. w. J t s • — y 1 I = 4 -- 1 to r ID Open ditch would be placed _ II , i inside of a new culvert: . I - R - • 130 Linear Feet Impacted I • lip\ . I . A_ Ian"- itt It, Existing Culvert 36 ft long rliP it:+ i it _____ _. . .. . O Ili • i. : i 1 / tglitl _ r - _ t. r - -_// �I 1. JE 'et 1 TS -v-1'-�. I Y- 1 Le. __ _ • . .4._. i / { L. N 1 ^,_A' - ^� -c Locati 11 ,on Map „air.. -� 0 200 It I l Feet North 1 ill, les Historic Preservation 3.15-102 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.3146.1 (Flume Ditch) Resource Description: The ditch crosses under 1-25 in a CBC at milepost 239.15, about 1 mile south of SH 119. The earthen ditch runs through a business park and has been recently dredged and banks burned. The segment is 1,371 foot long and 10 feet wide. Eligibility Determination: In 2001 SHPO agreed that the Rural Ditch is not NRHP-eligible. Effects Determination—Package A: The ditch is in a non-improvement component of Package A and would not have impacts. Effects Determination—Package B: Under Package B modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new BRT lanes in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Package B. 5WL.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch) Resource Description: The overall length of the Lower Boulder Ditch is 19 miles. It was originally built in 1859, but was widened in 1954 (see Figure 3.15-48). A significant portion of the ditch (5WL.1970.1) runs within the project corridor and crosses under 1-25 in a 490 foot long CBC, 3,500 feet north of SH 52. The 1.3 mile long earthen ditch has steep pitched banks, is 26 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Banks are grass covered except at culvert faces where it is rip-rapped. The area has parallel access roads along both banks and several pump jacks nearby. • Segment 5WL.1970.7 generally runs perpendicular to and crosses under WCR 7. Segment 5WL.1970.7 of the earthen irrigation ditch is approximately 31 feet wide, 12 feet deep and 574 feet long. The portion of the ditch that crosses under County Road 7 conveys the ditch in a culvert. Grass and riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The Lower Boulder Ditch (5WL.1970)was determined to be eligible for the NRHP in 1993 under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Segment 1970.7 of the ditch within the APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5WL.1970.1 has been modified and no longer retains the qualities that support the eligibility of the entire resource. S Historic Preservation 3.15-103 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1548 5WL.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch) — Segments intersecting project APE 111 LEGEND I * Historic Ditches iA / Study Corridors '� + ' 1 � 85 /\/ Highways `A=- . \ /\/ Arterial Roads ,_%,i / it...,, I _____T LJ Regional Study Area R�tp f \\ City Boundaries i Fort Collins ; / o Cities & Towns in Project Area i �' Ault s% 4 12 ; i Lmnath, 0 Eatm Sews anCE I 287 1�IR1c:Y Lucerne Lt i.392 I � Greeley 'I ., i LovelandI i 1 ---..., _ ,If i i:i:t'i . _. . 343.a... _ - 1 La Salle i/ I:41111'111 ---a.,41.slums t,nstOJt7 `I 8' / • - i Berthoud Is Milliken `� 56 : , vluest , if / 1 A / ..._,.�_.. _.+ • Platteville 66 ; ; I mwnont , / 1 _ VClln�≥ 0I. �,!� .i4 I / �%/ r�wot edoidc I Oator 5WL.1970.7 rxnbarrel hD Fat Lupo: i to • '7 Li --1-7 Watt enbern .Boukler ' _. I 1 i �. " Lafayette a.:!' a71.1h Louisville i B i htcn e7` -T- Su r f r? z ,,1 Er cornfield "- Nt 36 r - . r--} \ • 287 0 , , ,.: j 471 4 \ i / 1 Delvers l—L.751 I { ! V v , i / _,..„..--s- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles North Il ,.......„,,,,,,,....,....._,x,00 ma: Vt0/200)—IS?29PM Historic Preservation 3.15-104 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Effects Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Lower Boulder Ditch. Impacts 5WL.1970.1 - Package A: The ditch is in a non-improvement component of Package A and results in no impact. Impacts 5WL.1970.1 - Package B: Under Package B, modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new BRT lanes and a transit station and parking facility in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway and station improvements, there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. A parking facility and water quality basin would be located south of the existing ditch alignment and would not cause any direct impact. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Package B. Impacts 5WL.1970.7—Package A: This historic ditch segment passes beneath Weld WCR 7 via a culvert, and the proposed new commuter rail corridor closely follows the west side of this road. The new railroad line would cross the east-west trending ditch segment via a new bridge structure, the piers of which would be placed outside the limits of this irrigation channel (see Figure 3.15-49). The presence of the new bridge would not substantially affect the setting or attributes which render the ditch historic. Summary Effects Determination: • Package A: A new bridge at WCR 7 would create approximately 35 feet of new overhead coverage of the ditch. Temporary construction impacts would occur during bridge construction. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic resource 5LR.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch). Package B: There would be no direct or indirect impacts resulting from Package B improvements. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Lower Boulder Ditch (5WL.1970). S Historic Preservation 3.15.105 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1549 5WL.1970.7 (Lower Boulder Ditch) — Package A I LEGEND Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact — Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL. 1970.7 Property Boundary QPackage A Comm Rail Footprint lima Commuter Rail Design d Parcel Boundaries Ila Bridge I Culveil stIL f iw IMPWRIPIIIF it \ iimii DExisting culvert ; ;, + Y V a a H — A r ■■ _. A _ ` * .4y e , , • ,. .. , -, _..._ - . _ _ • • - . _ , New Bridge / atb 11 lk imp % vs* .,-___ „,,,,, -.... • — �• � 4 1 — / BUTTERCUP DR 0' w _ . .. • ...., : — t • p .�'--. r. __ . _ - j ' I f 1 / rY+ ` t - i • r � al . i lt . r 4 4. i t.. ... % , \ , , „ itt Location Map s B AS 0 250 Z l i J Feet II-- North I Historic Preservation 3.15-106 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, 5AM.457 (Bull Canal/Standlev Ditch) Resource Description: The entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch is approximately 44 miles long and runs through Adams, Broomfield, and Weld Counties. The ditch was originally built in 1907. Several segments of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch are within the APE (see Figure 3.15-50). Segment 5WL.1966.1 generally follows a serpentine course adjacent to the east side of 1-25 and crosses the highway and the frontage road in multiple locations. The concrete-lined ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under 1-25 and the frontage road was altered and conveyed under the roadways in CBCs when the highway was constructed in the 1960s. Segment (5WL.1966.1) is 3,524 feet (0.67 miles) long. Well- developed willow growth exists along the south levee of the ditch in some areas. The surrounding area includes industrial and residential development. Weld County segments 5WL.1966.11 and 5WL.1966.8 cross the APE at the proposed commuter rail alignment. These segments each contain the 60-foot wide concrete lined channel running through a rural setting. Segment 5WL.1966.8 is a 607-foot long segment of the Bull Ditch that follows a gently curving alignment from west to northeast through the project area. The Broomfield County portion of ditch within the APE includes 20-foot wide segments 5BF.72.1, 5BF.72.2, 5BF.72.3, and 5BF.76.2. Each concrete-lined segment crosses under existing 1-25 and the frontage road through modern CBCs. Segment 5BF.72.1 is 1,439 feet (0.27 mile) long. Sparse riparian growth of large mature trees exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Segment 5BF.72.2 is 1,023 feet (0.2 mile) long with grassy vegetation lining the ditch levees. • Segment 5BF.72.3 is 3,392 feet (0.64 mile) long. The latter two segments traverse areas characterized by industrial and residential development. Segment 5BF.76.2 is 2,172 feet long and approaches SH 7, then turns south crossing both SH 7 and 1-25. The ditch where exposed is earthen with rip-rapped banks and is about 15 feet wide. The ditch has been extensively realigned by recent commercial development to remove the entire ditch loop north of SH 7 and is now buried in a pipe for its length parallel to SH 7 and crosses south underneath SH 7 via a bridge. This segment of the ditch ends at the foot of the 1-25 southbound on-ramp. The Broomfield segments traverse areas characterized by industrial and residential development. The Adams County segments include 5AM.457.2, 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8. Segment 5AM.457.2 is approximately 35-feet wide and 3,685 feet (0.7 mile) long. This segment crosses under existing 1-25 and the frontage road via modern CBCs. Heavy riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding land now supports mixed development. Remaining segments 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8 cross 1-25 and the frontage roads inside culverts installed when 1-25 was constructed in the 1960s. Segment 5AM.457.3 runs east of 1-25 near the base of the northbound off-ramp for SH 7. The ditch runs underneath 1-25 in a 330 foot long CBC. The segment appears briefly on the surface at the opening of the CBC directly east of 1-25 and immediately disappears below ground to cross underneath the Larkridge Shopping Center. Segment 5AM.457.4 of the ditch is located west of 1-25 and south of West136th Avenue. Most of the ditch segment has been abandoned and the ditch has been realigned at a point further west of 1-25 out of the APE. A portion of the abandoned segment has been obliterated by new commercial construction at the site. Historic Preservation 3.15-107 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Segment 457.8 is no longer functional and has been abandoned. This segment is located east • of 1-25 near milepost 226.8. This 1,585 foot long, 26 foot wide concrete lined looping ditch segment has been abandoned and no longer functions for irrigation. Weeds and rushes fill the abandoned channel floor and the concrete lining of the bank is cracked and settled in many places. Eligibility Determination: The entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch was a part of the ambitious, corporate-developed Standley Lake Irrigation System developed in the early 20th Century. The canal is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado, and under Criterion C as an important example of irrigation engineering in the region. Segments 5WL.1966.11 and 5WL.1966.8 also include good examples of concrete siphons which represent a distinctive method of hydraulic engineering that add to the canal's significance under Criterion C. Segments 5WL.1966.1, 5WL.1966.11, 5BF72.1, 5BF.72.2, 5BF.72.3, and 5AM457.1 within the project APE retain sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Resources 5BF.76.2, 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8 were found to lack sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. S Historic Preservation 3.15-108 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS ilk information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-50 5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, 5AM.457 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) Segments intersecting project APE LEGEND 1 i * Historic Ditches -~— 'r Jverinpton -., /./ Study Corridors x.,\,185 /\/ Highways ,• ) gl \,` /\/ Arterial Roads Race t J Regional Study Area i \ tqpI Film rnIItl,s •' j City Boundaries / 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area i -- r Ault 1 II I .1 a I 2�7 t rmr�th v Severance Eaten t I. I ' 5 287 • -. --..__Qt;irdsa Lucerne t 3392 I , 263i 34 I - . I 411,cin' .1 Iovelaltd I • 34 i La Salle . ipm k:nrrtovn , 60--a- / 85 Berthas.' MillikenO Milliken 56 • / Gik:resif / • . Platteville lle i i in onion! i l i ane I Ely .2 VoIkna o • ! 5WL.1966.11 5WL.1966.1 i 0 firestone ! i / Nivw Et____. 0 irateick O 1 r,,-:Xlu fat twin( if r ' 5BF.72.1 o t�„t�re� \ t 5WL.1966.8 ' el 56F.72.2 Boulder I V ) Lafarp+'r. "WI "� 5BF.72.3 I I2Lv;lie =N -`__-. Digh:ol, 0 r ---1--, 5AM.457.3 ,a �` Slgerid • I I ;� ta;tls:< ---4 i,....,.‘ % F „4„„, ;..,,, ; - 5AM.457.2 5AM.457.8 • 36 f 81 i i k_ -- -✓' •� 2,/, • 5AM.457.4 • . 1.117L„41/4-, ,____ i• . T - 1 Denver—. = 70 4 — I / •___,__aI- i ® i _--11 /\ or _t . •.1m.e e iim0.* I I 4I I 8 10 Miles North ).\..... h......N\ A-, Map OoalnvM 1-Y. Mp T-np4Y_1Nt0Em.al et87AG7-t St 29 PY 3 Historic Preservation 3.15-109 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Effect Determination: • In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.1—Package A: This historic canal is currently conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road in two places through modern CBCs. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.1 — Package B: In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned farther to the east. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package B. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.1—Package A: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under Package A, the 1-25 template would be reconfigured to provide four general purpose lanes in each direction. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package A. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.1—Package B: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package B. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.2—Package A: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.2—Package B: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package B. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.3—Package A: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of four general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements • in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package A. Historic Preservation 3.15-110 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5BF.72.3—Package B: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of four general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package B. Impacts to segment 5BF.76.2—Package A: Package A would require putting the 750 foot long remainder of the ditch located between the SH 7 pipe outfall and the existing 1-25 CBC in a buried culvert (see Figure 3.15-51). Impacts to segment 5BF.76.2—Package B: Package B would require putting the 750 foot long remainder of the ditch located between the SH 7 pipe outfall and the existing 1-25 CBC in a buried culvert (see Figure 3.15-51). Impacts to segment 5AM.457.2—Package A: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.2—Package B: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under Package B, the 1-25 template would consist of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane. The portion of the ditch that currently crosses under the highway and frontage roads is conveyed inside a • CBC. The new roadway would be contained within the current roadway template and no new disturbance would occur to areas of the ditch located outside the existing culverts. The integrity of that portion of the historic canal to be placed in a culvert has already been compromised by original construction of 1-25 in the 1960s, and no new direct or indirect impacts would occur. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.3—Package A: Package A would result in placing an additional 100 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the 1-25 northbound off-ramp (see Figure 3.15-51). Impacts to segment 5AM.457.3—Package B: Package B would result in placing an additional 100 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the 1-25 northbound off-ramp (see Figure 3.15-51). Historic Preservation 3.15.111 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-51 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) — Commuter Rail il ! i . _ .i_LEGEND ` .. .J` l Historical Resources x i Packages A & B Resource Impact I . F , ;� 'r Packages A & B ROW Boundary ` '' 25 1 �j :1 I SAM 457.3 & 5BF.76.2 Boundaries C. t.. . Packages EOP —t Bridge / Culvert e ' Roadway Features •—t Retaining Wall I , , :- i Parcel Boundaries A., Guardrails - ; I , ' i t• ..:or _ j` ,^ it f ' , _ ter ar, Existing culvert , ; , t , • under SH 7 .. a f ti f j f - \ } -• / ` - — t- —el ..' . • e se e "Milk -an Sri i F , . a it a i .• Mt 4 • 41 4 Ir : 's I. t '/ � 11r, i FIl 750 linear feet of impact �_ r4' 1 P , • 1 4. pr- ; 1. . ' . ity /tip ...- 4 .,: A t ii ] l/ 111 , . I ' _ , ii, . F • ti, :fir Existing culvert 330 feet long Sik \ ,h \ \-_ J i , . ,.." , -. :, i \6� s• .� *i' New 100-foot-long I st 7147 ? • �S S9 i culvert extension t, 1 _ --_., A, " . --- \ \• •• ,, :,/ i/ i 7 . ,•. 'c gait \ A .., il N 1 � f or. • c • 'Xi P. ' ' / 8, • , �\ 40 • location Map - - H/////1 / \1/4.e.' �� `` a 0 200 `, , #1\73 //I:, . . :: ,,.. ,, i ...f --.- I 2, / •r- kits - V Feet North % Historic Preservation 3.15-112 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.4—Package A: The ditch is in an area where no improvements are planned on 1-25 in Package A. A permanent water quality basin is planned in proximity to the ditch but would not result in a direct impact to this feature. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.4—Package B: Highway widening of 1-25 resulting from Package B would not result in direct impacts to this ditch. A permanent water quality basin is planned in proximity to the ditch but would not result in a direct impact to this feature. There would be no temporary construction impacts to this feature. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.8—Package A: The ditch is in a non-improvement component of Package A and results in no impacts to the ditch. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.8—Package B: Package B improvements do not encroach on the ditch. Temporary construction impacts would be avoided at this site. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.11: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across this historic ditch segment. The new rail line would closely parallel an existing active rail line through this area. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and no culvert extension should be necessary to accommodate the new additional rail line. No direct or indirect impacts would therefore occur. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.8: In the vicinity of this historic ditch, the proposed new commuter rail line would run closely parallel to the east side of an existing active rail line. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. • The existing culvert would be left in place and approximately 58 feet of open ditch would be placed in a new culvert extending beneath the proposed new commuter rail line (see Figure 3.15-52). Although a small segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: A total of 908 linear feet of open ditch would be impacted. Approximately 850 feet of ditch would be placed inside two culverts at the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange where much of the ditch has already been realigned and runs through existing culverts (BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3). An additional 58 feet of open ditch (5WL.1966.85) would be placed inside an extended culvert along the commuter rail. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at that location. No other direct or indirect impacts would occur to the remaining seven segments. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). Package B: A total of 850 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert at one segment locality (5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3). Impacts would be identical to Package A. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at that location. No other direct or indirect impacts would occur to the remaining seven segments. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). Historic Preservation 3.15-113 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-52 5WL.1966.8 (Bull Ditch segment of the Bull Canal/Stand1ey Ditch) — Commuter Rail II 1 LEGEND Historical Resources , Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary diii 5WL.1966.8 Property Boundary • Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design as,...,_., Parcel Boundaries in.... Bridge I Culvert * i- ' `. ' {l^' - • , . .4C , i\\ zi P; tit Open ditch would be placed 0 D. inside an extended culvert; • • 58 linear feet impacted k4. . N. Y.. \ I _ _ _ _ \ - , ,, \ . . • . a a, r :.- Existing culvert] 6 iri i_7_7::\ 1 :. 4 r .A IrNn I F 1 jin t.s, 1 sS, f'.�.t i I • * , l l \ • I�. •. •f,, .: Location Map - V 1 0 150 0 ionsmi Feet North Ti Historic Preservation 3.15-114 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5AM.1291.3 (Farmers Highline Canal/Niver Canal) Resource Description: This historic canal segment runs perpendicular to, and crosses, 1-25. The earthen ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under the highway was altered when 1-25 was built in the 1960s, when the canal channel was placed under a 38-foot long bridge. The entire ditch is approximately 40 miles long. The documented segment in the project APE (5AM.1291.3) is 2,234 feet long. Grassy vegetation with sparse riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes residential development. Eligibility Determination: The entire length of the canal (5AM.1291) in Adams County is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Adams County. The canal has been in operation for over 100 years. The segment within the project APE (5AM.1291.3) retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination—Package A: 1-25 currently passes over this historic canal via an existing 123 foot wide by 38 foot long bridge structure. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing bridge would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination—Package B: Under Package B, the existing bridge over the historic canal would be replaced with a new 73 foot long, 210 foot wide pre-cast pre-stressed girder • bridge, to carry a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated managed lane. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of the historic canal, and no direct or indirect impacts would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.322 (White-Plumb Farm) Resource Description: The White-Plumb Farm was established in the late 1800s. It is located at 955 39th Avenue in Greeley. The homestead was originally part of a 160-acre Timber Culture Act claim acquired in 1881 by Civil War veteran Charles White. The Plumb family moved to the farm in 1923 and lived there until 1997. This farm has been designated a Centennial Farm by the Colorado Historical Society. Eligibility Determination: Based on its important association with agriculture in Weld County during the 19th century, this homestead is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A. Effect Determination—Package A: None of the proposed improvements associated with Package A are close to this historic property, and no direct or indirect impacts would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination—Package B: None of the proposed improvements associated with Package B are close to this historic property, and no direct or indirect impacts would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic • properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-115 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. E-470 ro US 36 • 5AM.2073 (North Glenn First Filing) Resource Description: This historic post-World War II residential subdivision (5AM.2073) is located on the east side of 1-25. It is bounded on the south by East 104th Avenue and on the east by Washington Street. It is significant as an integral and important element of the master planned community of Northglenn. North Glenn was developed by the Pert-Mack Construction Company, aided by the Denver-based planning firm of Harman, O'Donnell, Henninger and Associates, and was envisioned as serving a population of 15,000 with balanced areas for housing, school, parks, churches, shopping centers, municipal facilities, and light industry. The original plan for Northglenn included five interconnected neighborhoods containing single- family dwellings on 1,526 acres. The residential neighborhoods featured winding streets designed for privacy and child safety. The North Glenn First Filing was the first of the neighborhood areas to be laid out and filled with houses. Homes in the North Glenn development were recognized in the late 1950s and the early 1960s with awards for quality design, planning, and comfort. The North Glenn First Filing contains approximately 183 single family dwellings constructed shortly after the subdivision was platted in April 1959. The majority of these dwellings are single story brick or brick veneer-clad Ranch-style houses with attached garages. Eligibility Determination: The North Glenn First Filing subdivision is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as a major element in the award winning, master planned self- sufficient community of Northglenn (Note: the 1959 subdivision plat identifies the development as "North Glenn" even though the entire community was originally called "Northglenn"). This • subdivision is also associated with a historically significant trend of post-World War II urban growth in the Denver metropolitan area. Effect Determination—Package A: Under Package A, no changes are planned through this portion of 1-25. No direct impacts would therefore occur. Noise levels caused by 1-25 highway traffic would increase one to two decibels in the future but would not reach impact levels. Much of the subdivision is located away from the mainline highway lanes, closer to 1-25 entrance ramps associated with the interchange at 104th Avenue. The subdivision would experience lower noise levels than areas located immediately adjacent to the 1-25 travel lanes. An existing noise wall extends south from 112th Avenue to almost 104th Avenue into the First Filing area and ends at the end of the northbound entrance ramp. Noise impacts would not be great enough to diminish the qualities that make the subdivision historically significant. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. Effect Determination—Package B: Under Package B, managed lanes would be incorporated within the center of a widened 1-25 highway footprint within the existing CDOT right-of-way. To accommodate stormwater and municipal separate stormwater sewer system (MS4) requirements, a sediment pond would be placed between the 1-25 pavement and the subdivision boundary. No direct impacts would result from these improvements. Indirect effects (primarily noise) are the same as with Package A. • FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-116 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5AM.2074 (North Glenn Second Filing) Resource Description: This historic post-World War II residential subdivision (5AM.2074) is located on the east side of 1-25 and lies directly north of the North Glenn First Filing subdivision. The Second Filing subdivision is bounded on the east by Washington Street and on the north by East 112th Avenue. It is significant as an integral and important element of the master planned community of Northglenn, developed in 1959 by the Perl-Mack Construction Company, aided by the Denver-based planning firm of Harman, O'Donnell, Henninger and Associates, and was envisioned as serving a population of 15,000 with balanced areas for housing, school, parks, churches, shopping centers, municipal facilities, and light industry. The original plan for Northglenn included five interconnected neighborhoods containing single-family dwellings on 1,526 acres. The residential neighborhoods featured winding streets designed for privacy and child safety. The North Glenn First Filing was the first of the neighborhood areas to be laid out and filled with houses. Homes in the North Glenn development were recognized in the late 1950s and the early 1960s with awards for quality design, planning, and comfort. The North Glenn Second Filing contains approximately 882 single family dwellings constructed shortly after the subdivision was platted in June, 1959. Eligibility Determination: The North Glenn First Filing subdivision is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as a major element in the award winning, master planned self-sufficient community of Northglenn (Note: the 1959 subdivision plat identifies the development as "North Glenn" even though the entire community was originally called "Northglenn"). This subdivision is also associated with a historically significant trend of post-World War II urban growth in the Denver metropolitan area. • Effect Determination—Package A: Under Package A, improvements are planned through this portion of 1-25. No direct impacts would therefore occur. Noise levels caused by 1-25 highway traffic would increase one to two decibels in the future and would reach impact levels in the No-Action Alternative as well as Package A; however, the Second Filing area is currently protected from excessive noise by noise barriers located along 1-25. Additionally, a new noise wall is recommended to extend north of the Second Filing area. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse affect to this historic resource. Effect Determination—Package B: Under Package B, managed lanes would be incorporated within the center of a widened 1-25 highway footprint within the existing CDOT right-of-way. To accommodate stormwater and MS4 requirements, sediment ponds would be placed selectively in areas situated between 1-25 pavement and the subdivision boundary. No direct impacts would occur. Noise levels caused by 1-25 highway traffic would increase one to two decibels in the future and would reach impact levels in the No Action Alternative as well as Package B; however, the Second Filing area is currently protected from excess noise by noise barriers located along 1-25. Additionally, a new noise wall is recommended farther north of the Second Filing area. These noise impacts would not substantially diminish the qualities that make the subdivision NRHP-eligible. The visual impact of the sediment ponds would not indirectly affect neighboring homes enough to diminish the qualities that render this subdivision NRHP-eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no adverse affect to this historic resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-117 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.15.2.4 PACKAGE A TRANSIT COMPONENTS • The transit components of Package A would generally affect historic resources due to the location of a new alignment for the commuter rail component. Specific consequences related to each transit component are described below. COMMUTER RAIL: FORT COLLINS TO LONGMONT There would be no direct effect to any historic structures within this segment as the alignment follows the existing BNSF Railroad alignment. Between the north end of the regional study area and the Colorado State University (CSU) station, the existing track would be used. There would be one additional set of tracks to the east within the existing railroad right-of-way from CSU in Fort Collins south to North Longmont. There are 11 historic properties in this component of commuter rail. 5LR.11330 (Public Service Company of Colorado — Fort Collins Substation) Resource Description: This structure, located at 128 W. Prospect Road in Fort Collins, was built in the 1920s. It represents the first generation of power facility construction after Public Service Company consolidated their control over delivery and transmission across Colorado. Eligibility Determination: This structure is significant under Criterion A for its role in distribution of electrical power to Fort Collins and the Colorado State University campus. It is also architecturally significant (Criterion C) as a good example of an early twentieth century power facility. Effect Determination—Package A: There would be no direct effect to this property (see Figure 3.15-53). Indirect effects include a change the visual environment due to the construction of a retaining wall that will be built on the adjacent railroad right-of-way. There • would also be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this commercial/industrial building. Noise levels are expected to increase 1dBA over existing conditions. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. 5LR.10819.2 (Larimer County Canal No. 2) Resource Description: The Larimer County Canal No.2 was constructed in 1873. The 3,204 foot segment crosses underneath the existing BNSF RR south of Drake Road in Fort Collins. The ditch then turns south, parallel to the railroad for a distance of 2,731 feet before returning to an easterly course. The ditch is in part concrete lined, and has been extensively realigned and portions placed inside a pipe along the railway. Eligibility Determination: The ditch segment 5LR.10819.2 no longer retains its integrity of location and therefore does not support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination—Package A: The existing 25 foot wide bridge would be extended east approximately 15 feet over open ditch to accommodate new track for Package A commuter rail (see Figure 3.15-54). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by construction of the BNSF RR and Package A modifications are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Canal No.2. Historic Preservation 3.15-118 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-53 5LR.11330 (Public Service Company of Colorado-Fort Collins • Sub-station) — Package A Commuter Rail LEGEND .. a • Historical Resources I411 Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary - "`` ,. '' • Ng; , illi -. 5LR.11330 Property Boundary Commuter Rail Design Ills 1 illitit . 1( F Parcel Boundaries mikes Retaining Wallli Package A Comm Rail Footprint I d I . % �. ' A - 1 . . _ r lier ist t 1 m intr. R.. •f . 0. t - - i l i ailm ` nor • is , : p - _ 1 111 � � iib . s ... I st 3 ` l. ! . ( ilk t 4 4 IS J41 I ) a '. ter 44 1. • /IP•ft�lr .0 . O t . •.4 I I le :rt: 4J ,/ rr', •, e • %.. b - Location Map`` - C ilk,D , r+-. r_ I ,Map 1-- ' 1. 0 100 -,t, r I I Feet North III 4 Historic Preservation 3.15-119 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation• transportation. Figure 3.15-54 5LR.10819.2 (Larimer County Canal No.2) — Package A II LEGEND fi Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5LR.10819.2 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design CParcel Boundaries a -or } n . lr - - r _ • . jilt . — Or •1` I J+� 1 of r 14'4 - N • �, T 0(Existing25footwidebridge _y. - would be extended 15 feet • .� , to accommodate new track •-i. for commuter rail. Total bridge width 35 feet Existin Brid9e 25 ft { i t r•9 . i % jilt, I New bridge impact = 15 feet illilmt t - • 1, _ _ N , -' / . i c-6 soil. ' • • ,It:t Ilk • t ui rte, tiIL I C • l C • I. .1„. ..-.r, __ o �. I ...._ . • r U I• , , V' E i 7H _i �s i/ J coik th Ij ltil ' I ji a, : . - wia •11, � ! 1iiiiii, • 7 1 i r -•i . / ill Location Map` .14 i i rr\ r~ I i , s 4 x` o 100 ,� ' ' Feet North ' r� , lir- .. . •9.. ~ 111 Historic Preservation 3.15-120 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.10681.1 (New Mercer Ditch) Resource Description: The New Mercer Ditch (5LR.10681) was constructed in 1870 and is one of the oldest ditches in the Fort Collins area. The entire ditch is 15.6 miles long. This segment is a 1.1 mile long unlined ditch. Where intact, the ditch is 26 feet wide and 10 feet deep. The original ditch crossed under the railroad but in the mid 1980s it was realigned to run west of the BNSF Railroad between Horsetooth and Harmony Roads. The ditch now crosses underneath the railroad in a corrugated steel pipe south of Harmony Road and discharges into Mail Creek Eligibility Determination: The entire ditch is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A because of its important role in the irrigation and agricultural history of the area and remains in use today. Segment 10681.1 has been realigned and modified by culverts so that it no longer retains qualities that support the eligibility of the entire resource. Effects Determination—Package A: No portion of the ditch would be impacted by the commuter rail improvements in Package A, therefore, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected. 5LR.488 (Colorado and Southern Railway Depot / Loveland Depot) Resource Description: The Loveland Depot is located at 405 —409 Railroad Ave. in Loveland. It was built in 1902 by the Colorado and Southern Railway Company which was the successor, in 1898, to the Colorado Central Railroad which originally laid tracks through Loveland in 1877. Loveland, an agricultural community, was dependent on the railroad for its • economic survival and the depot was critical for efficient movement of freight and passengers. Eligibility Determination: This structure is significant under Criterion A for its role in rail transportation in northern Colorado. It is also architecturally significant under Criterion C as a good example of an turn-of-the-century depot. Effect Determination—Package A: Although there would be direct effect to the property, there would be no direct effect to the structure (see Figure 3.15-55). A concrete platform would be built between the station and the tracks. The platform's dimension would be 27' wide by 350' long. This platform would encroach onto the depot parcel and would be located adjacent to the west side of the depot affecting 0.3 acre of the historic property. The construction of this platform adjacent to the depot is consistent with the historic use of the train depot and would provide a direct transition from the depot to the arriving and departing trains. This positioning of the platform would provide impetus for recapturing the original use of the structure as a train depot. The depot is currently used as a restaurant. Other indirect impacts would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this handsome historic depot. Noise levels are expected to increase 5 dBA over existing conditions. This would not be a new or heightened condition from the historic times when the depot was operational and trains were frequently arriving and departing from this station. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, • FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Historic Preservation 3.15.121 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-55 5LR.488 (Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/Loveland Depot) Package A Commuter Rail 111, .. r. _ . I ... . • .: - I LEGEND .. i Historical Resources • ase or • Package A Resource Impact - S 5LR 488 Property Boundary " • — - r .r f1 • "" or--11 Hsstnnc Depot Building FoolprnU Recent Building Addition (not htstonc) Oil -. rr 4 Conmuter Rail Design r. ' ET 41 1 • Parcel Boundaries •(j! I r illit—soma : 3 �` fr eg El , „ _ _ f r � 1. .s • ass - 1 - ‘A , • 4 c , ti1 up • I 11 4.r ' . 1 •- of ow ::t ®•� Area Impacted 1,253 Sy Ft INS '�Agit: t: iitt till • 'allilli = 0.03 Acres .Ant , is* in v. i....c, r." -, ar - _ , I .. . rf . _ . , r c % iiik IIIII I gin -. igloo■ .....i 4 all . j e . • I 11 . b�11 A ■ ai `) - ; �; � r .A -- : k • . . . . •.- /p ..,. c..\ ciI. ; • . ■H = M v -r I ', mitt ` . ■ `' b." �_ -T III •�: r Bch Tr.r__ e ■ ' '— ■■t . r,.�•. Al f.Nt it t ,, .:.� . t >a� N I i ` ■ # It■ / t �� Total Area: 18,665 Sq Ft i - 0.43 Acres 1 �^,Mikal 1 • t • - IR .VII' - t ��+yi Fr g ©Ql�',�, T •�' � i{!f • , Pocation Map 27 0 g 1 ..,. 0 100 t 1 -4____._J Feet North Ti Historic Preservation 3.15-122 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.1729.2 (Biq Thompson Ditch) Resource Description: The entire ditch (5LR.1729) is 10 miles long and is one of the oldest in the area. The 2,216 foot long segment crosses the BNSF Railroad just north of SH 402 in Loveland. The ditch parallels the railroad for 485 feet before turning east and passing under the railroad in a CBC. The 6 foot wide ditch is concrete lined and west of the railroad and unlined east of the BNSF. Eligibility Determination: The ditch is NRHP-eligible due to its ties to the town of Loveland and the successful development of high plains irrigation under Criterion A. The ditch has been realigned and concrete-lined, compromising the historic integrity within the setting, and is non- supportive of the greater site. Effects Determination—Package A: Under Package A, the new commuter rail track would be placed east and adjacent to the exiting track (see Figure 3.15-56). At the existing BNSF crossing the ditch is conveyed underneath the railway in a 35 foot long culvert pipe. This pipe would be extended and the ditch realigned 60 feet east to accommodate the new track. Part of this length is to alter the ditch outfall from a perpendicular bend as it exits the railroad crossing to a smoother angled alignment, for the purpose of preventing ditch erosion during higher flows. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the BNSF Railroad and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Big Thompson Ditch 41 (5LR.1729). • Historic Preservation 3.15-123 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-56 5LR.1729.2 (Big Thompson Ditch) — Package A II LEGEND - - I Historical Resources I Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary — I — 5LR.1729.2 Property Boundary PackageAComm Rail Footprint .td _saws- Commuter Rail Design -. -r Parcel Boundaries _ lit _ r. _ 9 1 - is ` . ail a < . /ills fr. i 411111 u J it. W 06 o ONO IC cn i New culvert extension of GO feet. * 41 cco Total culvert length = 95 feet. 4 _ .. _ , , Existing Culvert = 35 feet long M V It �' s i i . M .iiw a ti 1 I • ' c ,�. w, .n• *: Ale. t 14TH SW ST ' Y� ts •Yr ).•. , into I is il-‘ 1 ., 2_ Alp , fell , ti Location Map s i =it --T,, '11111111111\ t i Ai II rnN 0 200 0 li : 4,I .1/41 I Feet North ' i Historic Preservation 3.15-124 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.1710.1 (Handy Ditch) Resource Description: This segment of the Handy Ditch crosses under the railway alignment. The entire ditch is approximately 24 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5LR.1710.1) is 2.9 miles long and 24 feet wide from bank to bank. Both banks are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area includes residential development. Eligibility Determination: In 1993, the OAHP officially determined the Handy Ditch to be NRHP-eligible. The ditch is eligible under Criteria A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. This segment (5LR.1730.1) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5BL.3449.2 (Supply Ditch) Resource Description: The entire earthen ditch was constructed in 1861 and is approximately 22 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5LR.3449.2) is 100 feet long and follows its original historic alignment through the project area and is in good functional condition. This segment of the Supply Ditch crosses an active rail line in a culvert. Both banks are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports industrial and residential development. • Eligibility Determination: The Supply Ditch was determined to be NRHP-eligible by OAHP in 1992. The ditch is eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. This segment (5BL.3449.2) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: The historic Supply Ditch currently crosses an active railroad line via a culvert. The proposed commuter rail line would be aligned 20 feet north and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment carrying the new tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 65 feet wide. Thus, 65 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the new commuter rail line on the south side of the existing rail line (see Figure 3.15-57). The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the commuter rail line is in close proximity to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 22 mile-long linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Supply Ditch. • Historic Preservation 3.15-125 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-57 5BL.3449.2 (Supply Ditch) — Package A II w. LEGEND Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact , Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5BL.3449.2 Property Boundary 1 Y Package A Comm Rail Footprint _ ,_ .. Y ' • A !rr".Commuter Rail Design ,, IParcel Boundaries r ir .r f Existing culvert •F- ^� .dr r IL • : - K. . i- N I -41 tis , _ doe, , . _ _. .„c. _ _ . _ts ' . - , , - . . ,-- I . . . . ... . \ s . \ I ` . dr / . It/ C -1' . . ` . ^t , . _ - . . t. ciris II . :,_L '.r Open ditch would be placed - = 4 t inside extended culvert; 65 Linear Feet Impacted .- .1 //et r • ...... .ted .AID I , 47- 1\. , . .,, pi i , r. ` �' — t ... i ' rt �.lF. 3 2 et 't` - + `�Niq--1 It . s li ,‘r , _ .. ....... _ ___ _ _ _ T ___,.... r, „:„. 4...4,,,, _ , . . . location Map ', 4 0 200 iimiiii Feet North � - 4 Il v . _ . _ _ _. it. 4 r ' Historic Preservation 3.15-126 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5BL.3114.28 (Highland Ditch) Resource Description: This segment of the historic earthen Highland Ditch passes beneath the UPRR railway alignment via a bridge. The entire ditch is approximately 24.2 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3114.28) is 100 feet long. Both banks of the ditch are covered by riprap in many areas. Grass and riparian growth cover the ditch levees. The surrounding area supports rural residential development. Eligibility Determination: In 1991, the OAHP officially determined the Highland Ditch to be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. This segment (5BL.3114.28) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5BL.3113.67 (Rough & Ready Ditch) Resource Description: This segment of the historic earthen Rough & Ready Ditch crosses under the active UPRR railway alignment via a concrete culvert. The entire ditch is approximately 16.5 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3113.67) is 100 feet long. This segment is the oldest portion of the ditch, with water appropriated in 1869. The ditch is 20 feet wide and 6 feet deep, is in good condition, and much of its length follows the historic • alignment. At the east side of the railway crossing, the ditch is piped underground beneath a power substation. Well developed riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area supports rural residential development. Eligibility Determination: In 1991, the OAHP officially determined the entire Rough & Ready Ditch (5BL.3113) to be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3113.67) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: The historic Rough & Ready Ditch currently crosses the active railroad line inside a modern concrete culvert. The proposed commuter rail line would be aligned 20 feet northeast and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment supporting the new tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 35 feet wide. Thus, 35 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the new commuter rail track and ballast on the south side of the existing rail line (see Figure 3.15-58). The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the commuter rail line is in close proximity to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 16.5 mile-long linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Rough & Ready Ditch. • Historic Preservation 3.15.127 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-58 5BL.3113.67 (Rough & Ready Ditch) — Commuter Rail . I II LEGEND e I 3 ' E Historical Resources NILr si Package A Resource Impact p 4 • Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ii i 5BL.3113.67 Property Boundary - Package A Comm Rail Footprint 3f PI • 1 1 Commuter Rail Design ;,j + f ar 4 I 1' - IIPIE Parcel Boundaries s. 1 4 h,- - I • li �•c .. _� ' �� - - tt iCa f 1 . Y _. . is 1 .1413/4) , t \\ /�i 111 %^ r • - - ..., • , 4 i impoto It . yy�� t 1 a Existing culverts ..,\-k \in* • \ 7: A . • mil II )7 _, , , • g . ‘0...., ‘2 All \ / .. al l -r , .. _____ , ...... ,. ......,.. fi . l+ l AL ' /4:4C- ‘- iiite+-• - ri 21 ST AV AS T, 1 , r r n k, Open ditch would be placed wesseswt •� r _- \,1 ;A inside new culvert; '! 1, P CIt ' M� 35 Linear Feet Impacted l - " 1 , `_a _ �� 0 ,-mss as: NA •••-. 1 1 i kif thip % ' rtij- t • .t . .' 4 • jo \ is et- r VI .- �0 1._. /, ... .z 1 `\ ► . ,,, / 7 OW_ - easi i • Firl— I % i / . 1 ' ' c < •r Oc 0 ..r "ilk 114 Ali\ lA l ' i• r,i'gilt It II 1 � ilagal -.."- iri \ ,.. .t> , N � \ ( r X , \� .. `1:11s ...v.--ji .. ,Location Map tilt 5 ' 41 f'. MC ji A . h 4,1 3:2 - 0 200 0 , '�.=., / i'' �, '� a Feet North1 if • I --- 'om - + ' s. - A -at Historic Preservation 3.15-128 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5BL.4832 (Oligarchy Ditch) Resource Description: The entire earthen ditch is approximately 15.6 miles long. The ditch has been associated with Boulder County irrigation since its first appropriation date of 1861, which is among the oldest in the county. Two segments of the ditch cross the APE (see Figure 3.15-59). Segment 5BL.4832.28 crosses the active railway alignment in a culvert. This segment is 100 feet long, 21 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Both banks of the ditch are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports rural residential development. A second Oligarchy Ditch segment (5BL.4832.26) follows a meandering course through the proposed commuter rail alignment. This segment in the project APE is one mile long. Well developed riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in some areas. The surrounding area supports semi-rural residential development. Eligibility Determination: The Oligarchy Ditch is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. The two segments located within the APE retain sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.4832). • Impacts to segment 5BL.4832.28—Package A: The proposed commuter rail line would be aligned 20 feet northeast and parallel to the existing railroad. The new embankment supporting the tracks and ballast and ballast would require an area approximately 48 feet wide. Thus, the existing culvert that carries Oligarchy Ditch underneath the railway would be extended, impacting 48 feet of the open ditch that would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the new commuter rail line on the south side of the existing rail line (see Figure 3.15-60). Although the physical integrity of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing a portion of it into a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-129 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-59 5BL.4832 (Oligarchy Ditch) — Segments intersecting project APE a 1 , l LEGEND i I\ * Historic Ditches -"-----••.. .- Wellington � Al/ Study Corridors ;•./ Highways 287J i�1 /\ 85 •• , /\/ Arterial Roads `,/ ® �. / PiecePiecei J Regional Study Area -`� . Fort Ciillinsr— \ City Boundaries .�-.: . l . tea` a Cities & Towns in Project Area _+ >.,(fj__ Ault �‘ I - 2 7 z 0 Se•:,rrarlce Exm i ,1 392 i Greeley .1 .._ 34 .m , t 1263 - t : la Salle . / f •i Gawk);l Johrstann • / L• perthcud ..� 6 4 i ; O Milliken 85 / Glues( / , le I i n+lea" I /- . yPlatteville 66 . .---1. - 1 5BL.4832.28 ; s Longmont1 , '. i ' 14 �l� v iI 0 F'estate i • Nivot 0 iredeick I i 5BL.4832.26 / ti i Cacato Eat Lupta �' Gulbartel i • Erie-- I �--- . . , I Watterter, `Botikler fa -- i — - =s Latayette ' ' � lnrisville I - o ' ..- &jou, _ _ 'N. , 1 ,. East7....."-N i �—"/ &wmrield O : ' • j {r_} / la,n /� -- • Nathglene f . \ 361 f . .• - Q irAf"ton a t ��' // , . Denver-'-..b.:�j • r 4 ; 11•// 7 7 I7 ;'4A -. ...4•••••• "..- .ens.... 0 2 4 6 8 10 1- , - :ei_L' I I ' ' I ' Miles North I4 Crowm•rrt IN L&M•P lemugk_'20106m.01 PM I v18�2007-1 37 hl Historic Preservation 3.15-130 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-60 5BL.4832.28 (Oligarchy Ditch) — Package A Commuter Rail LEGEND . l:�a Historical Resources 1 r` . • t, i Package A Resource Impact _ .. Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary - - 9 y jr ' qr , ' _ . _ 5BL.4832.28 Property Boundary - I >I< I di pr Package A Comm Rail Footprint t tea.. t - Commuter Rail Design I ii - `- _ =-�-� 14 .♦ -- Parcel Boundaries ; , Ijr-s L • , , iv , - ,. . xi-.' _i_ . , ,, • • ii . , , . , 4, , -'4. "6 ( ..'I • Open ditch would be placed A. . / . . _ , . . • t ilkd / i r la• 0 ' j "i\\ inside an extended culvert; it OR + pi\,N,H., 34 4. : ' s 0 - 48 Linear Feet Impacted __-i .s . { /. 4 1� ST r �,\ 0af • • • -/ik , , . , % 1 • 1101#11 a ► y Y ° _ t i ! IPPI,N.‘ • / 1• A . \ANN1V �-p , ERSARI , " �� Existing culvert =_ r ; rilli , , b 1� NE pR e Iii il l ,e � .\ 1 ,-, i .40 . .\ r '.•1 \ .• _ 4 . - / \ I T ' S. :a fi 4 ,. i . , ‘ , . A Q :ti, . z . 4 - .,_ . . 0 \ fig , , kk O. ____,-- .% r. : \ ., ‘ , z iLN w •1 N. .L . : . , , . • - . . . , . , . , s t�, 0 t. ' re...f \ . l • I 1 fk rip 4 , " . kik , iii. . .‘ .. . , . . ,_ • . . . . „ id \ . !'..72 1 0 . ' / l I rr Location MapIll IL. - ' II m..., issia._ , . , ,ielpeer. .0, , ;, V\I - ' '1 - _ 0 150 / "pit . _ .. ,,,,,,, - ..` ,, IP • �s I Feet North ' I L -Ilk . • 1a Historic Preservation 3.15.131 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5BL.4832.26—Package A: Portions of this segment of the historic • Oligarchy Ditch would pass through the proposed route of the new commuter rail line. The ditch meanders across this area, often running parallel to the planned railroad alignment. A segment of the ditch was realigned during construction of Ken Pratt Blvd. (SH 119), with the old channel being covered up and a 1,200 foot-long portion of the ditch placed in a 1,200 foot long culvert underneath 3r° Avenue and SH 119. The railway alignment follows a broad sweeping curve, and intersects the irregular course of the ditch west of 3rd Avenue. Because the ditch and railroad alignments generally run parallel, a 210 foot-long stretch of the open ditch would have to be bridged by a new railroad structure. A total length of 210 feet of open ditch would be spanned by a new bridge (see Figure 3.15-61). The resulting overhead cover would shade the portion of the ditch located underneath the bridge, but all structural support elements such as piers or abutments, would be placed outside of the historic boundary and would not result in a direct impact to the ditch. The physical setting of the ditch segment would not be substantially compromised by placing a portion of it underneath a bridge structure. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: A cumulative total of 48 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a new culvert (5BL.4832.26) and 210 feet of open ditch would flow underneath a new bridge (5BL.4832.28). Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation. Because the physical integrity of the ditch segment would not be substantially compromised by placing a portion of it inside a culvert and underneath a bridge structure, and these changes affect only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.4832). Package B: There are no direct or indirect impacts to the resource resulting from • improvements associated with Package B, therefore FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch. • Historic Preservation 3.15-132 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. iFigure 3.15-61 5BL.4832.26 (Oligarchy Ditch) — Package A Commuter Rail LEGEND - ' ` . Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact / Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary s .r 5BL.4832.26 Property Boundary ' iPackage A Comm Rail Footprint . Commuter Rail Design 0' ...4 Parcel Boundaries M * Bridge ; Culvert � ,,I c • • / - . - T 4,c'., . / r I •e ., J� ^ ' 1 • 111 a • �1 Gam,, . r 1 � ' .4 . . J Ilte__„........_____...... ..‘,154141/4.4414,44ip-,.,.,` .a. r_. . • 41. Existing Culvert it .- M: ,� • ct- - - - __ t;'- 210 linear feet of open -- ditch would be placed -: jr `� • ., j ► under new bridge ..;;A;%:# alitriallapre, , . : ,. .i‘; . , a - Z �a Qua / rye_ r .,---.:1 ! r `�r'i �. i _ • . _ � -! ••••••••[----r,- KYU�E DR • _.„ --- i ___k- , 1 a I II' , • �': ..„ , _ —_ r to u MIIII - -7- r- i . , ______; t . . goisral tie-. 5 i ' Tyr. ,.!‘nmpi ,. ,.. erili iti Val' lir— . I - � __I •t 1 , we,- a .4� • —— ' fii,. _, rrti, ham. wr•- I 1 - , ' t -IL ... 'rte y .'h' ter- . fi LocatLI ilr- - ion Map: - _ z • 5��: _ - �� .. i 0 300 , • t r Feet � � ' North Historic Preservation 3.15-133 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5BL.10636 (Boggs Residence) • Resource Description: This residence, located at 122 8th Ave. in Longmont, was built in 1939. It was the home of a local carpenter, Joe Boggs and displays elements of the Mediterranean style including stucco walls and an arcaded porch. Eligibility Determination: This structure is significant under Criterion C as a good example of an early twentieth century vernacular home with some Mediterranean style elements including an arcaded porch. Effect Determination—Package A: There would be no direct effect to this property (see Figure 3.15-62). The commuter rail alignment would stay on the existing single-track rail through this segment. Indirect effects include additional train traffic on the railway tracks under Package A, creating minor vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this residential building. Noise levels are expected to be the same as existing conditions. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. COMMUTER RAIL: LONGMONT TO FASTRACKS NORTH METRO This segment uses the existing track in the area between downtown Longmont to SH 119. From that point, a new double-track rail alignment continues to the east along SH 119 and • then south along the west side of WCR 7, then southeast along UPRR right-of-way to FasTracks North Metro. There are 12 historic properties in this component of commuter rail. 5BL.1245 (Old City Electric Building) Resource Description: The Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) is located at 103 Main Street in Longmont. It is an excellent example of 1930s industrial architecture featuring large windows, an open plan and solid brick construction. This building served the city's power needs from 1931 to 1969. Longmont was one of the first cities in Colorado to develop a municipally owned electric generation plant. Eligibility Determination: The Old City Electric Building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its significant role in the development of Longmont, and under Criterion C as an excellent, intact example of industrial architecture. This early power generation plant has also been designated as a Local Landmark by the City of Longmont. Effect Determination: Construction of a new commuter railroad line alongside the existing commercial rail line on the north side of 1st Avenue in Longmont would require acquisition of new right-of-way, including 0.85 acres of land containing this historic building. The building would need to be demolished or moved to a new location to accommodate the new commuter rail line tracks and associated construction activities (see Figure 3.15-63). This direct effect would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that an adverse effect to this resource would result. Details of mitigation for this effect are discussed under Section 3.15.3. • Historic Preservation 3.15-134 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-62 5BL.10636 (Boggs Residence) - Package A Commuter Rail LEGEND Historic al Resources 9TH AVE- . -I ► .ry __ _ 5EL 10636 Property Boundary - - + e , ii. ' lily Parcel Boundaries — -.....4 ' Note: no new tracks will be added adj, •`` acent NI to this property to avoid impacts _ �// • Y• r i � Ss; { ,11111 • li : ea a / �� k , �Qo + a �C - r I, . ' r r 0.•-! I a 11 illgillHI Ill r:J• ar. - .+1 ' fi ,` 1 i• r y 1 • eS 'mot_ til r . . t:7 , - III , . . l .1 . . .,7 .1_ iiii\i. a ! t • . - )1 • ii, . 1 i , r: r rot �. a • — j r .. i i ajoittitio.1 �. ez M1 , V - t 4 J. .11k ) , , • flb r ?. e / .I .4: 4 it:aPtitiwalli -• • a 4. - Ir _ `, ..H . SA ..... .,A '1iti— _Ei ;.• da . z-MIll ..y. , . - alll +r' , •N-...iceIlill l ocation Map `` t o 100 t \‘\1 ill iest:DrIl ` t I Feet North • : :psi:44 .y - Y Historic Preservation 3.15.135 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure II 3.15-63 5BL.1245 (Old City Electric Building) — Package A Commuter Rail ,. __ _. LEGEND I ` .. I +�,, z . , ,r Historical Resources 3 1 iR - kr; ., •Lit,Package A Resource Impact 1 y I Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ♦ tppli.444.4e40 — - 5BL.1245 Property Boundary F. a r , _ ,stn c Package A Comm Rail Footprint Z • r , Q t.. sea IP rrrs Commuter Rail Design 2 rn LLo : Y ; , Sir ParcelBoundaries O 1 II . , s• kii0, 1 I r w. _ i �.� fie --- -9• . �.. _ w v I ' 2ND AV s .. ilk SMIL_Ilb.lb. - '4.wet . r •' � s �7 t a ' , Ifs, iiiihr,s , i iiii , • t , ..„\I• 4-el • 1 4 f I '; 4, , , i .. A q i. ti r _*T s�,� , k_ . Area = 37,055 Sq. Ft ,r` `', pp L : �� Acres = 0.85 it sue; kl� !isioee ilk 114 IIIISIIISMIMMIS.a. i� qt. , i t t. r 'P �'� l ' , , At�..,,� al: .a.. 1. ref 41. a el i .......„...„ / hr is , . • -a It • LI I-�- -- �iiL:•" 1ST AV 11"r lalliersile. F -. ' I i Ali ( e ! , • c r-Oil. ;as r : 711r1 , PC i.406„ --.` Lk: '‘III. t � .z. ;1;1 4• % � ,_ ti.J\ , y Imo' ` y. i , r .4%- s //� �l a �� -�''• �•� _ z•� l 1 ,CI } 144 Si`nattetallit 1 / , _ 2 ; ' i '- I i I� A 4I.s .1!!!lE$ 1' H .y;a- ,�♦ YI.• - • I if i •// 474 -- 4 - _,A.47:1 avbei&E, f +ti AA i 1 r rii ce. . , �'� . ,�..ril 1 1, • , • s [ •N I -I-9 °it ..., i • t-Location Maps BosTON -AV — ► r .E * . p I I ' A I\ 4 I r•► is i • � �� `1 V V . • a 0li 300 - ' b,ib ,0, . T;E�..1;iiiiiriggilll g��. V „ I Feet jTI` assi North 14p•_ er a . s, ► re — le A — Historic Preservation 3.15-136 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5BL.1244 (Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot) Resource Description: The historic Colorado & i Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL.1244) ap ' =t " is located at 100 Main Street in f - a 4 3* "-19II Longmont. The depot was built in 1905. It is one of the two early _ _ railroad depots in Longmont and ' • is one of the finest small masonry depots in the state. The depot is the only extant Richardsonian Romanesque style building in Colorado&Southern/BNSF Depot Longmont. Eligibility Determination: This depot (5BL.1244) is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its association with railroad transportation and its contribution to the development of Longmont. The building is also NRHP-eligible under Criterion C as an excellent and well preserved example of masonry railroad depot architecture in Colorado. Effect Determination: Construction of a new commuter railroad line alongside the existing commercial rail line on the north side of First Avenue in Longmont would require acquisition of new right-of-way, including the 0.51 acre of land occupied by this historic building (see Figure 3.15-64). The building would need to be demolished or moved to another location to accommodate the new commuter rail tracks and associated construction activities. This direct • effect would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that an adverse effect to this resource would result. Details of mitigation for this effect are discussed under Section 3.15.3. • Historic Preservation 3.15-137 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-64 5BL.1244 (Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot) — Package A Commuter Rail ill aid LEGEND 1 . � i �e 0+ - Historical Resources r.a t Package A Resource Impact ? ' ' ! %le,, , .. I Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary • r' . -. . t C - Satiglai 5BL. 1244 Property Boundary Jr'1%4 letow* ' Package A Comm Rail Footprint s • i yt E - --- , ASLIB& a , Commuter Rail Designi w itar:sla i Parcel Boundaries IlkY,Ma 1 . I m air , ibilt ibri �"� t- i • .41 i 4 r - , - .. ._ . . .-21. 2ND AV „'"� is` , .. Assistimoodassu . . _ k _naiiis_1lLab " as.,:ete : r_ , , Y • , Zrfl ilill • f • —.4,0<jr0.1 .. r r rife,, fily II afi .-:,. .4:4• : :- ... .: • • , i 1 4 . 4i 1-� 'fir iif ... • f 114 s r�.w .. .. ._ __..., ,- a 4 . .ir-‘ I ' . _ . , IIi , . . 2 _ .... clot - Ix rhTT : t I _. yam• Fl �..;el1ST AVM _ L-7, 17, Hiri se* —;:w . .I 'iiiii 1 4 •j ill I 7. G r l 1 iii V . le .---...-.. ,...-7 --•••••e..,„ . . it- I^ Area = 22, 151 Sq. Ft "`-- a '�2:.10c. a•w Acres = 0.51 r '; 14 i 22 4, I• aka, _ tea_ , -. 1� 34 �! - t e_rr t a!-.mIn+�r11► 1 " . It . ,-. raja 1i -,.1.. sal itt. tillissi, I , .. . ..: . --------,. .„ , 4, 4 e i f imp I �. T !" '. . R , 1 i r f 1• t r- 3la I f .� w��. �y' t VI r -, - - r, . � •f * . BOSTON AV , r- ller* lik i ._ ., IIM ' rflit 0, at. • .I 4 it et A IR Location Map' - ` i3 l' " ""• -' - ` II 1; ;IlliaiiM' ill : . *-40 :it.: ' - k II- 0 300 -d. i it ' t• it r,,_ __ v, , f c : ,• 1 Feet z 4 ' North • - / Historic Preservation 3.15-138 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5BL.513 (Great Western Sugar Factory) Resource Description: The Great Western Sugar Factory is located at 11939 and 11801 Sugarmill Road in Longmont. This sugar beet processing factory was built in 1903 and operated into the 1970s. The 3.72 acre factory site contains several beet processing buildings as well as industrial features including storage silos located north of Sugarmill Road. Eligibility Determination: The Great Western Sugar Factory (5BL.513) is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its significant role in the very important sugar beet industry in Colorado, as well as its major contribution to the economic development of the Longmont area. Effect Determination: Proposed commuter rail improvements in the vicinity of the Great Western Sugar factory site include a station platform, park-and-ride lots, and a pedestrian walkway from the station platform to the south parking lot. The station platform intrudes slightly into the north edge of the sugar factory site, and the proposed pedestrian walkway extends from the platform through the northwestern corner of the property to access a proposed parking lot that would be located just west of the factory site. The design and cross-section of a typical commuter rail station is depicted in Figure 3.15-10. These direct impacts amount to 0.33 acres, or approximately nine percent of the 3.72-acre property. None of the buildings or other standing industrial features that contribute to the property's significance would be affected by these commuter rail facilities (see Figure 3.15-65). There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but no impacts. This would not be a • new or heightened condition from the historic times when the factory was operational and relied on frequent train transport of beets and lime for sugar production, and shipment of finished sugar. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-139 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-65 5BL.513 (Great Western Sugar Plant and Novartis Seeds/ ) — Package Seeds Syngenta enta A Commuter Rail II Y g a ..lik . . LEGEND if - ....4-444, ' t .. Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact i • • 3r W • Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 1 a'4V a. 5BL.513 & 5BL.7606 Boundaries ft.. 4 . , . ._ r----1 Package A Comm Rail Footprint a- It ` • t Commuter Rail Design r• I ti I Parcel Boundaries , i , _ ;:.......i.. ... 4, a r , e it ,... 1i RODGERS - RD - - - L`.. Parking = �) _ • . - r ! L - - 1 i L, 1 l 1 i 1 r i i '.Y H �,....... if it �p • : . - at 0 � fl ii • • �- '0 0 . tr . . . . . 5BL.7606 '. r g . Novartis Seeds Parking t • - Area = 14,575 Y �'Sq. Ft +��: , , Alitsb ML ~ " , •- Acres = 0.33 • ` Pedestrian access & platform areas. . i ii;- ,,, li All features are at-grade except r:4 illigOP • -' 'leoverpass for pedestrian crossing. ' ' • ;, .. 4 r t • o • • 0 , , nc g Lam! • `' r • trill; ...; . • 5BL.513t • ' Great Western Sugar Plant a .a • .9f • S. • L It ., Vii' • PIP 4 I. y.,�r f. /? .s .j!t . _ , ., y A. t in- I �it; Ili- 7 I ta , -' 4 a : t..-‘ ; A` 1 , 111% . a • is : ;. v: .•_* . • . , ' $A.: 1- f .- .. '..:s. ,„, , ‘.. 2'4 litilliftelir - - ; - . , : 2 4 A. " "cid lite ,4401Pr _, F' Location Map a t r- Pr, 1 , N....id. ........." __ _ . A _ ,7-N .„...._ ,, , ,,.. . . 0 300 1. 1 I Feet North t • . Historic Preservation 3.15-140 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5BL.7606 (Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds) Resource Description: This large, one-story brick office building was constructed in 1951 near the Great Western Sugar factory in Longmont. The building is covered by a flat roof with wide overhanging eaves. Its façade is symmetrically arranged, with a central entry flanked by banks of nine casement windows. The building appears unaltered, and is a good example of International Style commercial architecture. The building is currently occupied by Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds. Syngenta Seeds is a global leader in the agribusiness industry. Eligibility Determination: The Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds office in Longmont (5BL.7606) is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as a well preserved specimen of International Style commercial architecture in Colorado. Effect Determination: Proposed commuter rail improvements in the vicinity of the Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds office building southwest of Longmont are limited to construction of a second, dedicated commuter rail track parallel to the existing standard gauge commercial rail line that runs in an east-west alignment a short distance north of the property. A passenger station with park and ride lot and platform would be located a short distance to the west, in the vicinity of the historic Longmont sugar factory (5BL.513). The 0.08 acre Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds building site would not be directly impacted by the alternative (see Figure 3.15-65). There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the • architectural qualities of this commercial/industrial building. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-141 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 5WL.5278 (William H. Dickens Farm) • Resource Description: The William H. Dickens farm (5WL.5278) is located at 545 SH 119 in Longmont. This farm is associated with one of the earliest settlers in the St. Vrain Valley, William H. Dickens. Dickens became a prominent area farmer and businessman, and was responsible for building the Dickens Opera House in Longmont. Dickens's step-father, Alonzo N. Allen, was the first Euro-American to settle in the St. Vrain drainage. The 155 acre farm includes a farmhouse, large barn and five outbuildings. The historic boundary includes land originally within the 1915 land boundary which is still being used for agriculture. Eligibility Determination: This farm (5WL.5278) is NRHP-eligible under Criterion B for its association with the early St. Vrain Valley settler William H. Dickens. Additionally, the farm contains an intact example of a large wood frame barn with distinctive architectural features including a gabled front rain hood, narrow horizontal siding, which is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements along SH 119 would cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.2877.1 (Union Reservoir Outlet Ditch/Coffin Spring Gulch Ditchl Resource Description: The entire ditch is approximately 1.8 miles long. This segment of the ditch (5WL.2877.1) crosses the railroad along the south edge of SH 119. The portion of the ditch that crosses under the railway is placed in a culvert. The segment occurring within the • project APE (5WL.2877.1) is 5,042 feet (0.95 mile) long. Both banks are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports semi-rural residential development. Eligibility Determination: The Union Reservoir Ditch (5WL.2877.1) south of SH 119 was previously recorded in association with the Sandstone Ranch (5WL.712). The ditch was officially declared NRHP-eligible by OAHP in 1998 under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. When re- evaluated for the North 1-25 Draft EIS, the length of the ditch segment was extended northward across SH 119 to the northern edge of the North 1-25 project corridor. Effect Determination: Although a new dedicated commuter rail line would be constructed along the south edge of existing SH 119 in this area, this historic ditch is already placed within a culvert beneath the proposed rail corridor where it is conveyed across SH 119 and thus would not be subject to additional direct impacts. The ditch exits the culvert at the south edge of the proposed new rail corridor. The proposed improvements along SH 119 would not cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. s Historic Preservation 3.15-142 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.712 (Sandstone Ranch) Resource Description: The Sandstone Ranch is located on SH 119 just east of Longmont. The ranch is associated with Morse Coffin, one of the early settlers in this area. Morse Coffin settled in Boulder County in 1859 and became a preeminent agriculturalist and co-founder of the first public school district in Colorado. The City of Longmont now owns the ranch property, which is now designated Sandstone Ranch Park. Portions of the former ranch have been altered recently by gravel mining, post-mining reclamation, and multi-use recreational development by the City of Longmont. The only intact ranchland in the northern portion of the property is a riparian corridor surrounding the Union Reservoir Outlet Ditch/ Coffin Spring Gulch Ditch (5WL.2877.1). Eligibility Determination: The ranch was NRHP-listed in 1984 under Criteria A, B, and C. The Sandstone Ranch is eligible under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agricultural development in Weld County. It is also eligible under Criterion B because of its direct association with Morse H. Coffin, an important historical figure, and under Criterion C because of the architectural significance of the Coffin farmhouse. The historic district boundary is currently being evaluated for re-definition to exclude the areas modified by construction of public recreational facilities and areas modified by gravel mining. Effect Determination: Widening of SH 119 to accommodate the proposed commuter rail facilities would necessitate acquisition of new right-of-way within the extreme northern edge of the Sandstone Ranch historic district. This land would be needed to provide space for the new Commuter Rail bed, tracks, and ballast. The area subject to direct impacts comprises 2.17 • acres, or less than one percent of the entire 337.22-acre historic district. In addition to the small size of the impacted area, the northern portion of the historic district has lost most of its integrity due to recent development of sports fields by the City of Longmont (see Figure 3.15-66). The historic ranch buildings are located too far away to be affected by noise and vibration impacts from passing trains. The commuter rail tracks would run along the edge of the northern portion of the historic district that has lost nearly all integrity. No indirect effects are expected which would harm the function, setting, atmosphere, or attributes that render this district NRHP-eligible. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. For all of these reasons, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Historic Preservation 3.15.143 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-66 5WL.712 (Sandstone Ranch) — Package A Il itLEGEND .. . • Historical Resources ! PEAK;AVE ' Package A Resource Impact 1 , J Package AComm Rail ROW Boundary i. ,._, . - 5WL.712 Properly Boundary 1 - 1 Package A Comm Rail Footprint • Commuter Rail Design .,n. , r I•1411.`- I Parcel Boundaries - - .. - r s* 4. - --- .1 : ;. k i . I - - -""- CO LORFUL'"AVE • i• 4 r41.11• .- `I all m -- - -� . 1 `' .. 19 v . - _ yam - , lIl , ,... , . .. � ' l f ....... , . . 1 4. iL � / • IL I : i ' r -1 t a,'s Area = 94,337 Sq. Ft It a `s• � v Acres = 2.17 �,. • sIff.. . , ..... • .., P t ' xt1 i - '-- 7 4- : ,. r ., hi • " k. •'1' 111 I -'-', L .. f � it -- / . ;r' i q — i% a: r` : 47411 I �J %. / , i.. 1 f 1 ` ) �' N. ;`` „t T �P .v' - -- ••\•' f• '� Location Map . — `e.- �;� F / Q_ : ., A •.P\lS00 4 ... t ' Feet North — � _ . •_ i •,.._ z ), . , a I.. _ , , . ... ,... Historic Preservation 3.15-144 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.5461.1 (Boulder and Weld County Ditch) Resource Description: The entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch is approximately five miles long and draws water from a head gate on Boulder Creek. The ditch was constructed in 1871and remains in use supplying irrigation water for agricultural use. The segment of the earthen irrigation ditch passing through the APE is approximately 684 feet (0.13 mile) long, 20 feet wide, and 6.5 feet deep. The surrounding land is rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The Boulder and Weld County Ditch is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the early development of agriculture in Weld County. The segment of the ditch within the APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In the vicinity of the Boulder and Weld County Ditch, the commuter rail alignment closely parallels WCR 7, beneath which the ditch crosses in a culvert. The commuter rail design would include a new CBC to accommodate the historic ditch. Approximately 63 linear feet of the ditch would be directly impacted by being placed in a culvert beneath the commuter rail facility (see Figure 3.15-67). Construction of the concrete culvert structure would likely require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and • appearance. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch. • Historic Preservation 3.15.145 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-67 5WL.5461.1 (Boulder and Weld County Ditch) — Commuter Rail II . ....._ , . . . . LEGEND Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact + Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.5461 .1 Property Boundary I , Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design ' Parcel Boundaries —4 Bridge / Culvert - I �"� ik ' , t I 1 e 1 4 • Existing Culvert r' 35 ft long. # \`�. E . : LL, H 1 I .. ,1 Open ditch would be placed • inside new culvert; - 63 Linear Feet Impacted t 'I x. . i , .. . .- •• f • a i . I )-- ' , Location Map }- D _ . O �... - - - ..-sap+ z`' (..,) V � ,z 0 300 t isdI Feet North .. al I 1 ; - Historic Preservation 3.15.146 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.5263 (Hingley Farm) Resource Description: The farmstead is located at 7523 WCR 7 in Erie. This farm is a very intact example of a historic agricultural operation in Weld County. Built in 1900, the hipped roof farmhouse is an intact example of the Classic Cottage domestic architectural style in a rural context. Eligibility Determination: This farmstead is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agricultural development in Weld County and under Criterion C for its significance as an intact early farmhouse and farmstead. Effect Determination: Proposed development of a new commuter rail alignment within a 125 foot-wide right-of-way corridor parallel to WCR 7 would cause direct impacts to this historic farm. A strip of land within the historic property, measuring 2,585 feet long and 125 feet wide, would be acquired and converted from agricultural to transportation use, placing a new railroad embankment, ballast and tracks over the acquired farmland. The area to be acquired comprises 7.34 acres, or approximately nine percent of the entire 81.35-acre historic property. An entirely new transportation feature would be introduced into the rural, agricultural setting. The proposed rail corridor passes through the original farmstead complex at the southeast corner of the property, and would require removal of the contributing, architecturally significant farmhouse (see Figure 3.15-68). These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that an adverse effect would result. Details of mitigation for this effect are discussed under Section 3.15.3. • Historic Preservation 3.15.147 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-68 5WL.5263 (Hingley Farm) — Commuter Rail , . . . III LEGEND \ ; 1, - r Historical Resources • it A Package A Resource Impact • ''� Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ` ' - 5WL.5263 Property Boundary St 0; _ I. i 1 tikes* 1 Package A Comm Rail Footprint el1.111!Ill _ „rte WCR 18 Commuter Rail Designi l Parcel Boundaries • - - t 7 L\L" I y � Jr h . . . l';". , r aiitiiirak—,•—.4 r-- -.--.•-• .- -. . . : 4,. .. , ,fr . 7,- i' r i 4 Area = 319,587 Sq. Ft Acres = 7.34 d i 1 -NC, ''. Ilk . • et, . , . . i ,- ,. r‘.1 , . .-.: .,\\,...,H. , - .....--, — - _ i i P. ght l fl y .r N. / ' r 1I i ' • Possible farmhouse ,,- -=1 •. `\ relocation or demolition I7/ I U /r r 1 Y . a Location Map„ ._. - :, itire. r . 4 1. VC-q/\ 4:‘: it t . _, - 0 400 I / `immi Feet r r i North t i Historic Preservation 3.15-148 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.2247.11 (Community Ditch) Resource Description: The Community Ditch is an irrigation lateral ditch that generally runs east to west across the area south of SH 52 near Erie. The ditch was originally built in 1885. The entire Community Ditch is approximately 30 miles long. Within the project APE the earthen irrigation ditch is approximately 714 feet long and 16 feet wide. Both banks of the ditch are lined with grassy vegetation. The surrounding area is devoted to agriculture. Eligibility Determination: The entire Community Ditch (5WL.2247) is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. The segment (5WL.2247.11) within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location and setting to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: The proposed new double-track commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across the historic ditch segment, and would span the ditch at the same location as the abandoned UPRR Boulder Valley Branch bridge, creating an additional 60 feet of cover over the ditch. A new bridge structure would replace the abandoned non-contributing UPRR Boulder Valley Branch bridge. Approximately 105 feet of open ditch would flow underneath the new bridge beneath the new railroad bed and tracks (see Figure 3.15-69). The new bridge would be approximately 90 feet long and 105 feet wide. Associated bridge support structures, such as piers and abutments, would be placed outside the historic property. There would be no resulting direct impact to the historic resource. Installation of the new bridge would likely require temporary occupancy of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from contamination by construction. All disturbance • caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed underneath a bridge, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Community Ditch. • Historic Preservation 3.15.149 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-69 5WL.2247.11 (Community Ditch) — Commuter Rail II LEGEND i mt' 4m issaw 40 Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.2247.11 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint ="'- Commuter Rail Design ' . n Parcel Boundaries H Bridge / Culvert 4 lasometwom, ., -- ""Zioi �••.. Open ditch would be underneath .� a new bridge of 105 ft wide x 90 ft long 7_ .:---,77" / 1 g 9 / _ ,..„ ,_ , 1--- , , .. ;' • - -1• , , . „ , , t. I' N . I , • r �C R 10 , I. -- , H,--- I -•:»_:ay+.r'+�. �'. I : / _„ /r/ i 4 / ) . , � .. j ' �i ,,. I •� + , 11 ib / ` CH" �' A / 1. Location Map '31} 1 r I r \-_ '\ I + `I. 0 250 { ami Feet North • .. -- - 1 :_. ..s, ; 4 A Historic Preservation 3.15-150 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.1317, 5AM.472 (UPRR-Dent Branch) Resource Description: The Dent Branch is a 39 mile long section of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) that ran through Weld and Adams Counties. The Weld County segment 5WL.1317.11 of the Dent Branch runs 2.9 miles within the APE (see Figure 3.15-70). The railway segment is abandoned, but rails, ties, and the ballasted roadbed remain in relatively good condition. A 3,500 foot freight bypass on the Dent Branch, located south of the Boulder Valley-Dent Branch wye once consisted of a multiple-track complex. South of that bypass, the track reverts to a single track alignment. Segment 5AM.472.1 is a 1.9 mile long railway segment that follows the original single-track alignment in Adams County. Most of this segment has been abandoned. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The OAHP has officially declared the UPRR-Dent Branch eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important role in the development of the agricultural economy of the Front Range of Colorado. Although abandoned, these two railway segments retain integrity of location and association and therefore support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire UPRR-Dent Branch in Weld and Adams counties (5WL.1317, 5AM.472). Impacts to segment 5WL.1317.11—Package A: The proposed new commuter rail line would join this existing historic rail line by approaching from the northwest, then crossing over to the east side of the historic railroad, which it would closely parallel and follow southward. The commuter • rail would utilize a double-track configuration, using the existing track alignment and adding a parallel track alignment following the historic UPRR-Dent Branch from the wye at St. Vrains junction southward. Where the new commuter rail line crosses the Dent Branch, there would be direct impacts to as many as 200 feet of track by the replacement of existing "through rail" with switching tracks and associated apparatus (see Figure 3.15-71). Although one of the new commuter rail tracks would run along the historic alignment, the existing historic bed, ballast and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. Impacts to segment 5AM.472.1—Package A: The new double-track commuter rail would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the UPRR-Dent Branch and a new set of tracks parallel to the original alignment as described in segment 5WL.1317.11. The historic railroad bed, ballast, and grade would remain intact. The installation of new sets of tracks would be compatible with the historic use of the railroad line, but would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: A 200 foot section of existing rails would be replaced with modern switching track. A continuous 4.89 miles or approximately 12 percent of the entire linear resource would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, ballast and grade, and an additional new track, 15 feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new, but compatible rail use and infrastructural elements to the historic setting. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A • commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic UPRR-Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). Historic Preservation 3.15-151 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-70 5WL.1317, 5AM.472 (UPRR-Dent Branch) — Segments Intersecting Project APE II , , LEGEND ~ Historic Railroads and Ditches — 1 n Study Corridors + -•N 85 "/ Highways 287 � ' /\/ Arterial Roads [_J Regional Study Area / ti \, ../ City i Boundaries ; IOU COMM �� I a �- a Cities & Towns in Project Area i Auit •\1 14 i I ( , uhI:WI:, 0 [(non Sti>,eance 1 I I ' 287I ti rdsa I I I Luce„,r ` '.392' I . I r 1 Greeley 34 .x`--_- .._ - Gaden.cay 1 ED foreland 1 ' � �' ; —_ . I ` La Salle :/ I ;Johnstown / 60 / 0 Milliken 85 / I • A / k:I I Fat,u.dk: � i 1 ; ongmont I 1 . 1 / ' ' 11 .\, 1 a Firestone li Mwot 0..Freda ick �� ` 5WL.1317.11 -ono Fat Lupton I v anUanel is , ' �l 4 Effie' /s !l 1■ I ► Boulder 11 — . "ralnlayelle NWI \ Louisville} Etighten I�- idt \ ° 5AM.472.1 '• -. Uoomtleld ' ' - -ii.3 '-� ry all ttio,: / _ —f.. I-+ • 6\ tL 3 °�1 I T % 01heynt:n �Li i 11"c /mm; r✓ / asses . Denver—, 70 I ® i - 1 /--- _ 2 4 6 8 10 Miles North �_ �, I0 ) ,--; (map Dopmv/tt IN I.2' Mapiernp4N_I:ptpQ mad) I 1.1W7p07 -- 1.7:9PM Historic Preservation 3.15-152 NORTH 1-25 Will Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-71 5WL.1317.11 (UPRR-Dent Branch) — Commuter Rail LEGEND r',,._ r I Historical Resources t • % dor Package A Resource Impact - . Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ^ 5WL. 1317. 11 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint 4 Commuter Rail Design '_ s - jParcel Boundaries B.—. Bridge / Culvert„\k, .. s. , ir I . k . , , , r r . i . c w Vnipn P aci5C R F aiir,„ Y • , S In_ . 4 . __ 200 Linear Feet Impacted _. • i 4 / - . •I 1 . l3� f , W . 1 ..N"-`, 1 [ Sr .. . :1 O /I' I f ti t la p Location Map • , r 0 300 ! 6 t Feet North , Historic Preservation 3.15-153 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Package B: No direct or indirect impacts would occur at any segment locality. FHWA, FTA and • CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic UPRR-Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). 5WL.1969, 5BF.130 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) Resource Description: This linear historic resource is the abandoned Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch (UPD&BVB) that ran a distance of 26 miles from Boulder to Brighton. The rail line was originally built in 1870. Two segments of this rail line in Weld County enter the project APE, including 2,310 foot (0.44 mile) long segment 5WL.1969.41, and 11,620 feet (2.2 mile) long segment 5WL.1969.1, both of which follow the original alignment (see Figure 3.15-72). Both segments are in a deteriorated state. One 2,083 feet (0.39 mile) long segment of the same rail line in Broomfield County is designated 5BF.130.1, and includes a contributing wooden trestle bridge carrying the rails over Little Dry Creek. Segment 5WL.1969.1 runs east-west 2,000 feet north of CR 8. This segment is a 2.2 mile long part of the abandoned UPD&BVB between Boulder and Brighton. Construction started in 1870. Rails and ties have been removed near 1-25 and parts have been paved over by county roads. This abandoned portion of the railroad includes a wooden trestle bridge located east of WCR 7 and west of 1-25. The railroad bridge crossing 1-25 was removed soon after 1999. Eligibility Determination: The OAHP has officially determined that the UPD&BVB is eligible • for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important role in the development of the agricultural economy of the Front Range of Colorado. Segments 5WL.1969.41 and 5BF. 130.1 retain sufficient integrity of location and association to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 1969.1 does not retain enough integrity to support the eligibility of the entire resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad in Weld and Broomfield counties (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Impacts to segment 5WL.1969.41—Package A: The proposed new commuter rail would utilize the existing track alignment and add a parallel track alignment following the historic UPD&BVB in this area before joining the Dent Branch (5WL.1317.11) wye and turning southward. Where the new commuter rail line crosses onto the Dent Branch, there would be direct impacts to as many as 260 feet of track by the replacement of existing "through rail" with switching tracks and associated apparatus (see Figure 3.15-73). The existing historic bed, ballast and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. Impacts to segment 5WL.1969.1—Package A: The commuter rail would require a new bridge at the location of the wooden trestle bridge and a new 470 foot long bridge spanning I- 25 . The original railroad bridge was demolished during a previous 1-25 highway widening • project. A new bridge crossing would not be expected to negatively affect the historic setting beyond its already diminished integrity at this location. Historic Preservation 3.15-154 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The new double-track commuter rail would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the abandoned Boulder Valley Branch and a new set of tracks parallel to the original alignment as described in segment 5WL.1969.41 (see Figure 3.15-74). Additionally, the new double-track rail alignments would require a new supporting structure over an unnamed drainage at the historic wooden timber and log footer bridge (5WL.1969.1 Feature 1). This 47 foot long by 17 foot wide historic bridge would be demolished to make way for a new railroad bridge measuring approximately 60 feet long and 70 feet wide. Impacts to segment 5WL.1969.1 - Package B: This segment originally bridged over 1-25, but the structure has been removed. Because Package B improvements occur at ground level within the span of the original bridge, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the railroad segment by improvements associated with Package B. Impacts to segment 5BF.130.1—Package A: The new double-track commuter rail would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the Boulder Valley Branch and a new set of tracks parallel to the original alignment as described in segment 5WL.1969.41 (see Figure 3.15-75). This historic rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. The new rail line would run along the north side of the historic railroad grade. The installation of the double-track configuration for the commuter rail would also require a new supporting structure over Little Dry Creek. The existing 69 foot long by 27 foot wide, wooden trestle bridge (5BF.130.1 Feature 1) would be demolished and a new bridge • measuring approximately 75 feet long and 70 feet wide would be constructed at that site. Although new rail would be placed upon existing bed, ballast and grade and a new track placed adjacent to the historic alignment, this is a compatible affect to the historic use and setting of the historic railroad line, and would be expected to preserve an otherwise deteriorating resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-155 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-72 5WL.1969 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Boulder Valley Segments intersecting 1 Denver & Branch) — project APE l t 1 LEGEND ~ Historic Railroads and Ditches - ,�. �— vJetl�gar • / .# Study Corridors f I 86 "/ Highways r\---/\ / Arterial Roads i� I - �` F��t)h„: ,t J Regional Study Area T ; 1 'I Fort Collins _ I City Boundaries r�o Cities & Towns in Project Areala _ �4_ Tmnath. o seyeau,, ,287 ' i 1 _ Wlndsac i , '392'-- --"I `r— r34 .t �_ --Loveland ' _� 34 —i_ �' Campion Jamstam ,Eirthajd s o Mmm e• kes /ir— 0 Platte;il,e 1661 t j— ...._ __ _ _ . i =l ,7i i ,., IcyI , o , i / 5WL.1969.1 'o WillmarI Fnestae , ,/ Niwot Oi Frederick ifrI / O (_acan Fat Lupton t ){ /! o (nnUinel p 5WL.1969.41 Erie• • Watterberq _i! Boulder 7 k Lafayette PM r-t 7 f_1� i Lansr,Itle e Signior __.r-._ ter. f L _ �, /.,��• sPeria. 5BF.130.1 'i-_[ t / it I \• 7 r - r,,__r-`. Eastlake. ! `; I ,� • •• . :Northgleno ,/• 36 �'_ i \ • Il o Thorntm . 1 \ y x1111- •\ t / \\ /_ --"-- Denver 7'4 70 .. k I MEM _1./' V 0 2 4 6 8 10 !! Miles North f -' (: , , . .„ _ -->.1/4_,\1•.--N i :" , • ►ao Document 04_1-isso_TW*Mee_•2Otos m.o) vIN7007—t i7 2i PI Historic Preservation 3.15-156 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-73 5WL.1969.41 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) — Commuter Rail /..... LEGEND i Historical Resources - t Package A Resource Impact E , i Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary , ' 5WL. 1969.41 Property Boundary i ` Package A Comm Rail Footprint Ire - Commuter Rail Design t pp / f . / Parcel Boundaries H Bridge / Culvert _ ihiNx .S i i 260 Linear Feet Impacted - . e ,, c. }\\ 11 \ c\• , NNsiiiiil Y^` ' �'. ' n ti4 s.,.4 K y �t. . v \ ‘, i _ :, I \ did>` R 7, ar i _ . 1. ___ I 4 i i ��- v 1 IT r/ i 1 I - 1I •; ..._ v-- . I r � I • , � �. 1. .7 • i t `ic Location M p I-- Y 4.k w r -: • V� 0 200 / - I Feet North Ai ..... Historic Preservation 3.15-157 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-74 5WL.1969.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, 111Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) — Commuter Rail.. „ , I I a ‘ LEGEND Historical Resources llr Package A Resource Impact 1 aPackage A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.1969.1 Property Boundaries Package A Comm Rail/Highway Footprint Commuter Rail/Highway Design Parcel Boundaries H Bridge / Culvert - • .. Bridge would extend from original ' ~ •.... abutment of removed RR bridge.....i f. • Now 470 foot-loncl bridge spanning 1-25 A - .--ak . . i NB SB o Sao 0 r lil ! Feet North 1 • AH - ,, New 60-foot by 70-foot wide bridge to i accornodate new commuter rail tracks i 1 � _., / /1 / ' t ffi i /! i Existing 47-foot by 17-foot wooden .•, , ,7 bridge would be demolished ks - Location Map - -TS 0 2OO , I 1 Feet North Historic Preservation 115-158 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-75 5BF.130.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) — Commuter Rail LEGEND ,,': .- I-., .; Historical Resources ' 4*- - Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary • ` 5BF.130.1 Property Boundary ' PackageAComm Rail Footprint jj• Commuter Rail Design - '. Parcel Boundaries E.. Bridge / Culvert . • N, NN..., . - bdi�ao,2 . • - __ _ . V. - - - • - -- , , , t . _0 •:. I ,...,,, O� . . erne .. _ o„ cf ^ ,�� Lard/, • /. • ~ ch New Bridge approximately 75 feet by 70 feet - ilki , . _ t, - I • - .. . . - , a / \ \ + �4 • la \ _ •,,, W, i i Existing 69 foot by 27 foot wooden 7 trestle bridge would be demolished / I. , 7 f , 1 • R;; 1 ee .40• L . "Si i I •. :v • ; y • itae- Location Map - • awillismser—S .. 17\1 r ~ t1 t "Mart P. ' Feet North ` Historic Preservation 3.15.159 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Summary Effect Determination: • Package A: A continuous 2.9 miles or approximately 11 percent of the entire linear resource would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, grade and ballast and an additional new track, 15 feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new, but compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting. Demolition of two historic bridge features along the Boulder Valley Branch would result in direct impacts to the resource. These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that an adverse effect would result to the historic Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad line (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Package B: No direct or indirect impacts would occur at any segment locality. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad line (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 5LR.488 (Colorado & Southern Railroad Depot, Loveland) Resource Description: The Colorado & Southern (C&S) Railroad Depot is located at 409 Railroad Avenue in Loveland. This depot was designed by architect Charles B. Martin in the Romanesque Revival style, and was built in 1902 in response to transportation needs and created the sugar beet processing plant that opened in Loveland the previous year. Eligibility Determination: The C&S depot building was placed on the NRHP in 1982. It qualified for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its association with regional railroad development, and under Criterion C as an excellent and well-preserved example of masonry railroad depot architecture in Colorado. Effect Determination: While this property lies within the project construction disturbance footprint, the historic station building would be retained and utilized as a commuter rail station. Therefore, no direct impacts would occur, and the building's prospects for long-term preservation would be enhanced. Possible indirect effects due to upgrades to achieve platform safety and meet current design standards would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the depot NRHP-eligible. These features are identified as preliminary design needs only and have not yet been architecturally incorporated into a station design. There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but no impacts. This situation would not be a new or heightened condition from the historic period when the depot was operational and serviced many more trains per day. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the proposed commuter rail station would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-160 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.530 (Bimson Blacksmsith Shop—Little Thompson Valley Pioneer Museum) Resource Description: This building is located at 228 Mountain Avenue in downtown Berthoud. This small, one story stone commercial building was erected in 1893, and served as the shop of blacksmith A.G. Bimson prior to its use as a historical museum. Eligibility Determination: The Bimson Blacksmith Shop is listed on the NRHP and is eligible under Criterion A. Effect Determination: This historic property lies just outside the project construction disturbance footprint. There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but no impacts. This situation would not be a new or heightened condition from the historic period when train traffic was heavier. Local increased vehicular traffic to the adjacent commuter rail parking lot would not result in discernable indirect impact affecting the operation of the museum, or altering the function, setting, and other attributes that rendered the property NRHP-eligible. No direct or incompatible indirect impacts would occur, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. QUEUE JUMPS ALONG US 85 5WL.5296 (Flagstone Residence—Goetzel) • Resource Description: The historic Goetzel Residence is located at 3611 Idaho Street in Evans. This house is constructed of rusticated flagstone and was built in 1943. Eligibility Determination: The house is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C, as an excellent example of a Bungalow-style house made of an unusual building material. Effect Determination: The creation of a queue jump in the vicinity of this historic dwelling involves reconfiguration of traffic lanes and markings within the existing US 85 roadway footprint. The queue jump consists of a modification to an existing signal light to allow buses to proceed through an intersection ahead of regular traffic on a separately timed green light. A short right-turn/bus-only lane is striped onto the existing outside lane of the highway to facilitate this bus movement. No new noise or intrusive transportation elements not already present along US 85 would occur with these improvements, and therefore no indirect effects are expected. These proposed changes would not result in any direct or indirect impacts. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the proposed queue jump would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. S Historic Preservation 3.15-161 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5WL.568 (Fort Vasquez) Resource Description: Fort Vasquez (5WL.568) is located in Platteville. Fort Vasquez Trading Post was built in 1835 and was the first permanent structure built along the South Platte River. This adobe outpost was near the Trapper's Trail and was built to be near the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, who provided buffalo robes to the trading post in trade for kettles, knives, guns, ammunition, blankets, beads and other items. After falling into a ruinous condition, Fort Vasquez was reconstructed in the 1930s by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the site is now operated as public museum. Eligibility Determination: Fort Vasquez is listed on the NRHP. The site is significant under Criterion A for its role in the trapper and trader period (1800-1870) prior to the "Pikes Peak Gold Rush," when riverside trails between trading posts were the main conduits for communication and early settlement along the Colorado Front Range. Effect Determination: The creation of a queue jump in the vicinity of Fort Vasquez involves reconfiguration of traffic lanes and markings within the existing US 85 roadway, and these proposed changes would not produce any direct impacts. The fort has been in close proximity to the modern highway for many decades. The queue jump consists of a modification to an existing signal light to allow buses to proceed through an intersection ahead of regular traffic on a separately timed green light. A short right-turn/bus-only lane is striped onto the existing outside lane of the highway to facilitate this bus movement. No noise or intrusive transportation elements not already present along US 85 would occur with these improvements, and therefore no indirect effects are expected. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the proposed queue jump would result in no historic properties • affected with respect to this historic resource. COMMUTER BUS STATIONS: GREELEY TO DENVER There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. COMMUTER Bus STATIONS: GREELEY TO DIA There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. MAINTENANCE FACILITIES There would be no impacts to historic properties on any of the maintenance facility sites or carpool lots for Package A. i Historic Preservation 3.15-162 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.15.2.5 PACKAGE B TRANSIT COMPONENTS The transit components of Package B would potentially affect historic resources due to the placement of BRT station and park and ride locations. Specific consequences related to each transit component would be as follows. BRT: FORT COLLINS/GREELEY TO DENVER There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. BRT: FORT COLLINS/GREELEY TO DIA There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. BRT Stations There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. MAINTENANCE FACILITIES There would be no impacts to historic properties on any of the maintenance facility sites or carpool lots for Package B. Table 3.15-3 provides a summary of historic properties affected by component and also indicates how these impacts are treated from a Section 4(f) perspective. Detailed information tabout Section 4(f) is contained in Chapter 5.0 of this Draft EIS. i Historic Preservation 3.15.163 C U U t i ) O t t g G to IS m d a) a) ° n a) c W Im a) a) a) ° m -o -o -o p I- m as m m m d ° z z z z z o a in tf) ISX a CO 3 m+ I-. W o w m ° tli Z 0 + o. QQ G m a) O O O w H O Y to E C } } Z Z Z 12, m Q co O 0 G Q E a J `O' E 0 z ° U o 0. ra 3 W t e '° c ,en v c = ° v . Svc° vim° vim ° o ^ �— F0 Ca X72 •- 2 ,- 72 T- n2 •vc° = m E o� 2v2iC°2c=ii °I = u2im2 � m 22noo a y o m u) u) �-V) U) m Y C Uo z m co a a c 0 c.,Ec a U 0 t g t U ..a a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 2 O a) a) a) a) N N a) a) t m CO m 41 m E. E to m r cc cc m m cc m m m $ V U) O O O O O ° O 111 O ww m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 m A 0. v m o v co CC m c m E >- y z° Z° z° z° Z° Z° CI E U u a E .° c9 v c X U d a) o w Q c E a`) 'o 'o V V 0 o co E a m cc c) ° T � `m E 0 2 2 0 `O t'' a) .c at) G —1 _c m _i m m 3 'm r 'c 'm ° ea CO _ cow NU Noa O Pob G 7062' 7aofX UE E °. m 20z,50 h M C M 2 M O ` O N o c d � O c O E M a) E 3 = a ao � a) co ° � -° m2Lco -° d G ^ -0 O r� � 0 o - m ❑ a E 00 c — E m`o = u Q m`o = Q — a .c r o £ n 2 Cr OOdr 0 m Q -° d — r ° 0 � - 5 E - 5 — R U J O J .- J C J O O _ J O O ° J O O J O O m 0) a) C )n O to w up cc �n U u) co co )n U u) U in U U )n U u) m 05 CC °o as 3 o o 0 t c N in C Of ry c O O CO O II r.:I c = O .a — O � ,-. O � ^ O ff .-. o I C E0 C Eo 2 o C II 105 co a Q 2 2 2 = v (DI Q ' of a? 'oE1 ' oEF I— t O -. a) 22 22 22 22 2 a) m rn m DO Fi°c: E 15 u) —co QUu� Q CO COam ¢ acto Ea o ¢ EoJ ¢ a a0 � 0 0 . o \ 0 \ \ 13 4. } a } § co > k o c \ Q 2 z k z z J z z f@l a / _ (Ti § w § ° § f 2 f § - C / / d / / z / \ E � 3 ( / \ G w R / 7 2 f a = � .9 .9 O / o m4 { / = ° 2 } { / = c2 / { 2 / 22 } } \ « 0 C13 0 Co r e u) u) U) e \ 0. ( 5 5 % 5 g k U \ \ ( \ { al 2 0 & kt 2 © a) ) a) ) a) - co co o { ] z Z Z z > Z Z ! ) Cl M CU O. co / CO / ) z / \ < E / ° ° � - \ ) \ -o -COco t -\ ( ■ trex ro 'E "0 crt 0 � ` ^ ~ � \§ ( ) / [/ @ ! / @V ) { / \ r � k \ ) \ � k \ ] \ ) � f ) \ « \ ) ) TiE � r co c zo LOU CL LL rya o en ! ) � � @ . • ± , C _ _ � ; _ � a = _ a = � oo � R E , _ ° 2 - _ 1 •- ° y •- = 7 = © 2 = ° ) / ° 2 & o ] ! �± \ f / ± & / ± K / 3 \ U) U) _ ± \ � k w Gc CO 0 C t t t ) U t t p t t t t t t t y ) N 0) Cl) N O 0) 0) p w 0 N Cu CO Cuy Cl) Cu LO N a C W Cl) Cl) 0) > > a) ) Cl) > > « i CO CO CO (000 CO CO O o •O. a z z z z z z z Cu e oe N rr�-,+ m m �• 0 H W p m 7 V W CO Z 0 + a F o Y � ei Cu CO Cu Z Z en o1•14 E aJ ` o Z 0 E e 0.. 3 0 C 0,) - o O) N cc ' , O c V CO n- 7cON 0 N 7o .0 (00ON o 3i 2 O0OM a m 2 = 2 = m . y = Op � =SI Lpy. = V ~ 0E CoIcom ICOm ' (= m Ism = CW m = Wm = W m v w 'c a) cn 1.1 -o 01 4 o O c 3 E U15 t U U U U O U Cl) Cl) 0) N Cl) O) 0) Z co O Cl) y 0) 0) O) O) 0) 0) N u) N 41 Cu N i V CO N 00 ca Cu CO N O 0)clJ 7 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ± w en d v C 0) N s 'm U ...• a K a O } Y Cu Cu 0 0 Cu Pr E u .Y, < E ia O V m O a �• Y .ri 0 c d O `m o,�, a w t t H Y u a Cu 0 3 8 3 R CO O 0) N _ _Y. N ._ 0) C� ' Cu C7 .m O) L 5 a CO o c cow co � o � � � � rn o U �+ O N ` N ` �1 O E V E V E _ � C F' 7 = a a 0) W O _ LO O co 0) cll N d T?` 7 CJ d 0 K m >>� J -1 cn co_c N D LOUL LOLL LOLL N > LO LO .> _ (00 C CO co 0) oc m 0 a >, �o to N H 0 Z o _ o _ o _ o _ n) m V o _ o _ W d m a ON ON O N ON L C W ^� 0co Om 4 O) 0 d r _ _ r _ _ r _ _ r =CO S O) � On (p7 = up 71. Co RI 0 W CO 0) COm ¢ cn a � cp --� W a two'. F� U ( fir • a . C U U U U U o U U N N N U N N N N N y N N N N o to N 12 co to a co t c co m W > > > > > CO It 'O 'O V 'O 13 .`- F CO CO CO CO CO d 73 O O O O O o a Z Z Z Z Z m (N a) cc o• fTl a L� J r U � I U CO O 0 + o• t e a 0) 0 N N El o Y CD E m e u >- Y Y Y 0 E d C ��J7SDI y ` H = a O O (� Z O. a m k _ a W t a C 5d y m o o O O o C ~ = p N a) N a) N p c`7 N- oci C H O m m V' co = V 2 . 72 . CO V S up ION S OE a o. p3xaimSc= m = corn ' Lion xwm O m m co co c/) c/) co [ U U O a) ra ca 0. M. 0 O Q C 5 U U U U U U Uo O t . U N C) N C) o a) o W U N N (U CU N N N it W N N co N N y w d '� W > > > 1 > > U Y Ca m m m m Co m o iii Ot.1 co O O O O O O V* CO Z Z z Z Z Z Z = +67 'D A r U Y. m CO d CL, O• O O E rn U) in N O m £ Z Z } } } } U C. E u 92 u Q E I- =o o V' U z Y + x U N O a C >, Co ). L m N Y C O d J U a 2 3 � 3• H 0 m L 3 d .` � in 0 _ C7 = [ = O N N E m G ° G C in � r it m CO N N r O c-I > m d !� O d p E V E O 7 E N O CCyI - O E 3 = d` o � a � E a to ri to. � 0or EcarE � o — � -O rcEJE V) m E cd a) m 0 O ± E N .J m w JO m Co d U in k CO LORI W Co u. 0) 1 CO . L LO LL C w m c0 C O M O o C _ t y N H y ) CC co e z = O O O O O C W M O Q CD E � d oY ,- i= Q v (O = 7COT V cpI Of-- O V S a 0) EO cQ E 0) 024 O) 2coQ 2coQ Sc= Q 2 W Q S W a e" 0 43 m O CO Eo o f " o f y U cn co cn (n (1) H aO LL 0 " CO o — \ { \ \ o. } § E2 w E i2 El C I- ) > > > \ a 2 \ ) Z Z z ) / - 0 coLo 2 2 4 Z / ) ; f > , , _ # $ O / / ° \ { a » » » \ \ O z Z . § G E G L. ® O ® X | - ■ S ) ® = z }\ ( - }= _co / z2 c ° m2xc co f ui® / � \ uJ uJ / \ }( co i= m \ \ \ ( cCU) \ ° o H } * t t a) z ` \ 2 z - U \ a) } \ kco & a) a) a) a) 2 ) ) a) \ \ - ) ] z0 0 0 § Cu-Ls co as co co \ e- 0 _ Lre M 7 E / / / / z z0 _ < E 49 \ § + f o ) B _ re \ k ) / ° \ \ \ # } } f } / } { 2 \ § ) r § ) » : E � � � � � E : _ - & - ( \ ( cm - G4z \ J / / ) j ` � \ j � cc \ ) \ / *© G ° �° § en a \ >,g ) e § { C co � § , Z3 ; ± = �a L. .-• I a U0) � 2 E , § 2g = CD : pgge , ! § tee / , ) g / 7 { Qa * / a2 / ! ( = ± f 7f� E \§ 3 \ 0) E ° $0)2 mo < 2 t 0o A G0 § ) ..tO ® »§ ® »� • 0 4 0- ) ) E • C O m u if) ri ar c c W - m c O a In rT O om, E cc h'' W CO y N 7 O W CO g Z t7 + a U E c t a n7 O 0 0 C 0 a z ea a W H 5 m w CO ths Z. c ti ~ co a u o co U u a 0 0 04 E U Uo O N a o U t N 2 • W U N a) N al a> y .S o > > U a i N CO 0 U O O m w CO z z ± d C Ch U _� in r = .. U O CL d' O O o 2 E z z 0. E 0 U a E 0 0 0 ° or U W O C A a m LT o >, J a 0 T ma 4 d 'Cr ,N0 d E I to c j C5 too 0 0 w a c U -O -9 • -rnU o A a ._ O C op m to m E = = a c m 0 - n0 0016 - Z O 16 z 0 a a > o c 7 E m To J a) ,� O J fa N y V ink o Lo _1U C CO 0in!.... o C L N IT _ F in N a) hetcQ ) 0 W y en o Q m = �, y " d ,) C a> > O o 5 c 6 — E ErE EUE _c! U c Erg m U ou 0 0 0 0 a 0LLJ C O to b a 0 C • _ • • x E +. -r)U ° U t t t U U a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) /� /� o W a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) u 1 V 1 0 12wN V) CO CO CO CO CO N ° f� > > > > a) > a) a) IT)) I-I W OO a a p a a a a a a cO O O O O O O O z H., o E 0 4 0 Y O a '� �' 0 O 0 0 o N N N o C £ } Z z z z } } } z C O ° 22 C. C ar C O c E o o ..a. ° U m °Z @ o c omc .° m .0 m o Lam 'C L o m o °a L'°. _ �^. a `o V ° O C 3 O C O m d 0 a) N a) N a .c �, .c L ± V" C C 'C m ° .°. ° a a) o C a) Z L CC 5 O a le) a) a a o ° y o0 w as .c _c M 0 0 O X -O O N '° O) L a a L a) o) a) C >` m a a 0J = d I- m O .C N O L O. O m O) O m o O m m U m 0) it O a r m O f` co CO N m r C D CO C �° N c0 N N ,H Cr; M N �O LO O 0 O) ` Ni Ni N fD h O o 4.O ^ N- r J F3 J m M co V V CO J CC ) a' a. m ° J J J J . 0. J m J a) J J m a m m m m W (O1 LL) )f) up 05 LL u) in f5 u_ in in in CO y �.. O to a o O o o o O O O L O ft co o 4) Cl) CO CO CO CO CO o C 0 C C C_ C_ C_ C_ C_ C C O t0 O ^ O O O ^ O ^ O ^ O CO E °' O V O OH OH U UF, OH OH OH O rT2 N V 0 ¢ 0 ¢ t C• o a o a O a t a o ° r ^ Y LL r a. LL O u �. LL LL �, LL `s LL H ON J ON 0 Cu) C C E C .. C C _ C _ fa ... - Z H op a .� ° � ° am ( O .� o , ° -mO u_ . � Y . 0 en o o o) o ° y N qMl V Q N 0 N C a) -J N 0 N 0 N C N 5 U) C N f6 M N J J J J J J J J J 7 J J J J ° J N w2 y o) E E E E E E E EE Em c0 'O" p Ku 0 E E E E E E E 0 O 2- O RI u O O O O O O O O J O • O O n N C N U U U t U t C co N U U N N N N N O W O N o 1^ N N N y U)) t0/) 4 1 o) o 1r Tom, N > N N > > > > > H W O co > > co cc co co co Z 0 z ¢ a z z z z z H c4 zo N U A ir a N N CO 0 N o N N +" >- >- >- z >- Z >- >- O u ad O E e o o) 0 O c E o p rm U T d . @u. coco N n O C a` •� a' 0) Z N U ""c" 0 V a) C -o m 3 ii N 0 `o Ua) o) .- E OC) N.c r co w 7 m r_ c L _ O C O I- ()) in C ct c t CO 0 U co - C 0 N -C i' N o O ❑ UJ > o) V) C @ N N Q) O Y O o) No v r a -O 'O N N cc C O N c N o O `o - 0 C o c m Cr o > o 0 r °� z cc v U co r 'y� •CO 7 7 CO 0 m p -, co N N Nr u) c0 N1"— +' 0 O J u7 r- 'O L i•r 0 J O m co O CO m m N W U )O ❑ N () (/))() ❑ Lo l0 m )O m m w �- O N G ocu 0 0 0 0 0 o o toe N E p C C O O O `C C O C C o C O C QE z) O +` O .`p o -b O +`- O +J O . O .`- cp cp O U r o)2 o)2 m2 m2 o m)2 o)2 2 cn C a oQ 0C 0 .0 O C O r � O LCD o r r. o Cr L L —ION J O N J O N J O N J 0 N J 0 N J 0 N c - ZI— - ZH ..- ZH ..- Z1- ..- ZIT - ZF ..- ZF O en E E Y Q Y a Y a cTs Y a cis Y ¢ Y ¢ til Y a O ) 0 h 01 U U U U0 U 0 N In V C N N N N N l` N 2 N 2 N 2 N N W M y J J N N H N N N N t G v m E Eu. Eli Eli Eu. Eli Eli Eu. Y o o O O o 0 0 • O H a 0 U U U U U U 0 o a - 0 to 2 is t t \ / ) � QE $ > z z z z z U co co 0 E .E / cs- 0 / ) ) Z Z ) Z f E o k § k U IN 0 is U « jCO \ . 3 CO3 ) zt E t { - ® - 2 \ ) co } - 0 - } 0 \ § - i-i — § 2 e § \ \ \ § ( � / \ \ ) \ \ \ \ j 0 to § 2 : § % f / ONO / k ( § ) Eo E0 E0 E ° § \ 7 •! G O) O_/) \) \) \ o / ) e _ = ) p / ) R s m E ) ) 2 ± 'co— } ) ) ) ) J2 & ) 2 & � m $ u , I \ ) _ $ _ $ _ $ H $ N u t a A Ei EI E EI Eu Eu 5 � / t 0o O / O / 0f O O L. 4 2 • O O O O a) 0. O O r C t a) a) N t t t N Q) a a 4- O P O O ,: O a) a) (1) 0 a) a s a s m a) a) a) tN 0) 0 O a) U a) O a) o W N N a) > > lot of N � a 0 0 0 �.1 Q Q Q o O L L H W a Z Z o o U Z Z Z o Z4 co z Cl) C) 5 O• N co co 1 E i a) a) Z Z Z z c .) O O g a of C O G c 0 o o uco a) r L 0 > y > > O` d ^0 a7 C O c C = 0 re; cu CO a) O 0 a) co a I 4. 00 com ym r o a0 II Y Y 'o m -0 C co c x W w o O 0 Y O .0 70 o :(2 - N a) ` t" l0 'a) 0 0 N O N 0 01 0 0 Cl- a' L a a' L CCCL CO Uct N 'y^ y 1- C UC 0. 2005 m a) o Q., O` > . a) N F O w 0 m g O' a > o a) = O N m cram > o m -O -o c y O O oa >, oa >, ca >' oc 0co > • C d _ C d C a ✓ th C O O) C O - c O U > m co LL m > > O y co O D O7ooJ O O N .C O05 U • .0 O 'O cot-ill)'O d. p �co u] N u7 V1 • ` — Si )`- 5 � " J J ^' Imo 0O mmOJjaa) . 20 2 �'+ )nam tnam )nam inD co u-) 0 )n w O C O O O CO a E 0 C O C a E O O m m E• 0 O).c O2 O)2 (0 O O a) w O -O ter .-. t —__ H F Nin `� �n 0 y - zI- —ION - zF �° ¢ Q E°' Eao O en E l 2 Y Q a' Y 0. 2 Y a a) H H ) D D N 0 I-- N 2 N 2 @ Q Q J J to L `'' Q 5 � 5F 5l E " a) a) o Q' m E Ii E ii E Ii U C7 d Oet a U 0 0 C O a) a) 6 U a) i5 a a) a a t v) o co U C 0 N a ;12 t 0 0 O W a) m co c r > O U N � t � N � IWo O E. C Z L O CU N E w 3 a s E w m E y Q a O + 0 Z Q w o C = a) a) a) 'o U a) W G O a O. J aCO CO a 5 to N N E c2 t a. X O W O CO a d a tIC I-0 C Y U O a a) 00 E a E o T O © V m w U E dd >+ n w -0 M co v) o dU 'n ,4-, t a) _ U a) co w w a 0 a) Vi m t N C -Do a) tu .0 -O W > 0 0 y C 14 C 'O C U 0, CO al a t O 0r:k 'C0 )O .O J 7 a) a;M N ^ M No 1 s— O U V M C N4 J 1 C a1 v O Q E a o w E y m co '44 0U C E U) O Q + U a) .— 'C Oa Y w 6. o T E ti Q C ° O- o a E 0. —J ") V° a E a) to 2 a) O cn a C O 01 O a c a] L)CD d Y a o !` a)0 C U O en O a o Cn N N (7 O m d w m v E t t O -O E. aa m 99- OO ri Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures During the development of all build packages, modifications were employed to avoid and minimize effects to historic properties and resources whenever possible. These modifications included shifting the roadway alignment to avoid direct contact with historic boundaries and resources, consolidating roadway templates to minimize space needed for roadway improvements, and bridging of linear features. Possible mitigation measures for historic property impacts are summarized in Table 3.15-4. Mitigation measures for adverse effects will be part of an MOA among CDOT, FHWA, FTA, and SHPO and will be specific to those resources for which the project results in an adverse effect. Actual mitigation measures will be refined after selection of the preferred package, consultation with SHPO, and preparation of the Final EIS. 3.15.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE There are no adverse effects to historic properties, therefore no mitigation is needed. 3.15.3.2 PACKAGE A During the design phase of this project, designs were altered to avoid historic structures where possible. The commuter rail alignment was moved to avoid the historic Dickens Farm on SH 119 as an example. There were, however, three historic buildings that will be • acquired and demolished or relocated to a different site to provide space necessary to construct improvements for Package A. Adverse impacts will occur for two historic buildings in Longmont—the Old City Electric Building, 5BL.1245 ,the Colorado & Southern / BNSF Depot, 5BL.1244, and for one historic building in Erie, the Hingley farmhouse, 5WL.5263, on WCR 7. All three of these buildings will be removed for development of Package A. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. An adverse effect will result from placing 316 feet of the Louden Ditch in new and extended culverts. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. An adverse effect to the Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver and Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969) will result from the demolition of two wooden trestle bridges. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. 3.15.3.3 PACKAGE B An adverse effect will result from placing 357 feet of the Louden Ditch in new and extended culverts. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Historic Preservation 3.15-175 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.15-4 Mitigation Measures—Historic and Archaeological Preservation • Impact Impact Type Mitigation Measures Removal or impact to historic Permanent • Avoidance and minimization will be addressed structure first. • Memorandum of Agreement with parties will be established. • Colorado Historical Society Standards Level II Documentation will be provided. • Relocation of the structure if possible. Impact to a portion of a historic Permanent • Avoidance and minimization will be addressed property first. • Colorado Historical Society Standards Level II Documentation will be provided. • Memorandum of Agreement with parties will be established. Impact to archaeological resource Permanent Avoidance and minimization will be addressed first. • Data recovery (excavation and analysis)will be undertaken. • Construction monitoring will be undertaken as necessary in areas with archaeological resources. Indirect effects from construction Temporary/ Construction disturbances will be controlled • activities Construction and minimized. • All disturbed areas will be returned to their original configuration to the extent possible. Indirect effects to some or all Temporary/ • Precautionary measures, such as applied resources: Dust and debris Construction palliatives to reduce impact of dust will be implemented. ▪ Contractor training to prevent flying debris effects will be implemented. Indirect effects to some or all Temporary/ • Planned construction staging will be provided resources: visual, auditory, Construction to avoid these effects whenever possible. accessibility • Signage and well marked alternate routes for access will be provided. • Landscape context sensitive design will be employed to minimize intrusive effects of transportation features. ▪ Noise barriers will be constructed as warranted. Historic Preservation 3.15-176 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation.• 3.15.4 Native American Consultation Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations (36 CFR 800.2[c][2][ii]) mandate that federal agencies coordinate with interested Native American tribes in the planning process for federal undertakings. Consultation with Native American tribes recognizes the government- to-government relationship between the United States government and sovereign tribal groups. In that context, federal agencies must acknowledge that historic properties of religious and cultural significance to one or more tribes may be located on ancestral, aboriginal, or ceded lands beyond modern reservation boundaries. Consulting tribes are offered the opportunity to identify concerns about cultural resources and comment on how the project might affect them. If it is found that the project will impact properties that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and are of religious or cultural significance to one or more consulting tribes, their role in the consultation process may also include participation in resolving how best to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. By describing the proposed undertaking and the nature of any known cultural sites, and consulting with the interested Native American community, FHWA, FTA and CDOT strive to effectively protect areas important to American Indian people. In April 2004, FHWA and FTA sent letters jointly to fifteen federally recognized tribes with an established interest in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer and/or Weld Counties, Colorado, with an invitation to participate as consulting parties: • ► Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma (two tribes administered by a unified tribal government) ► Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (South Dakota) ► Comanche Nation of Oklahoma ► Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (South Dakota) ► Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma ► Northern Arapaho Tribe (Wyoming) ► Northern Cheyenne Tribe (Montana) ► Oglala Sioux Tribe (South Dakota) ► Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma ► Rosebud Sioux Tribe (South Dakota) ► Southern Ute Indian Tribe (Colorado) ► Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota) ► Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (Colorado) ► Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Agency (Utah) • ► White Mesa Ute Tribe (Utah) Historic Preservation 3.15.177 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The Kiowa Tribe and Pawnee Nation responded in writing to the initial solicitation, each • indicating a desire to be a consulting party for the undertaking. In June, July and August 2004, a CDOT representative placed a series of telephone calls to the remaining non- responsive tribes, and a second invitation letter was sent out to several tribes upon their request, in an effort to answer questions about the project and facilitate additional tribal participation. Five tribes responded positively to this follow up contact (Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and Southern Ute Indian Tribe), for a total of seven consulting tribes. Documentation related to the consultation process is located in Appendix B. None of the tribes raised specific concerns or issues beyond an acknowledgement that their ancestors were residents of northeastern Colorado, and that sites of religious and cultural significance, including human remains, could possibly be located within the North I-25 APE. In response to this concern, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT will specify clear procedures to be followed should archaeological resources and/or human remains be unexpectedly encountered during construction, to include notification of the consulting tribes. Additionally, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT committed to keeping the consulting tribes apprised of progress as the project developed, and to include them in the project planning and development process, at the tribes' discretion. As a result of these actions, FHWA and FTA have fulfilled their joint legal obligations for tribal consultation under federal law. • • Historic Preservation 3.15-178 • N oRm h25 IL EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 16 Paleontological Resources • • Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.16 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section provides a summarized description of the existing conditions of paleontological resources What's in Section 3.16? within the regional study area, and anticipated 3.16 Paleontological Resources impacts on these resources corresponding to each of 3.16.1 Affected Environment the North 1-25 alternatives. The scope of the 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures paleontological analysis included literature and museum record searches and a field survey. The Paleontological Resources Technical Report (Rocky Mountain Paleontology, 2008) should be consulted for greater detail. 3.16.1 Affected Environment The Front Range foothills and adjacent eastern plains region of Colorado are well known for their geologic history and paleontologic importance. Scientists working in this area have conducted numerous studies in geology and paleontology, some of which are now considered classic works, and others that are on the cutting edge of modern paleontological and paleoenvironmental research. Many important fossil specimens, including numerous holotypes, have been collected in this region. These include the type specimens of the dinosaurs Stegosaurus armatus, Diplodocus, Allosaurus, and Apatosaurus ajax, which were collected during the late nineteenth century from historic quarries near the town of Morrison. These and many other fossils from the Front Range and eastern plains region of Colorado are • now housed in museums in Colorado and the United States. 3.16.2 Environmental Consequences No-Action Alternative There would be no impacts to paleontological resources resulting from the No-Action Alternative. Package A Package A would result in varying degrees of ground disturbance associated with construction. Unmitigated excavations in Pierre Shale, Fox Hills Sandstone, Laramie Formation, Denver Formation, and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits have the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. Generally, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the greater the likelihood of adverse impacts on paleontological resources in formations that are known to be fossiliferous. The potential for adverse impacts increases with the known paleontological sensitivity of each geologic formation. Excavations for highway widening and interchange improvements are typically shallow, taking place mostly close to existing grade. Excavations associated with rail construction are also mostly shallow in areas like the regional study area that are largely of low topographic relief. Larger and deeper excavations such as those for building foundations at commuter bus and commuter rail stations and associated facilities, bridge abutments, underground utilities such • as pipelines and powerlines, and light standards along the North 1-25 corridor, have a higher potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Paleontological Resources 3.16-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The Denver Formation has high paleontological sensitivity, and could be impacted by • construction from E-470 to US 36 (A-H4). The Pierre Shale and Laramie Formation have moderate sensitivity, and the Fox Hills Sandstone and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits have low sensitivity. These units underlie portions of the regional study area. Most previously recorded fossil localities within the regional study area are located in the Pierre Shale between Fort Collins and Loveland, especially the Hygiene Sandstone Member in the vicinity of Fossil Ridge. Construction along the existing BNSF rail-line between Fort Collins and Longmont, and along 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 (A-H4), especially where cuts are necessary to expand highways, interchanges and rail alignments, has the highest likelihood of adversely impacting paleontological resources. Package B Package B would result in varying degrees of ground disturbance associated with construction. Unmitigated excavations in Pierre Shale, Fox Hills Sandstone, Laramie Formation, Denver Formation, and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits have the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. Generally, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the greater the likelihood of adverse impacts on paleontological resources in formations that are known to be fossiliferous. The potential for adverse impacts increases with the known paleontological sensitivity of each geologic formation. In terms of construction-related ground disturbance and potential impacts on paleontological resources, the highway components under Package A and Package B are similar, except that under Package A structure upgrades (A-H4) are proposed to 1-25 between E-470 and US 36, • and under Package B (Component B-H4), an additional tolled express lane is proposed between E-470 and US 36 (B-H4), with upgrades to highway interchanges. Transit components under Packages A and B would impact paleontological resources differently. Under Package B, transit alternatives consist of bus rapid transit service and the construction of associated infrastructure. Ground disturbance associated with the construction of commuter rail lines and facilities is anticipated to be significantly greater than that required for bus rapid transit facilities. Because Package B would generally require less ground disturbance than Package A due to the absence of rail transit disturbances, Package B has a lower potential for impacts on paleontological resources. However, Package B has a higher potential for impacts on paleontological resources than the No-Action Alternative. 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures Construction Monitoring Continuous monitoring or spot checking during construction is recommended for the Pierre Shale, Laramie Formation, and Denver Formation (or portions thereof). Paleontological clearance with no attached mitigation stipulations is recommended for the Fox Hills Sandstone and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits. • Paleontological Resources 3.16-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • All paleontological monitoring work will be performed by a qualified and State of Colorado- permitted paleontologist. Paleontological monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units and microscopic examination of matrix to determine if fossils are present. This work would take place during surface disturbing activities, such as excavations for the construction of roads, railways, bridges, underpasses, and buildings. Depending upon the paleontological sensitivity of the project area based on its geology and the types and significance of potential fossils that could be present in sub-surface sedimentary deposits, monitoring will be scheduled to take place continuously or to consist of spot-checks of construction excavations. Paleontological monitors will follow earth-moving equipment and examine excavated sediments and excavation sidewalls for evidence of significant paleontological resources. At the request of the monitors, the project engineer will order temporary diversion of grading away from exposed fossils in order to permit the monitors to efficiently and professionally recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. All efforts to avoid delays to project schedules will be made. The final paleontological monitoring report should provide all necessary paleontological data. This includes, but is not limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation-monitoring plan, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected (including an assessment of their significance, age, and geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, an appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate communications, and a copy of the project-specific paleontological monitoring and mitigation plan. If any subsurface bones or other potential fossils are found by construction personnel during • construction, work in the immediate area will cease immediately, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) staff paleontologist will be contacted to evaluate the significance of the find. Once salvage or other mitigation measures (including sampling) is complete, the CDOT staff paleontologist will notify the construction supervisor that paleontological clearance has been granted. Recommendations 1. Potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources within the North 1-25 DEIS regional study area can be reduced to below the level of significance with the implementation of paleontological mitigation. Table 3.16-1 summarizes the paleontological resource mitigation measures recommendations by geologic formation. 2. When the Preferred Alternative has been selected and the project design plans have been finalized, the CDOT paleontologist will review these documents and determine the extent and depth of ground disturbance associated with construction of the proposed transportation improvements. Based on these findings, mitigation measures will be modified as appropriate and additional site-specific or project-specific paleontological studies may be recommended. 3. The majority of privately owned lands within the regional study area and some segments of the BNSF right-of-way were not surveyed for paleontological resources because access to these parcels was not granted. When the Preferred Alternative is selected, the CDOT paleontologist will determine which of these parcels, if any, could contain exposures of potentially fossiliferous bedrock and/or surface fossils, and should be surveyed prior to construction. • - 4. If any subsurface bones or other potential fossils are found anywhere within the regional study area during construction-related ground disturbance, the CDOT paleontologist will be notified immediately to assess their significance and make further recommendation. Paleontological Resources 3.16-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.16-1 Summarized Paleontological Resource Mitigation Recommendations • for the North I-25 DEIS by Geologic Formation Formation Location Approach Pierre Shale, Fossil Ridge, BNSF corridor south Monitor all excavations during construction Hygiene Sandstone of Fort Collins and north of Member Loveland Pierre Shale All locations where unit occurs Spot-check large excavations for significant within regional study area except fossils during construction. Immediately notify Fossil Ridge. CDOT paleontologist if fossils found during construction. Fox Hills Sandstone All locations where unit occurs Paleontological clearance with no attached within regional study area. mitigation stipulations recommended. Immediately notify CDOT paleontologist if fossils found during construction. Laramie Formation All locations where unit occurs Spot-check large excavations for significant within regional study area. fossils during construction. Immediately notify CDOT paleontologist if fossils found during construction. Denver Formation All locations where unit occurs Monitor all excavations during construction. within regional study area. Pleistocene-age All locations where unit occurs Paleontological clearance with no attached surficial deposits within regional study area mitigation stipulations recommended. Immediately notify CDOT paleontologist if fossils found during construction. • • Paleontological Resources 3.16-4 • NORTH I-25 MI EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 17 Hazardous Materials • • NORTH 125 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section provides an overview of sites in the project area with recognized or What's in Section 3.17? potential soil and groundwater contamination. The identification of 3.17 Hazardous Materials contaminated sites is necessary so that 3.17.1 iron Environment Consequences 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences they can be avoided when reasonably 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures possible, or appropriate mitigation measures can be implemented. The presence of hazardous materials is a liability concern for any potential right-of-way acquisition and can affect the project in terms of worker health and safety, cost, schedule, and agency and public relations, particularly if these sites are not identified prior to construction. Therefore, an assessment of site contamination in the project area is an integral part of the CDOT project planning process. In support of this EIS, a corridor-wide Hazardous Materials Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(MESA) (FHU, 2008c) was performed to identify properties (sites) in the project area with the presence of potential or known (recognized) soil and groundwater contamination (environmental conditions) from hazardous materials. The term "hazardous materials" is an all-inclusive term for materials that are regulated as a solid waste, hazardous waste, or other wastes contaminated with hazardous substances, radioactive materials, petroleum fuels, toxic substances, and pollutants. Areas of contaminated soil and • groundwater must be identified to evaluate several aspects of the proposed improvements, including responsibility and management of contaminated soil and groundwater, engineering options to minimize and mitigate impacts, activities associated with right-of-way acquisition, and worker health and safety during construction. The methodology used to identify sites with recognized and potential environmental conditions included a limited visual inspection of properties adjacent to the project corridors to locate activities that could potentially result in hazardous materials contamination, a review of historical information for the project corridors, and a review of current local, state, and federal environmental agency databases to identify known contaminated sites. The methodology is further discussed in the MESA (FHU, 2008c). 3.17.1 Affected Environment Sites with the potential for large-scale contaminant migration or a known existing or past release of a hazardous material are listed in Table 3.17-1 and the locations of these sites are shown in Figure 3.17-1. These sites were identified in the MESA as having a high ranking with regard to potential site contamination, indicating that contamination (existing or residual) from hazardous materials may exist and could have an adverse impact on the project alternatives. These sites include National Priority List (NPL) or"Superfund" sites; sites on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS); sites in the Colorado Voluntary Clean Up program (VCUP); and state active • and historical solid waste landfills (SWF). A detailed discussion of these sites is included in the MESA (FHU, 2008c). Hazardous Materials 3.17-1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Numerous sites with moderate indications of a potential or known existing release or past • release of any hazardous materials (see Section 3.17.2) are also present along the project corridors and are discussed in further detail in the MESA and in the hazardous materials consequences section of this EIS. Table 3.17-1 Summary of High-Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination Corridor Site Type of Concern Component Address Site Location I-25 Corridor(Packages A and B) SH 1 to SH 14 120 NE Frontage CORRACTS Site identified as needing corrective action after a release of a (A-H1 &B-H1) Rd., hazardous waste or constituent into the environment from a Fort Collins RCRA facility. Commuter Rail Corridor(Package A) Fort Collins 3536 S. Mason CERCLIS Known existing or past releases of hazardous materials and to Longmont St, potential for large-scale contaminant migration exists. Site is (A-T1) Fort Collins designated as No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP). Site at College CERCLIS Known existing or past releases of hazardous materials and Ave. Fort Collins potential for large-scale contaminant migration exists. Site is Trailer, Fort designated as NFRAP. Collins CSU campus— CORRACTS Site identified as needing corrective action after a release of a College Ave. hazardous waste or constituent into the environment from a /Pitkin Ave., RCRA facility. Fort Collins 317 West SWF Potential presence of methane gas and other landfill gases. Prospect Rd., • Fort Collins C Site at College VCUP Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for a known existing Ave./Willow St., or past releases of hazardous materials. Fort Collins 116 E. Foothills CORRACTS Site identified as needing corrective action after a release of a Pkwy., hazardous waste or constituent into the environment from a Fort Collins RCRA facility. 302 3rd St. SE, CORRACTS Site identified as needing corrective action after a release of a Loveland hazardous waste or constituent into the environment from a RCRA facility. 4809 S. College VCUP Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for a known existing Avenue, or past releases of hazardous materials. Fort Collins 120 9th Avenue, VCUP Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for a known existing Longmont or past releases of hazardous materials. 15th Ave./ SWF Potential presence of methane gas and other landfill gases. Lashley St., Longmont Longmont to 11939 Sugar Mill VCUP Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for a known existing North Metro Rd., or past releases of hazardous materials. (A-T2) Longmont 844 Weld County CERCLIS Known existing or past releases of hazardous materials and Rd 7, potential for large-scale contaminant migration exists. Site is Erie designated as NFRAP. Commuter 11939 Sugar Mill VCUP Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for a known existing Rail Station: Rd, or past releases of hazardous materials. Longmont at Longmont Sugar Mill • Site CR—A (A-T1/A-T2) Hazardous Materials 3.17.2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • • Figure 3.17-1 Location of High-Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination LEGEND LI 'Qt High-Ranking Hazardous Materials Sites i Location: ON COLLEGE AVE I FT COLLINS TRAILER Y_'• a Cities & Towns in Regional Study Area I ✓ tNIrMN -..., , 1 Regional Study Area i• `•.• 85 ^/ Study Corridors ) �� C ^ Location: CSU CAMPUS - COLLEGE AVE / PITKIN AVE /4\/ Highways !%' /� Arterial Roads Location: 120 NE FRONTAGE RD I Fort = :Ilins,. try City Boundaries ,r y; \ ..� < r T Ault' \ 4 - - 2 I Location: COLLEGE AVE / WILLOW ST L `• D 1 lv Location: 317 W PROSPECT R r ennath �� Severance Eatar l Location: 116 E FOOTHILLS PKWY ' ' , I ' le 287 1 Location: 3536 SOUTH MASON ST . Windsor j i Lucerne ft 392 Location: 4809 S COLLEGEAVE.K1 + j _ ---- I Greeley - , .-. 34 j -... I e . . . ._ 1 263 s 1 ' Garden city i 34 i ' Loveland t__ iy - Evans ` Location: 302 3RD ST SOUTHEAST I • ` LaSalle • • I fampiai ..� Q insi wn / , i 60 1 85 - potham 0 Milliken / .. F I ; i Gilaest • Z. I Location: 15TH AVE I LASHLEY ST I p //r ta.d i. V-- -- Pl;nrr ilr. 66 I Location: 120 9TH AVE_ _ I --- ---= =-' - t,ongmnnt _ I i Location: 11939 SUGAR MILL RD re ./..- Vollmer O i 1 1,.- i O Firestone ' Niwot. — -41 O ifedaick i1 1 -- - •�_ Location: 844 WELD CNTY RD 7k7 --1 O farm Fat Luptont 21 �^- 1 a GutLvrrel i la :"r NI) ... !N.ilt1't INN q I Boulder 7 i I/ 0 lafaYale. MJ i `� 1 Ia;isvillP , r4iq tm ''. - '$Uperia 1 . i /�`�•s,, ��► �r��s Eastlake i / -- Baanfield O Haider �1>•� ; � j f i Ir I h J �'\ V 3 . t mqh��, f rJ i 1 t . tti '` ,, *r, \• I/, -- ; - er _ - : c.:4 1 Denve 70 __.j fee- 1,1 4 i it ;/ " 0 0 2 4 6 B 10 I ' ' ' r I Miles North ♦ 1;1 \\ . , i ' / Hazardous Materials 3.17-3 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information, cooperation. transportation. Oil and gas facilities (existing and planned), including oil and gas wells, were identified • within the project area using data from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Website. These facilities were identified within 100 feet, 100 to 500 feet, 500 to 1,000 feet, and 1,000 to 1,500 feet from the existing edge of pavement throughout the project area. Eleven facilities were identified within 100 feet of the project area, 63 wells within 100 to 500 feet, 111 wells within 500 to 1000 feet, and 75 wells within 1000 to 1500 feet. Oil and gas explorations, development, and production wastes (e.g., drilling fluids) are produced during primary field operations and the potential exists for subsurface releases that may not be observable at the surface or along the associated gathering and transmission pipeline. Chronic minor leaks that would not be detected by inventory control can also release over time into the subsurface. Thus, all oil and gas facilities/associated transmission lines that could be impacted or disturbed constitute a potential environmental condition. 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences To determine the consequences of the No-Action Alternative and the two build packages (Package A and Package B), the properties from which right-of-way would potentially be acquired for each alternative were compared with the sites with potential environmental conditions and the sites with recognized environmental conditions that were identified in the MESA. These sites include medium and low-ranked sites that were evaluated in the MESA, as well as sites with potential environmental conditions that were identified during the site reconnaissance and the review of historical land use (e.g., evidence of storage, handling, or • disposal of hazardous materials). Medium-ranked sites include RCRA hazardous waste generators with reported violations, sites reported on the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list, and facilities with leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). Low-ranked sites include residential sites or commercial sites with activities that do not require the use of hazardous substances or petroleum products (greater than 55 gallons/year), RCRA hazardous waste generators with no reported violations, facilities with above ground/underground storage tanks (ASTs/USTs) with no reported leaks or spills, and sites reported on the Facility Index System (FINDS). These sites have minimal indications of an existing release, past release, or material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into the ground (soil), groundwater, or surface water. Sites to be acquired for right-of-way that have potential or recognized soil and groundwater contamination are considered direct hazardous materials impacts (See Table 3.17-2). Sites that will not be acquired for right-of-way but have potential or recognized soil and groundwater contamination and could affect materials management or worker health and safety are considered indirect impacts. 3.17.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative is a conservative estimate of safety and maintenance improvements that will need to be constructed if the build alternatives are not built. Major and minor structure maintenance activities from US 36 to SH 1 and safety improvements at • selected locations from WCR 34 to SH 1 are expected to occur. Hazardous Materials 3.17.4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • The No-Action Alternative does not include the acquisition of any sites for right-of-way: therefore, there would be no direct impacts associated with hazardous materials associated with this alternative. Indirect impacts are not associated with right-of-way acquisition but are associated with potentially contaminated sites that could affect materials management and worker health and safety. Indirect impacts identified with respect to the No-Action Alternative include the potential to encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater during structure maintenance activities that require structural excavations or during safety improvements that require ramp terminal widening (e.g., 1-25 and Prospect, 1-25 and SH 392, 1-25 and SH 402). 3.17.2.2 PACKAGE A Package A was described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. It consists of four highway components and four transit components. Package A generally includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25 and implementation of commuter rail and commuter bus service. Construction of associated elements, such as commuter rail and bus stations, carpool lots, water quality ponds, retaining walls, bridges, interchanges, and queue jumps associated with Package A, also were considered in the component-level analysis. Table 3.17-2 summarizes information on properties with potential or recognized environmental conditions with regard to hazardous materials that are associated with Package A proposed highway or transit improvements. This information is organized by build component. Figure 3.17-2 graphically displays information regarding the total number of properties with potential or recognized environmental conditions associated with Package • A highway and transit components by component. A total of 38 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package A highway components (Figure 3.17-2). A total of 58 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 2 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package A transit components. Several of the sites identified in Table 3.17-1 are impacted by the project. A detailed discussion of environmental conditions of these sites is included in the MESA (FHU, 2008c). • Hazardous Materials 3.17.5 � ###SVH x • A c Pie MIN O a *: 21 ##ISd x a C _ t 1 4 F G I-' w x x x x x x x x XX x x 8 O #VSI O N V Z O' @ a N oca Z ._ u p (p O U1 ca N (0 N p_ a; L-� a N N = I� C CI C ca (N (@j N En a J C@ C O '5 C m -. O F- a) a) 0C m m y m m L 0 c P �c O a) E d - N N mO o -ca.)adco - ca ,--1- @ . N co m C c N 'N 3L- N a N L a E 6- a cci tNa V) C (Q y G L c m0 crn tri c 0U E c .-co E a O C 0 c m CO r J .- N O 0 I- I- 3 c N •' O I- y0 a) o m O 0 co O co L co a J - N c c c E@ C C Q 0 N C j O C W L E N <n a= a _ -' a 0 W N U N `- @ m U .- O H Q 0 @ — N J m . H m L L . -C tO c r O '0 a) ow Q N .0 ai to F- m H O C 3 N O c = 1- 16 U r0 d U m O C N @ = j m J O C N n N O Y J@ C N m m m `� m co a) c .- _ 0 .C .a_ C@ m « c .c E 0 3 C m OOA c ° ? pcy ma a� aXi coc °N'= c ° ao)c a) °" mv "m d O d ¢ m 0 C dj m 3 0 a) '0 y 0c 0 O 0 0 E E c p 0- CD_ <a N a) O U m DO .> O �. N@ C U y v) m :67, O m V .N c C O U m Y C a@ C O c c O N N m 0 O m a) O O .- m — C N - O C C "O U H N N 'O 'C a c H@ — � ?�a) E o a E E v) c E c@i -E LR v@ a c to 0 W E a) tau c0 m C a) -c-ca al O N@ 1 c v al c C J2 .g.0 N N V co N _ea a) -0 0.= O o N C "0 -o (O c ra @ O o •z @ Q@ L c m > L a m `@atmn ≥ coc ° Eaa)) oDE W Poo ELLCmm � 3 O) m05rn% II �i N L a O N rr 0 c a CO al :° c E m a c N U o N -Jr, "- d 0 o C U -0 -0 o c CU = "0 a D 00) c 01 'Doc m_ .. o N N ro E _O E O N_ C C O r m co Qr I cap c moo mt~/7 o Ht d = o nC a am ccUR 'O = Vm1 L 3 N W A Xi C ,-m0 @@ -c N - N Q N N Li...! Q "O IO O O ` 0 5 ti N U N N -0 O) C " ._ _ m 0 m 0 m a 15 L a) = m c `m a a R -0 o m E - m c C ' C N d C 'O W0 _' Y o DO N F@ a) U a) m U m ca m m •3 O@ _ 0 O C 1 t- 'O u) :Taco �a 5 (n O :- t '- V) C as a 9 > E Q y E am na -To CT5 00) E jmm oa 2ao .� 7Z " g ads C0 C NNQ7 m O@ L F N m E a@ m _ H O CU U@@@ m 0 E' H L..1 D O 02 c m C y n D 0 O E _LL (n R R' a c N L E m a_ N '0 m (ID N O' _ 01 O O @ O m V n N C C ? c o c) 3 m @ m m r, (0 w m E C , --O N N C N O - O O 2 K O .0 co .= m m m N Q o (N o m a) @ m 0@ 'C O c D C N@ c 13 E a@ R' O Ro moro co) @ - = w12c 5)) 200C` ° 163 ° N mLU E Nco.) 3 ao O "aL E c C 'O NL O C O O = Oin @ 1] J O C a' C O C@ N '- O O@ - c U N (0 O a_ C O O O -0 3 G m tp 0 0 r C �j O C a E t O c i_ c _ _ N to @ c a) 1 - 0a) @ 8iio o@ � � @ moFo m � -c @ .— E we -0 r@ O � _ 0'50 -0' C .tn m N N N N R' t`0 O m c U O N o c E E O m a N C N O C O O O x t0 -coca _ @ Cocoas _m m = m O c 0 -y w E OrQ m LL O U M U a) J O N OJO it K Yn E N O_Q L m = L.L t to Si P V -0 -0 a d O To N m N N N N N m m m m bD E '= .C .E EEEE - C -O 0) C E C C C ircl 00 mm m a) m a) m b Co CC R R 2m' 2m' d d d d tl LU 03 N O N. 0 N N N O m a) N- r W d M 0 0 0 0 O r V N N ONO 0) 0 0 Q v " w E o o m o 000 000 0 0 0 O A ll O 0 0 0 000 N- o t1) 0 N- CO Ca y,. C Z 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 L. („� It 0 0 r 0 0 rCNN C0Nr 0 N M • G O FV M 0 O N N V N O 0 0 t N .... CNN M N n 0 N- N. N- O N- N- O CO 0 00 CO CO 00 CO CO 00 00 00 CO CO CO 00 CO ..S'8H A pue o c dWW u O c CO —E "I3;o ..18d C E in ° o �' St .VSIi' W o U X X X X X X X X X X C 76 0 O c '� N @ O co d 0 n d 3 J c U s -°o C c CO c V CD °1 m - -co a c c N o Ts C @ 3 Y @ C O O J co U@ O 8 . Sy+ _ @ C = @ @ m o o E c cc to)_y O) O! a) C c E @ C C - a) Y O •- -p .O C GC C C 7 Y N @ ° o O co O wow @ @@ a 0 @ 3 c n o m a) m c c )-i .^O V1 CD Y CO') r m "O m o c -° C m o c O N m Lai E. C @ m m000 N @ p Ow C 3 ' O C m@ . @ U = N O @ U W '� @ N P O CD I. .C L.. "O 01 W o E � 0 s c !Of, - c m U � @m @@@c @ o ° ° co @o C N@ a J E a 3 a 3 E ) o c o c o@ o o ' 'c N ° E m E m o m P o c - @ 6 c m c o°) ° C a , .2 y C N a)) Y O .N ' 12 6- a @ 01- O@ E • 0. o ca '5 o V m m o _c o c -o r m c (� o) Q d O E N. a D @ p a) O) W o O O)Q C m .m o F 'U L C @ v a y � � s m � o a v N V o (n (a o ≥ E 'c 3 o m u O '- V -0 a O"O . 'O C r U1 @ o p N • N— or., co -E -o ^C y a) @ @ @ m @ @ c 3 � o o � c @ ° o o tar • >~ O aam� o � o) coi °)� °c o scma°i > -oo0 3 2 ,- b a o c C y. i- o tT ` De it c m to r — 0 C c 7 _° ° U -a E W C a m 0 6 O J _J CO I- • J 7 t+f c@@ a) 'O a@ C@ CD O 'y J O CO a) x O m a) a > 9) co yO E L a (CQ _U L a)) L a) 'y. o I— C M c 0 p o@ p) J o E -O CO O N O N= C) e co �C @ a `2 N r = L 3 C m C O C V 7 t- @ i) CDC1200 03 00 -0 = "( 0 .-' 170 n) O 0. 0 Y Q@ C) > a) D -0E003 (1) 0a N O C y y a m a N C O L CO a) m t 'V - .o co N a) a o)0 ° > N030) .w (0 • L@@ i@@ ° J • a N O a) � a S. c a 0 m@ co N O E (o L -0 y U co U Op, E@ N N f6 o m@ d .O J U F N O toil C C co D j -° N N co '8 m o O .) a ct O a m C N m m an d @ E a O O C O) m Ol m m gg N O C E 0 U -°o` d@ ,, a ° -°o` �' o y@ m p -° c c c nc cc m@ ',Boo o@ N -o a 0 w I) tNn E co c 0 m m o .9 a E E ft tU � @@ O C J Ct > � C to @ N@ N (O ° O a O o C J o o N FC 2rd Eft Qt (Yrs =o0 -oU' d = E mu u o @ 2 aaa E 7 To (/) c C I a) O m @ CO CV CO CO CO N N E « CCC c c c c c c 'v @ a) @ a) a) a) a) 0 E -' ` 0 d d d d 0_ O O aa)) a) a) co 5U cc c U W td Po CO N C O h O N Cl) N 1"1 d (tea N W r (D 0 0) d en p u a 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO O W S - N -z J 0 0 O - 0 (° V o Or t Y a C Z 0 00C40010) 0 N 0 o) 0) O u b a) 0 0 0 M N th 0 N Q H r O 0 NCO COr M N COCD CO V N.. (D (() CO LC) CO 0 N. if co CO o of o CO CO 00 ***SIRE! • Ice c Pue MIN n _ _ 10 ..ISd V M_ . N 4 V Ns! X X X .1 n u N W V7 @ in o v a H G C C C a N O)y co O E y N in v -o @ W N .C @ CO = v o 'C �° "D - E -C a) c-caaccoa) E -o rn '7 ._ 3 U 0 0 C C O@ O N •— O .- Y CO .a N O F-� O c Co@ 'C _ a≥ - N a 5 c a) o @ o U co U W cc' a' O) c -@O — @ Q ' E •oo t U a) v a N @L V ._ 0 Ta) C ^y C E a/ o N v @ a) a) a' r CO O. C J r C O N O a> N@ m E@ t °) .C L @ N N 13„, -I, aJ 0Em3L� C >, (1) 3 o c as � mmv gE C N .? W > W N a) c 0 -c C O U E a) �+ @ L a) a) N L co Z C 0 C _Too) N O D E E c y ai d 0 T@ '- U .0 O.CL cc N --I �i .CL - 3 S @a m Q) -o = @ D O @ �i -O Ta. a-O c — o a' o ° m@ O v N L a N a 1 of = C EC COO %- Cv, CE o .3 'C) U )t C CO w 2 a w O C N c N@ @ O 0 a) c c oc a r a) `O o O) 0 O •r.1 • O c N @ N .� •-• C .CO CO C L 2 0 N @@ m Q . - @ L a) C O@ a ai O r @ c c N C • a J > N a) O C O C O O O cc .c O) N 0 '5 d 0 in O o f ..@_. .@. O L x Y1 N@ O) p o)v o o j N-o5• 72cf) dWwOac c ono Z ra as m c a) c ca " EC @ a) II A a) a O N@ v U C @ ® a) O L 3 a@ o m o)r �. c - 0 > cc --c -- a) 83 -0 -t o m E ono o `_ all (7 m c@i y - OU av) N o c co p m o `t m o c 2 co �. @ o) a) '- a N to = o N O C E a c y (s aa) a0 o v .> U N c N E a) W D @ N a°i co Jo c u m ac) a o)D x E •'l m > .-is r.I •c -c a) cU i 17 @a) c " oda)c r •c al Ocaooui V) e — c U S -0p 3 0 '@ � @ @ c 0 L- 0 3 .4+ p_ ° @ Et y E c c a) @ o n OC O'"O '1O- co O L N W V@ o m• @ -C @ N E d c N L O c O L a) O E CD Q • ai CO a o aci C .E O N L@. N < a)< o in -CO o H b °3 cc f° c O ' Q cc `` s w — co @ 12 E dN or x-, cciao a 3w 3 � yCCDOc -Jm E 7 a c c I a) o N m m N .< E y Ct 'c 0) -E. c c are O 0 0 a) 0 0 a) a a o .4 c o ft CC V W It P• co N O c 0 N. O ro CO N OS d@ a N C31 U) U O I.1.1 ai0 0 N tp A a C z o 0 0 o Cl CI rs cu O 0 O o o • O Co O 0 N LO r J N CO CO 00 CO ...SBH c Pue dWW x x x x o 10 ..ISd x x V1V� o ,VSI x x x x N W o U _ c �°- °- > aEwa � r � c _smEm -° o E 0 Q > m 0° N N 0 oF- -0 E'O O ° -0 a) O) o N -00 -o N O O o co m a� m 'c m m m m � m m ° a = v, C ° `m �j "C om m ? _co ow o _m ° 0Eo — ° oL or 0 44 rti p p c.) a) C o a ° o ° Z m m O J o O O m . O O 0 3 0 ° m . o o o -o y o 0 E O m in aO2 u— U -o � m � o � `� aoXLm'� � c oyo � aivi m ° 3 m m c m o Z CO o C o _ `0 0 `� 2 -0 co < rcooE „,-- a) Z m3c3ommaa) m >~ co c0 N ° N ° a m o -o 0 y t ma) ` c MS = c c II ° g o °'a> ,o m ai ° v E ° = um 3 -o m E 0) 070 m ° N NCC. om :> O) 3 Co or Et. O -° 0C oro0 ' N co S✓i N O 'C) N N 0 ' N aN am C 0 O 'er a N v) u! . O) 0 O V C N C J CO i Or m 'O (n 'C c ca m m o H = ..y _ to ° N > co 2 :5, -.6cO -02 N o m m 3 < o O v 0 -0EE um ° �� o �° � ° � E ° caEU000 > amU o W c ovum om 'om ? � md � urQ a o -= odoEos '0 ..0 0 a`) m m rn cm mxmo = ° a) m `-' °� ._ aomom m as U � � ms r � ° xm � m ° (� � ° ° � macio -o .. c � o N c m m5 -oo m -0Ea) 0om � Va o > O a -0c cno 0 . o c oO -C a) d ° o0 p ° -O -o3 omm ' o 0 m o oar o c•-,; a) a � -0 o m v_i °) cH : ° E o CV- '...: J m o m mU m a 3 - co >, >, a) m o S 'm (n .>_ O E -o c N O O O € C O N O. C Ti c c _o O 0 dm N . v1 0 a 0 a) m C a O O 0 C 0 in �.al v p. j ° c � L � v c > N > W flW m .N co `� O � `� ° w C m a a o .d 0 Ty O Eco '� o • L ° 3oc HEocma L ° 'omL ° .Nc ° co . CL o m " �' °� o E a m m m 3 v, 3 ° co o .mom C ° r R 3 D7 E O C O V T E O.,r o d 7 C N m m O) 2 U N .O L O O C = N N OI a a, co N r o N O c O L (c c U N Y N Y C O (n m E o U m O -p e•i C W HC!) g) 0 0 c = '0 m 2 o3, c mew 2 � aN c c - a N oo o c co m m o a; aD .- Ea ° -o -03a`r@ -o5op � ma m _ ao m -ot � c0 = O J oD > t 0mC : 3oL� N = E E C ° owe= UNoo mH i a � du) rm cEE � ccE � � 0 L �' >, ,- 0a� -000ymE c = m T N O '— c 0 N N > "0 O aC O -5 E a N T(H co U ° -E. -11.) .≥ .L. 0 a m o m = ° C o co a° Z N '.>-. — w CDCN O) E � co ° Q C -0 j ° Q.� .IC II ° m y o c '- Cw 7 Ea op ° QN ° m Oc we ° Q v) LA p oco°, mo .c_ cEEa a� ccoco ° aci : m -- 0 ooC ccmoo — a U is o o)•E ' m CO a ° o O o 0 >.°m m a ai v' o r (6" c . � � � '`� '@o Th. u) m m -0 a) 3 .. m > d '> a o ate) . W m m ° co Co E m o Z m c0 NHc) > C -0 dO) mW .— — EZ ≥ _ or mCCO , ._ Z2 — E O 7 -o o° - (n a m o -m0 m o F m W Q ° W m CC - _c w m o o m o Q W Um` m 5 Z To U) C C m0 N N N mm d E " C C co) O) N N C L a O O m c 0 0 o0 0 0 d d y W V ca O Pal O N C O N. O_ y CNI 1-1 N M m m 2 O el O o N O W d '- w Q - m 3 0 o O O OM x o p 0. C Z o 0 0 o v U rs O O O 0 ro N O '0 CO U) N- O CO co co W CO ...SBH X • c PUe &NW O m _ • co .«ISd ▪ V M_ r+ 2 in V� v U +VSI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X HW °o C co x c z O N O - 0 N J O m O O O N C H T f0 C �?i co 12 C E I N U O J O fn -O 0 CO CO N U j m O 'C rJ. V D N a E N 60 m O N O Z - m Cl-m' c _ O o 0 •c m CO as -C Y C C O m U U °° c 3 -- F a v N ° v co N 3 -05 .O6. o as m E c o < c (D CO N aci am a c c c ag) a) d N .0 co J C N co C E N y 0 - m U 3 a U O C _ N y m O O I- O .N U O 0.._=, N C m e y ° C O) J L O m .> m Y m CO -O CO D C m J .ti c_ O T CD !n ~ m = road ° — 3 u1 Oa O E N U (n N Emma' >'" O C C o 0 C J O c < 00 0O d) ca E .o'.. mu C C N m W w a) .O a c ain .c L a co 'C U O) JON 00g E O '5 N -O co a -O -ON al vi m mm 0 U O N F o. ° 4 '0 a) N -o a1 N -O C To O C �' O o. N C WO a) N J c c to N C c O C L . (o . a N O . O N = -o < m O m m m a) O u) N ' N ' 0 >~ �, c a) Q w d . .E "c a, m m m 2 m e m a mN -oa o c m m a o) E No: o: = Oa) O � °o_ OU V O ° o CO H O 6 C C O C C C '° N (a ° U O U N N N a+ W 0 L -(n CO co 3 E a "O m C "O O J N [` a (` U m 0a s ~ u° co m a C E T U m E •ul N m N C m c ° N ° U C N TI Q Zr O O C re OU J ` L .a U °cl) L N CO E C y C y a m N o s a c ° m om d E o a 0rn �OChM., 0 DO °0_ ° a10C � C O O co co 0 ; J _ CO m (a c N N L '°O co w m u) -o . R " a.) m a) m m L o o- O E C J "O U "O C ° y c 12 0 - O) CO C a Q O` a O1 0 m C m E m N 3 N C 'O E 'O m m eo y W C O CO m L a = N T., N p _a m O C L E CO N CO m L N a Ni 3 °) Q a m ma u) o• c c mac o) um) rn Cr = F- 0 O p Q .. _O -.=, C 'O 0 al• V m m N 7 C m C m (o c0c o — c a) mEo Ems Cm - avCo w Q D p O m m o C CO O C o N Z C rJ N L — Y C L C m N 3 a m O co, �` H 6 o a E O y m J o 3 m ≤ L L a m y c .0 a: 7 'o o) -(1) a) E O o m .°° -0 °1 . o m o..C a)a a) Q a`) a. o Q N F- a) N a O a N C N C -O 0) m Y O) O o) O) m O) m to ao •- CD - men ay o mUjao mmmcmNC m r CO cn E O ? °) O O O (n O Y o m L N m C L D O N m ° N ° ° N w o '- O J U o z' a) o • 0 z c «, U c m t m C -2 m mu) -0 , N 1 = U J o V �ow .° c .. mc °) m c � :° m � 3Na� 3mmmom � omo NcmNc ` mo v) 'a -o oYrn `oo >,— `? aE 's,=- E N O N f- O „ a w N F- N H y a) O Y U U Y Y L U p E O 0 C m eC m (o 0 (n to m S N CO (/J m o m E O C E o 2 C C o R J o m j m o N E 0 a)(JD o)LLa --- 0D0Dm E 2DHmf- > > > a¢ U E < E0 E o 76 V) c c a Nm o_ m N To N m CO m m m m m m m m m I= �" C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C • C L a) O) 0 •m m 0 a) m m coo a) 0 0 m a) 0 C O OO O O 0 O O O o O O O OO O O O O ell 5 a a) a 0 a a a a a as as a a ft cU a a V W RI CO O N C N H 0 (O 0 m N CO (!) O) Or To ea O O CO _ N NO OO O O y N M u u o o o o r N O O O O o 00 O O O w _ _a � wE o a) 0 o O o)L _ c o o co oo o o 0 r CO 1O" L a G z O O N- O CO N M O ° a) N O O O Cr N 'Cr ON CO • L 7 Q O O CO M o O O T C rN CO (f) M M CO CO O O (h CO (O CO CO CO CO r 0 > O (1) r CO � CO � � r r r CO CO E ...SBH x x c PUe dim (a ..ISd x X w' q g oVSI X X X X X X X X XXX X I W o U o o o a' x c a) o a) --o E c E 21 coF 3 c c o ° m 7 c TS O n O N - Y a (� V m • 0 O v a) co_ t9 w D w2 a) @ N r V) U 7508 - N c ai O C @ `0 C �0 N 0 -O a3 O U a) > O D O (a O ' to to a T L .c ttl T to .O a) .- .N >,.. '5 - O N E E c cn To _ m a) a) 4i 0 O C . O) O O c > C c O)O J N a N a a) t6 a) Eo co c a'E co c Ooc (n a) - o E a) In - my.. m o a) 0 'o - 0 0 y r m a, -o F- CO 'C CO o C 'x E -o m- .. 0 in o G o 3 m r D 2 O Z E o 0 0 0 0 a) 0 o E m I-4 73a) CI- c a) " a aido d � tn.) o J 5 o E V aa) d C P N �j t� c0 c) O '- 0 .-. -00 • v c a O C 01 [a O ta'/1 0 (o (6 O a _ W O L C O N o O) N c a) y LL ` N F •L J CD N d � 3oc O1 to o � ccc°) naocD L,2 w = D 3y ao_ -a)o ..N, c w = .N a o N O a) OJ (a ` U N O ° R 3 c yO y J 0., O c Y C O O Y O > co.c m m c � o Q (a s- 0 o 2 a rn c 0 -. . m c o n ct m r .-U 17 a c O J 0 a) O 0) C a) N - 0 Y C 0 Jim a) nmc 3N . v, No .° > a cC) c O — C To V .0 a) (ti Y a, c E o c (o a) to n c — V o l D O co (.J 'U D .L-. N ad u) C .— O N J c C m a) O C .a ) -O O c rn O c �C S N O O 0 -c '5 o O "-T'• C 'Cc '''.c 'O y C C a) Q N c a) T N cco C N 0 3 Y 0 0 3 ..... Z c r • C LL N t6 O) > to • = > _ o m mr_ E 0 m c 0 c 0 0 J a) a) -0 a) _ m � :.. r >. � � el a S0o .Em � '� aJiccrY Jv 0 - Uca) �'m �t re � _0 - 0) � � ... m IT) oL o mo •m -a .3 c m a) al- 0) = 0 � o - F- N O r Doi u °' E wai m ` co in E coo m a F- a w aaai 1° co D -° .- Ta `m c v 3 rnr t ° a> `" 2 d E J c .3 N to CU (� o U C O C O ~ c ° ,6 .- 8g .0 O .O E Q o N z _. — E = D N J a) 0 r ... Emo ° .x ai3Eo) a) — o 0CD ,7mmE 3o ( C -o 0M .aa@ c c rn o a m c c t0 N Cl >, c t_- m a_ 00 o amoc o ow. Q a) y t co >• 7 co Y N ti >,T ac, m LL ono L w O N U y o U 'm .3 c@ a lit co o p'3 O N - f- (6 'COO O -OO Y E ij N a a N ~ '� w 0 rn O m c c `o r o m a) In c .. = o a) o 2 o D m c rn C Q a c c - 2 c y O 0 -O C d' C1 O) j O co �(O p (o O F- () J -O -O Z O G O U _O 0 0 !1 Eam °oc � o � o °- O) EO aoQ o > ° •00 c J ao O ui - c o o vi 0 >,-a m J o o U t -.._- 00002 — o U cocoa a@i -o ( r � cp y m ¢ � ya .- F�v- co E y ¢ E 0 na`) 0 o a`) > c .a�_) ummo � O > mU � � c = mac E me cs`.. 00 aJo co ya E a' L -O C2 0_u_ 0 OECL CC C )n O OLLQ CD < r O LL2LL I.-- 'Es" 5 0 3 V] c G ) 0 O la f0 d [o (o (o a) to (6 a) to a) (6 IP C C C C C C C Q C 9 a) a) 0) a) a) N co m a) m a) a) a) a Q 0 O 0 0 O O O oU O O 0 0 0 O m c o d a a a a ) a a aaa a CC CC w )d Cr CO N C O h O N V CO 0) N N 1-- O N )--1 Z N M N- 0 o 0 (n d m d o O O O 0 0 O O 0 M (O N co W d M ` d 0 O 0 O N 0 1 V ONO N E 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 O) O) O) O - m ' J 0 0 O V ' O O co V 10 r 1 m Z Co co N 0 0 N CO co 10 0 0 N a N O C) 0 V O W6 O (~ O O co co CO M O O) T V 0 r r N N co co CO COr N- r-- )` V (0N- N- r r r r r r r r r O) 0) at 01 ...SBH . q c PimdWW `o C n w y 10 ..ISd V Y_ )n4 q o .vs! x x x >< >< > > >< < < < >< >< >< < W r 1 I—I . U g N C O) G • p m O) 0 E .C N O.0 m m _ t C o ` Z "� 0 to r O N O O (n m 2 'O c N N '@ - G --- L (D a a U N m c m C a) U UC O) "O "O U a L O) a C C m E Em C O a O CCir O NO E➢ N O a y o N 0 m m C C D d 0 -O a) a) N E aG) -O O) `o -°o0 o) 0) oa t° 0 E o(13 c a a c ° a ., C a `° m 0 o) >, N = E E a) a m G 0 .c • N O O .p m L O c O) L L L_ c N N N• O L Co VI V O N -2 m @ 0 m a) co Va .; C co o c OC) CO) N N 3 co L N E E O '5 O 3 — '— co TA W E f° o -o 7 a) c o s m o o L d U m T C c c O) w C C E m C co C a m C L co m (/) 3 co "O a N WE a) o u) — a-, O m O E C C C a ≥ 'p .N C J To E N (6 in . Co C to m ow O C C s G G O co O a r a) a) O) CO O C p L o O m E (D a aai a L O. c := � — E E a c � � N L C Q eu (a -p to N O ' m m N . Co O -o C a>i coo o o t ti p to O) L E p V > m m TS03- P? o)� C N a) r Co NE33.3 coT tE:O O-o m m o N m N 3 O o o c r to q N bO o) O .C C o N N a) C Y O O a a 3 O LL C coo m CO CO 3 N o y -o 2 d O >,a m - s c ma) L L E m o s c m c c et (0 U N m c — N c C L C "' > J N O O S N m CO 'O g re .3 ° L = >, U O O = c co C a) a j L co L L U OE (13 ca N co r « �zoo � o)2amY Y 0 • o -J • 3 m w -$ 'coo co = O• E O O O E 0 aD D m C C t o tto S CLO. L C a c O y C l` m y O y .T. w L J .E O a) m 'O C < < O M S Y _ N U C 0 o o n ° " O =o 'o 3 v N W o C0m to 1 m a a m -o m u) m a) o o V -o a N — —_ Om C p 'O — 0 asp = ° ° 06.'.- U a .0 U O-'O C O i H O O m N m N C m C C O -O (D O N co • m O O (/] a U U a > _o m a N D a) E O r c a) 2 m 61) .72 N y Ol c a m W C O O C J N tT'O N 2 N V ≥ N U O CO m ≥ a > Ulf! 8 N � C co W N N O d ` O m o m m CI U G o f E c E .a _C u c 2 Y E � N '- o m E Co E N Y N w . E c m ft a Y .E C U L U C O .-F; c E O a O U ,≥ .r E p y U `p `p C `o m o) m o) m > > m ,v a) o o O N O m a) ) o t a' m `p m m 5 E u_ (� Du_ 2 .c . a. a-, Q a000 (0 < 0 < au) a5 CO m0Lti (7 `o_ 5 a 7 cn c c t 0 O m To To m m m m m m m m m m m m m QE 2 -c- F F c C C c C .'2 ..2 C C C C C C C •p a) a) N m a) a) a) a) a) a) m a) a) m a) a) a) o 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 -50 O O O O O O itC V w a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a M0_ x m 2. CO N O N O N N w N (I) L. M V u d N Oon O) N M 7 7 (O (O N N co O O O O CO O O O OM O O O OO W .O y L- 4= E CC) C0 O O 000 O 00) 0 O O O O r 0 7 N t` CO o r o r CO r- O 7 N- CO O) t0 O) CO r a C Z CO CO(O O 7 O (O O N O 7 CO 7 O O r Cr) MI m .O r r M CO O 7 O N 7 7 7 7 7 N 7 • O I co r V r 7 (O 7 co 7 N 7 co co in co I-- N- (n (f) 7 7 7 ((j CO N N 7 on III N N CO V O) O) o) 0) O) O3 0) 0) O) 0) 0) O) Cr) O) Cr) 0) O) 0) e ...SIM .p c pue aim o O 10 ..ISd '• C w In 4 ^m C d5`I X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X i—iW o U x = 0 o 0 m o) c c N O o ;a V) m N O -O Op 0 0 N N 0 z�j O 'O C C C C O - m O L-i �r a) a C m co m Y Y O a C O 4) 01 Ncia C G _N CO U -° CO 5 L L a D D N 15 m L m D L N 0 -o N U O) m -D L O) E N o i 0 . co a CO O _ m M R.— N C C J O y U J ri C O O) O m O y O) co CO 30 • N C U C 'D m U C E E T E 01 Y .t O co E m C O U m N O coN coI`0 O . a 0 C O o m c o o O 'm m o o c 0-"0 0@ a O h. 00 coo c o -oo a) c a m -o c aim � NL- C . N (0 01 m N 0 L co C O cn w O 9 cn co °) r C L y C r„ O N- O C N m ° O 0 - 0 m C U O To 'O O OJ E N O'a) -0 CO L LL m U O U L 'o a O O O) 0 m C L C E m m C C .0. 0 O T :° co c c0 O a O m m O m O c � E L 3 Om .5aca3 L c •g am •5 N ,N C J ono y O1E cc- "•,., m myON Em0 tO O N 0 m 0 O ≥ 0 N C > •a m o "o o c c CO -- a °) a 7 O E € oa 2 H (n O) m (a D co .0 3 N L N • N C V C co• s_ c m N E a s -o '5 E mmco `m mmN N E To cv a - cot m o m N c m u o m co,m o °c O) Cl)r '_a E C 5 ai E d 0 U m 0 = CO UL `° � `° � 0 y `° mc °cmm � �• t+ CB 0) 0 i-2 .0 O C C 'y F N m LL Y "O Y CO CO 3 0 E [p) a m N N Z y C L O Y 0 r N O • a - o m D _c co o aY t O m o c 0.C "0 `o 3c 3 3 -o "' C� m `o `o c `o C � aL ~ 3 E � a) o � � � o)cno) nU3 "CC ., mmm �, `to °3ciI- Q 0c Eo c0c >.; > - omc a••--aiaiw = wna`) = O ° m r c o m , m 2 m -3 a s a cc .5 c c "5 �" E00 D � a > a a co, m mmU — D co coc o)w° mo) o o)4° EO '� T T @ 0 c 0 _o) 0 mL C O a T O N r m ° m m • m • N O m O J = N O N To a 0 C ,- •N C O C t- an.U a O a o 'O a c a N N O _,--- N 'd C co a o cm co a) a) co m co O CO ~ co au a c .� `o co mw m m a) -o n o 'o E 7n E a CO — co _ L a O r m o E Z E C C m c C@ 0 co ca o (A CD ci Q d L m a l` -0 m@ O N O Tao N m N 0 . L CO L E o- E as E o C J C O _ Y V1 J - U J c U 0 0 (J 0I„0„ N l9 - CO o m 3 m _ m006- ai ,_ mm o o c 03 � N .YmN m .c o Ec000cf,, 3nm3mEEQ Era E `0Ea � c � OEysna' > ces) 0 O' 00 C c) m 0) m o r 0 0 0 `O Do !1 o m 0 0 o m O) ,_ I- (1301300 (70 -0 5 E tL D Q 5 Q a d 2 N ~ iA lL U 'O LL L u L u L C a LL E cC ≤ 'O Cr N 5 o U 7 m. C!1 C C d o_ m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO m CO E �' C C C C C C -1-2 C C C C C C C C C 'O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O. C C 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O m •C u 5 coo d d o_ d CL CL aL CL CL 0_ CL CL CL CL CL W V m 0-I CO t C O O N- 0 M CO rM ((J N M O m 0 0 0 0 0 N- O) co N co V CA N CO CO W d 0 w O O 0 � V 0 0 0 V N 0 0 0 0 E co o o r o an a co o o o 0 0 0 O - a " 3 o o o Ov •v w co o u1mo o N- N- N- p C Z N CO co co 7 CO 0 W N O 0 r 0 1`7 V m O CO N N NM O CO CO V 7 7 0 •0 O N CO r in O O In LO O CO CO r 7 r rr 00 r CO 7 CO N N N N CO 0) 0) m 0 0) 0) 00) m m 0) O (N N CN N r a .>,SBH C puedWW x • n 'C w RI A C rn *8ISd O cY NW 4 o -vsi x x x x x x xxx xx x O C •N O ti N C y o 'm '� a) O O C N N co E 0i O .J N c N O) 2 0 J 0 co Z E U E — -° CO 7 O .C 0 C 0 N 'O 0 +Ri a) co a) a O C O co C -o N N V) R co a O Q L D. co c al d • W O a) -0 co C a t -o r 'C a N m co 0 ai la N G C 5i ri -0 J -0 -0 `o N d J N N 30 ai o C � � .C y o u) a to a_O c 0) E O c E � rc° o) c) m ° 3z cc `s o D o _ _o J - o c g o) m � _ o m 7%). 0 J E 0 N Q O y ° �` N - in O) C Ntac -C . ,N O) C N C lO '� O) a) � 2 L o .c 0 N O �C O 0 c O E .�T 0 'O v a ,42D N c ~ N z Co W L O Y co E E L m N 0 3 O - C N m c m cu 0. N L ' y • N o a O) C c CO E 0 3 m 0 U ≤ _R 0 0 co -0 O C OJ• J E Y a E E ,, N C CD O d o E — -° 0 J o O co c N a y R )a R Q O N CON 0 O N N N O N J = 0 (O JO 3 ^� i' c E N L J N _ E a N 'D O illR o ° N c N R OlL jy 3 c 0 2 N -0 c - C 0o N' N Ly - 3 C O N N p 0 Li 3 CD � 0 L '0 L CO R O 3 c .03 U o JN C N O r0. C cc) C "O CI R N °C C C O 0) C C 0 Y 0 00 J C 3 o coco a) L � 7 3 a) c ._ 3 � 0 — C E mt° o _° x 3 C ° E -o Horn ° f, s, a) _ao c i c J -° N E 1= Y R 3 E m000 > c LLL pc . T30 o � .� " Dm .� C a) D J O T (O L .. Y O T O us o aJ O C C - .o , a) S ate) 0 M - 0 ,_ f C 0 N -L 0 — R w TC J N -0 c (? 0) C a 0 0 a m a o -O a� D y E Q -O C O c 4- 0@ n a L! C E o, O c 6 '? 6 J J a, a C 'J (0 _ h O J 0 J .C a 6 R 0 0 0 (0 0 a) o a) 0 C C 0 .0 aj O a) a (n a) �O N « o 5 0 --0- 0 0)D N m E o c E `° o o 3 E E 0 3 E U J 3 In 0 C R ° (NO t t o o o 5 ° U o 0 o ° o m ° O o CEaF- u) `°_Q o_o c aY �) i yQ n av> L Ea ¢ `o. U i T a) O O N a) N N co co N R_ CO a) R _ .I C C CI) N 0 O 0 0 000 0 0 N V ` ° a° a° a ao 0i a a a5 o ° a° a° a° a° a° al c U Et Ill CO O N C O N O ` N O) CO LO LO CO t0 N rl m 0 0 0 0 or,W0 d M v o CO o N 0 Cf) CO0 o v COO 0 .13 -a' R « 0 0 0 0 M 0 ' CN CO CO CO = 0 CO .0, ,.O CI- cZ 0 0 v o '- COMM MCP . CO etl E"' d v v N o CO o o o 00 0 'O VCO r CO N r 0r to )O LO N CO (0 Off) 0)) 0)) O) Cr r CO CO V X O iii a 1, Lf1 4 m 0 X XX X X X X X X XXX X N v U I-4 o c w o cii 0 -0 L E 0) "O CO U C CO o O `o .w N o a) 'U l0 T p N 0 C _ `O N O U y -clod o Oj (5 a a) (o 3 zd J 3 N To U N o O L U O O` 0 a a N o -° O U U a (—) U p -o Tc 0 i -o 0 a — co a) C a c L O N 2 ui a a Y ° (t _a a J a) 21 J O- "O To O — (I) c0 N CA cO °) "O O a) ..N l0 ° CJ -O E O C C 0 — "O "O p (- l0 O.r C co Q c0 (n O_ N 00 coca O w 0 O — O ry U '°O d U N U@ L m w a)) ). N a > O a of o)c c m m c r ` =o 0 o •, O CO C .w. c0 C >, c0 ' _ c O a) a) L -o C C a, L'. N L N .Cp. 'C -p n0 .- "J w w - en a) J co N N L U a) co _ E 0 . 'L C 0) O (n L —1,_ w E 2 L a) CI 12 UCD Er3 _ - N 0 3 N d z o O p N c m j @ O .D O C d "' O n N o c c E — o co C a oM O d c .N. • 00 w 0 l0 c0 LL. CO 0 O 0 N c J °=n3 tip cti w a)Z co ° 0 =• E)Y L N E O co o a ✓ '' c 'o C T w 0)c L in t;) Y N C N 0) C (� m� w C 7 = J N . C O A ▪ E E r 0) 0 -°o o - 3 cam° = E L - > m m cc m Et 0 w0 co N 0 CO w c t o L ca O CO in • g O J a) - N E C N _ J C « J ft J N d -O L U 0 C N L C N O L 7 Q m J E co 0— a° aN we wo > Oc mo o C o ¢ OE c w n A L U OJ •To, CD 2 Y co N N _O U L oar a) w o Q di 61 0 :: -o m r = L a) 3 m cc lit' O -o 0 (� 3 a Na2 " a > 3 0 C OD -co C N LL OI ca d' c "C 0. c— a7 a 0 T ° a) w C Y C L O T N Q T L v w O (0 N L T C N = YC U C Z .� 07 _ d 3 np C r c U C roc u :01-- C 7 3 • CL (0 a n wU o !n oa- co � DOco co c a) °c , 03ITwd .5 ... , Ya a aO^ fU/_ aJN .0 N CF- � ° a me = VJ a ° o � m o T • Or • a N °w U DV) c c J w co W C U ' J O U C w Tn -o - C - (I O o) O) "O J N 7 0 U 0 m O C � 0 O j C m n U U C T w O C U m U U T N c r y j - 2 et 0- o `o a) `0, D00 0 � mpa (no (a ° aUim � oOc c ct d y E E L_ aa HOa2 In aatn a7OP ;9 LIE- N E a m can U1 - -o £ 0 I co a1 To N a O co N N N N O N T) N •C C c = n Q' N N N CD N N N m el) a) O) Q) w a 0.1 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O N ni a as a a. a 0- a a a � a a a2 lc CIS x g co ✓ Q.2_ w m a ri t o a) CO N m j E of O E S m c O N. CO CO N r N O 0 cn N 1--il c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 2 COO OO O o O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 @ M O 0 m w d 0 0 0 •ofr V 0 0 CO V0 0 (0 0 0 co 2 y W w O 0 0N N CO2.r 0 0 O 0 0 O a w y S' O ,. 0 NO M () N N CO CO N NOON = m U XI N N cO 0 0 0 0 00 0 000 CO w E a+ w lik p E N. N-m pr n n n (n LO (n (O (° (n o y C 7 (o') M co an MO) CO CO C) CO CO) 'E a . 0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r c . . Z NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 3.17-2 Package A - Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized III 2 Environmental Conditions LEGEND 1 A-T1 - Commuter Rail• A-T2 - Commuter Rail . wows„ A-H1 - Safety Improvements ` r ! �-•� 85 A-H2 - General Purpose Lanes "+1K287 r sites with Potential p / ® Environmental Conditions-1 i♦ A-H3 - General Purpose Lanes / \—);f Sites with Recognized YEnvironmental Conditions-1 IIIIM A-H4 - Structure Upgrades I Fort Collins '\ O US-85 Transit Stations I aWtVeR / a Cities & Towns ! '` , 2:9 5 \' // Highways I u 7,,,,,;3u, o i��, ...i Severa-:ce , /\/ Arterial Roads I i Sites with Potential I •..ral 1 Environmental Conditions -19 x:1�,— t-- : Regional Study Area -�-- 392 Sites with Recognized uLecne ' City Boundaries ! Environmental Conditions-12 �, I` Greeley ti ..� I r a = I Fs�] i 1 : : Loveland N GardenCay, I 34 i. Evans , � I I X Campion Ii , o Eietha,d r� O rid' t_I, ,,, ,- Sites with Potential : Glc,Esi I Environmental Conditions-40 .. �- - Sites with Recognized /' Sites with Potential Environmental Conditions-1 / Environmental Conditions -1 ' "' % Sues with Recognized I Platteville Environmental Conditions -0 66 ' . Sites with Potential I ' Sites with Potential unynnmI Environmental Conditions -17 I i Environmental Cow-10 -- :It I Sites with Recognized hot- I Sues with Recognized Environmental Conditions -1 / - • l" ' O I Environmental Conditions-2 Niwot ® O Fredeick -., •�1 .O-' Fat Lupac The T 4 N . C 4 v 0 Gutba rel r - o F,.._ 7. I �T• "S Wattenbero ; Boulder° �_ I - -- -' ` ` ' .-Lafayette _ : -`�- -- -1 �. \.r L Laaville1 �3t _� OOw . : \ - 5lrptirid� ,-- "--.-\ I / �. ;'I N. t ! Boanfidd p i .. 7 iN tI 'i'9tg'n _ _/ --- Sues with Potential 36 Environmental Conditions-2 " \ 287 a— j _' . O—T.I. -.i II Sues with Recognized ter•■ ` Environmental Conditions-1 It Lem\ t tin l ; r' /if; .1I ' ' Denver--- , r 0 2 4 6 8 10 / \ ' 1 i F- I ' I ' ' ' Miles North - ill Hazardous Materials 3.17-16 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.17.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B was described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. It consists of four highway components and two transit components. Package B generally includes construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25 and implementation of bus rapid transit service. Construction of associated elements, such as bus stations, carpool lots, water quality ponds, retaining walls, bridges, interchanges, and queue jumps associated with Package B, also were considered in the component-level analysis. Table 3.17-3 summarizes information on properties with potential or recognized environmental conditions with regard to hazardous materials that are associated with Package B proposed highway or transit improvements. This information is organized by build component. Figure 3.17-3 graphically displays information regarding the total number of properties with potential or recognized environmental conditions associated with Package B highway improvements. No properties are associated with bus rapid transit service. A total of 41 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package B highway components. A detailed discussion of these sites is included in the MESA (FHU, 2008c). 4111 Hazardous Materials 3.17-17 .>.SVH co 'HIM o 2' ,.ISd x • n f S *VSI X X X X X X X X X X o N -O -o O -O -O V CO C U1 C� ° o f c O C C .- C r (y o N � oho CO c 0) @ .N @ @ a`) CO 0 0 i.--. W o CO r x f c c-- co c aciE T2 c m N c c 4-, .� O @ a L • @ O C @ oN COO @ 0 a N C -2 0 L O C O Z C Fo Y w c m _ • o c t r 3 c O N @co @ C C U@ O vJ U E O N Y N i _c"`" C 3@co T UO C L. J u) cc _ L C C C O C E@ @ .L.. C O @ O 0 Nc � oi- > c0 E - H n. ui E E C HC 'o co O J CO 0 0 N UJ N�J C C C Ci C co N 2 C L 0 0 F •a• o N Y (a co O ~ a • E ; ) ' 2.)_ f- 00 a N L @ J v) C 0 N 'O .� m � F O 1U 0 � •3 c_ E • @ al E a o- � W @C w m 0 co N E LO _O -O O O 'y N O U 0 CO y = � O � a OLcx a�i c C N , � c r 3 i° m a) C -O U o O N O -O .≥ 3 O c 0 0 0 o U O v m N 0- •.. CO W C ¢ U J N O OC C J ° N `U-' N @ -O @ E t° �i me 0) 0 -oY a co E S o o v m d N a m O d > N 'y [) B C C U U @ W O E C a L O V O 0U1 V O ' O)ap To C > -O O C �• O yaw = UJ J C C C a O 0 O C 0. O f'�. CI) E -o j a) o c 0 0 a 3 �° K a) 8 z vi t a a . o a) 0 N a N M y J co O O oU U@ a o o" ELL 0 m m 0 N Y C@ N A ezt w .0 ≥ 0 C T 0 t- N 00 O EO O O N LL @@ U O O CT is N L N U@ O C a U) O) p O m O C - @ O N N a) a ≤ R ..ea N a @ @ O N N a) H E o o 0 '? a r o a .C O co H O E-- -C O` N N O. N CO .O —W. .0 a o Z -O 02 aJ _ @@ O O E OD i = @ _ O c 12 O@ J O -O EC) -o o m .-o0OmoCO CD a) 000- mao TA 2 ° > @@NOoo @ o N v 0- co a O C L ' "O O m a w C ai N N c O) C H L0 W '. or-O N U C O E ) N 15- N @ N@ c aD >..So@ u) - roc EL .N cz Oaa) OU -0 0--O > o 0 — N d'C O C = a) OU ° o o o r H o O 0 V a@ c E L C H V V) E To > Ya in O in O 4- JD '- Ca cn d � a o f@ O . ;20 Q co -,6- cu 0E C O: N C N O -O41) ? O O C C C 7 C O O L N O) C 8 a) _Lai-. a+ a C O @ L N @ 0 0 O Z a O J C C O@ m L N •.. U O -O U O a m -O .. @ C V c 'C O C N ~ -Oo m ca @o- @ a c N 2 O 0) O � woo;H @ O@ (� (� Y N 'O N E C @ H F O O C C N N L 1"; y L - F- Oo@@ � m .N a o6dC70@@ O o mNE C O)� O C a) C C O (J O v) (n@CLOJa) r. c N O .= a) � o c c ai . Lai @ m -00`mmono 0 o- @ � offo - - 0oO 'c viE -0@ O J O J a) N C NNv) N aaidmN@C m N E in c 0 0)= o) LLL o o) M oo ox O j O CC CC V)i _ o �aa in --Nd Q E w .c 7 To I c c -o -0 -0 'o -o Pa d O_ N_ _N N_ N_ N N N CO N aJ E a c c C C C C C C C C bD C 'O O 0) 0) O) O) O) O O O O 03 O O o O 00 00 0 0 o o o 0 --> a a o O ONO a a s a m w a a [ter CC c 0 00 - M) co O O A V ` N H V) M 0 .0 N Lt-) CO N M Na N 0) N O o Na N N O 0 0 O LLI C ,y v z o o o O O O O) O O O A O 0 O O O 0 LC) 0 N 03 Y O N 0 O O O 0 N_ 0 0 • O 0 N N 0 0 N co E CO 0) )!7 O N N N CO r 0 CO CO I"- LO I� N. )` N.- r co co 0. CO CO 03 CO CO co 03 ro CO 00 ...S'R H co '8 dWW x x n o CO ..ISd x x ,. .VSI X X X X X X X X X X c C In (f) co W CO m 0)- m I� A C J J J 0 0 0 0. C c 0 C C O N W o OV '00 0 -2 '00 N a O to .O c N a ton O N i--I $ 0 N N ca O N C u) '- 0 O 0 C -0 ^�+ V) N E N N in =o O lO C c 0. d 0 0 0 CO CO 0) 0 O 0) E U 'm O L N L c P C O E U C -°• N 0 a • E y^ C O C C •N 0 O C O N 0 0 w3 -2 O a E Z � g °c m O °c �° m m ° � °� a) o Q 3 E O mN Y E .o °) o)x 3 0 0 -to 3 aJi U D L c D 0 N C 0 620 ,7) 2c J O O C 3 0 2 C 2 a) 3 ui o L N O O)d ' .O O) 0 d O C) 0 6 c "o aj co F (p c a) � -o c a co) a c CU CO s c m 0) 0) cn ° 3 ur c CO C C N . 0 CD a) = 0 .0 .O C N a) CO Y C w C L ° O 0 j O r. N N1 ° C 0 C 0 u) O C - 0 O )n 0 0 0 o Y tO n '- .0 a) .- d c N 0 O 0) E O)_ co V u) N > o o E J E m 0 a`) o) o)-- >.-0 = o)c o a� o) 3 m o a) c m o m a o W " a) a c C E p o t 2 C) 0_ o) m "° m o o la o r cp c `o c o :N a ° E C 7 m c -o 0 d .C C C n N N a to a) N a) 0 In O Q N N 0 N 1O • •u J c W ° L Q.'? aa c m ≥ o) mlia °) co o c G y H Y CO N 0 (0`O fU`6 C N ° U 0 0 a co al 'E N .0 0 c y Cf 7 N 0@ V N n 0 n N L a p N 0 C 0 O .C N a- mma) cmc c c J ° (° •° E u' — � o °) 0 o m ^C W ° O- O5 --O"- -Oo ° 82 C C L C D N (O cn 0 0 .C E N co C. •a CO O'- OC O. Y H ° O � O O � .Y • O N > •9O 0) 0 (/) .- C d 0 J O u) . al d Hc co 0 r 01 O E c u)CCO ca cunt E U c w u :o c to CN Q - 0 'T) ° 'U 3 0 o ff o co al 2E U CO 0) —coo)u) 0) N m a' O _@ F- (n H O c .0 ≥ U W O` 2 O m CO m - O -0 — a- o a 0) (n J /n Y C J C) ° Q (.� • C N a O' N -C a C C C L C f0 N Cc. 0 c 0 > p .6 W C 0 •E' C D) N C 0 C C a U ≥ O C) o) a in 0 a L > 0 0 Cr) L ` L L C 0 J 0 .≥ f6 ID = CO O °n.`a 0 m C N 0 N 0 ° '° co t.). -- _9000 ,, C u) o E N N E a co C 73 N N '0 a) a 'a C -,e. C DO -- U O N 0 d 3 O ` a) N y O '� O la O N O C) C :O C.j 0 N — -0 -0 Cn O U O'N 0 L co N N 0 E O B C N O) °) 0 0 C C w a) — a)t- 0) COCO IO C c o m ma 3 > S N o a) o `° o O E and C• E o .`2o .O. N CC ) . 0 y0 -0 E a`)o.t. o▪ u! .aQN 'O o a) mmoom < m > a) � n00o0)C7a m ° O mom � � t) cco y a 0 cu d N o E ¢ E L 5 _ 5 O C C ° -° (n 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO 0 CO MN N I E = c cc c c c c c c 'c y c s a) d o d a) a) d a) m 0) 0 ` O 0 0 0 0 a_ ammo ao 0 0 N N CL cc to c ,x w V 0 C M c to l. a (NJ N 1I ▪ 0 O M co U U 0) r cC 0 .- 0 O) W 0 0 m `� E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO o 0 0 ^. 0. « O co 0 o co 7 0) in 'd' 0 U b '_O Z 7-) 0 cn OM N- DI U) r 0 co in DJ O F N r 0 0 N CO N CD r CO CD N- 0 In co l0 CO 0 r LC) 03 CO CO CO CO CO Co r CO 03 ...S'8H X x X g 'BdWW O 10 ro ..I$d X X X r nE. .V81 X X X _ • 7:1 • �+ 0)'0 -o 'O T O co C O C `'5 O N O C 1f1 V4 ! C o) ccrnccOca� L ≥ o ooOcno0 �� o m rn o 1 O aa = '� as C > 47 > W 0 v E N ' N f0 .0 J w O c ` Ucts o> E E C ≥ U O N 0N C co C a) E r1 d N ya) -co C l6 d O d C O T N E O N O 3 N y E 0 a cTCw0 N 'aQ @ O co .0 — 'LO" c)C m L Y E O o '? mx ' cc35ai � E ac � Ta E3c -0oa om o ao c °- m c E L r ° $ v o E c z O c ES ' a aO J a) O " J O CJ N O U o a L c m c o o m 3 a Q o n U CD u° _ c c vi o) do 0 �° O Ct 30 _ -o t- o ELL - Z c C cc m > O O = N V C •N a rr c f10 Oi1 'C O E OC 0` CO O O m 0 O 0 . C E OC) a ad C N O O o '- O 0 -0 O 0 0 0> N ≥ J a.c U O E c 0L U> >` c � -0 co = u � J ¢ E p oEcm 'o � o ° � �� a � � o aoco � o -0 � o 0 0 d 'C J o c co C - O - Y 0 0 0 > >a O (o 7 "O L 0 y .N a E O .c m m N N c O oN m c c 0) v r C > c N O 0) nN -0 O C C .N N ._ O J E O 0) N Yo 'O r O LL O Ci 0 r c u U ca aci ov .6 - -v m m E c °) S E E a) o m o W = 0 > UO >. c am m3 Oo - -- 0 o > o -o zo) b o 0 t° c C .c > O x 00a) -0 •c ,,,)- O co u .c E m o .N co r C N O O L -0 Cl.)-'O N co O D E_ a-a)) cox c) c N O N ..r o. CO L C § O c O c _O 0 O ai o y 0'0 - O C O O C J F `C J r I- -0 cm 'o a`o O .a oc ' cJi3doa.. '- 0) 0 y y o d °) E 4 3 o (Dr.-.N o c w u o c o c 3 m t 'ac-i v O m N O O o r c w N O E m _m -co o E o r 0. C a N 00 0 O) E L_ ca C E E w r'� x O E = '> E N c O L O m �) O L v, L 0) O N T O .a'. TS w O J Ya N E O 3 0 O J c 3 T 3 L C A C v w RI a) acro L CO L O O O O O 0 E o O V I O C -0 E O 0 O L @ O O s O 0 L 0 CU N N a CO d 0) @ E C IA J Jill w F O O 3 C L L O N N O ~ rV! C j J 00 J ~ N Cr +' 'O co O O a C - � O F - C O' O` � N O a m G Al to O co C 3 -0 w O . N ' u 3 w O -0 -0 m 01 co CD t o E a) < -0 c o a -0 '> Icy -I D ._ o O C a) 'o � .- E x y O co c co d) — D co N .L.. U CO 3 J. LL O J m O fr N r J c O u O O X t J c L N co O C 'p -p « E aa)i c o 0 o c a> mU p Nloin o y ° W E -e 0 -°0 D 0 c Wo0 `o) O tUmc0 o .o oE � , - m a) -t w C 0) b a t .0 N E a'0 O Y a U C .x O C co a J." J W aN O N � J-CO 0 0 _ U N C Oca 25 c a) a) m -0 - E 0 0 0) E N t/) F. 0 N Y D L O V) Eo -0 = L C Lent; -.= �i =N % (a J Q E i Usr OENNa��i o co 0w ..-- aEia,.20c ,E � � '` E � aoia � ESN ai3 Cr N 'O V N — N -0 C ? CC N O 0 c0 19 -O ._ N N on > d O CI N 'a) N co 00 .c 0 a a) m " c m E m'N .�y 0 )r o a) 3 E o o X a aa)a) - 3 oN U � So> ? a— r°nLaco > ccvW WO o@macoaHco m � t � ay LLJ o E2 ° w .c oa3co 5E "y cn aaswamo Scdwco 5 5 To • c c Cr aa>> 0 N N N C 1 E C C C Pt C 13 O OC 0) O 0) O O C• U C a CC ,y W V b go 03 M C 0 t\ 0 1-1 C.0 N M fo) U a (N 0 7 co 0 W wO E O O 0 O L a a 2 o 0 0 • o O E".4 O O O CO CO 00 „>S'8H x x x o_ di pm dW O ~ re 2 .,ISd X g 2 A ,ygl x X X X X X X X X 1/1 (/') +' a) N O N 0 N 0. C N co 0 a) T C 1;71 0�` �i L O f6 L O C w J 3 H co C C co in 0 6 1-y o cd ° a) Sa N C c co d C CO m O O N O 'O (N m -OJyao o E c o c c a) oJ o t t °� m c_ m U N N m m co E y c C4 'o c o E• ;�' O N N E E J .N O N OU —) C 0 a 0 '0 w a ya co C in O _ C O wEL � co to ea a ° °N a � o � ns a) r a) N 0 .N N O a) O) CO O a C C O L O a) ? 0) a N C cn U NyC O) E ° acoorc w a C N c O Q . 3 CO coi o = 3 J N a` o g ETD .N o o 0 0 o r,� 3 O .0 ',5 .o C N 0 N CQ cu 3° -oaa)) N c o E c a) dm `) c c a) _o To 5 a) o — a) J mma a O N O O JOL O m c ? w a ° o 0 co ucwoo I O) r o _ '� C7 Ewz 0 'rnc c of 0 .; '' ° N '5 i C N U .C 'C L_ Qom O a) O O o c o mE � (o) 2 0' na .� o CI) ¢ oc'i c' r W voom °� mm 0 `na- a) mHoo a� o � o . 0 E co_ o 0.(n L N U C tea) 0 d -o .N O o .0 ' N p O C N N 0O 0 CO 3 N O N N - N ..N. 6 ca 'C a) — c0 N N L C U O 28 C lL O a) Z Q d L. 'L J O O 0 _ N a) < 0 a) o.— c 0 N a) a) '° N C E .• full N 1.I..) a) .0. C N 3 N C 0 o).—u) y 0 Z E -0 o O a 0) cn d a) N N .` (a O L > w-° m-° -0 0 U U 0 a7 a) to CU 0 .. L C a w a 3 0 -t o N '� c m a) c c c H o g m w m a >s N C N E ° N u_ c U N N 00 a) 0 m 7 c (0 O p N 2 cm a J c 0. 2 m Do a w a� • �C.' a '° °i x o - 0 Q w m . Cc _ •_ C °) o N m el d N ° 0 c a) -O !> !id! I1t a) Z 3 N .- 7N O N N ooOm-0 C N C -0 C C a) o a)` ° -° o o mo c � v "° 0 0 0 O al CO C N a) a1 O N C Q n. E l_ r!1 a).- o' a a) a) C O OC H N ° 'L-' O co a; = acia2 - ° ou) •- off' E0.> 0 3 L (0 W Nom ; `0. x Fr m m'w c cn m Lo.. 0)10 o L '; = m = co C c a) CO o c w O c3 .c L N w U .•>`. c y 557 a) 00 N o O co J w .4... a) - oo - m >•— oo .3 ≥ .. -0 0. .0a) .. C N f/1 O N .5 o r cod) e N ` o :) O Lll N O ° O ui J C Q 3 a N N H J C N L o Z Q o Q U m N — O' QEY C (n @c -oQ- 0@H (0 NNZ NCN .— '° N•tv E — O — a) Q ° o c — '° a= H Er C . CF- aJ o .'.'i 0 E o o C C C O U cowE L O N 0 c = W 0 o .0 0 Do 0)r m 1- Cr N o U 'F3 ° 00 "O @ O D N a p Y J C o N m/a 0)J = 0 a, a) Q O < L ea o. 0)..= t) o d a Q °) '° N �O '° J co N o in O 'O -a) co c C J N C (-) En Jo 0 0 - o U 0 O a) a) U O C L 0 0 a) c. ° ° m a) E o ea CC co a) c N -25 '° [Cm _co O co H C7r Oi- U U °)LL d °) E _ 5 C! N 00 N m m m m m N To E � c c c c c c c E c CO c 'O CDo N N m a) N Ill O) N ar ` o a d a)) ° a° a°) 0 a° 0 a°) a° el c CC CC CC x w V et O cn c O a O h '.O- I- N 1-I 7 M U U .0 CO o o N N O 0 O 7 W .0 0 E 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0) 0 55 o. 3 0 0 0 0 O CO u) 0 N- . 0 A C Z 0 0 0 0 o v 0 0 0 0 V F V 0 co f) COr CO O M N cif) ' (O O u) 1.0 (0 u) 1-- CO (0 (O r op co CO CO (0 (0 CO CO co ...S9H o PuedWW Ca ..ISd • 2 A .VSI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X • 'C 0 lr1 (/1 tip d' c0 a) F- C >. [0 N 01 (0 N N N O N W o 0 vai o w � a c a o a) o 0 m @ cn QF `x m o N -o c o o. E aci cLL) IE a) E Nov) lii 0 co N "0 r 'o O or a) C E Y CV O) 0 N O r.. O @ to a) co c co O N m O C3 ein ��Oj/ c �J..U C E - E 0) t0 a ° 0) O (0 Fti C m E 0) m ON C U ° m —CO N 0 0 a3 O co U i) C NO -c CL E r Oo U co C D O O C a a a C ? O O '� r -0 a) 0 y N 3 J N a) a) '0 3 0 r Cv Q N N C '> N O 00 0 r "o C 'O a) a) C aS N H a) J U C U O 0 CD s O 3 ° F O c m 'O 0 CO & m e N im 0 _ v m 'C N N O) ° C o 3 IL) J m o co a= a) at J - c N 0 it N C w 0 O O a) .O Tv U O a) c .0 N -O co co o) .� c m �c w e co a c a s m m E 3 0 a) C 0 a U N D E o d ,'00_ y .a N a) a C) N CO r a c C a W 0 -c o '— > U m -o r aS m c OJ G C N co co C ' c m (0 C@ E N O r o E O N v) a N' Q A J B E O) N o I m D "O • � U N - o C C a) N 0 -[ .a a) "C m CO C 0 O 'U C Lc H a) co in N cv 0) 0 U -0 ° U aJ ' "O CO C U1 N G 0 O • N (n E U a (0 E N -o p N N N a) G X L co C J N N ~ L .cc a N N v N a) N a) C) N c 0 --o N ll! C ,_,L- a) N 3 U N N .C 2 r E U O - 0 0 r 'C -a 3 m ° o -om Ocm— U o) d a) c m '- E o '� m C a) 0 o E c .E o a) a) m e a) m w o a) O a F m co ra c o oi aJa O -° r a) ocaEoE ro a ti co -0 o i° ca—acia � D ~ D 0_ () I- 0 0C E N ..- N � — J c aJ 5 kin' O 0 vo Ea) U C 0 +, fV -.0 N '� m F ; m a O Q@ O N .c o a o o — to y = 0 a) a) a (o N p)O 0 • 0 0) N L C m o Q CO —m m co �' m e C a b C E' ER a3 N 'O - a3 N N .>`, 3 .� 'O a) a m O O w N O E U O a) a) ooU -oo EL > vip girt moo x cN °a> o2 d aN 'c s) CD — 0N c mmo0QS +1 C U U a C Cv c O O fn o 0 3 w D C - car ... O. 'Z .2 c a N O) 'O D m'C 'O o m-f). 4- O) 0) O coC 3 d m -O O 0 a) .. 0 ` c C 0) � C a) m o.s "5 f, a) O In O N LO a O C E a O N coca =C O N C 0 a 0 r -C a C 0 -° i+ 0 0) O co C v) O Y 0 .C _O O C .C 0 N O N O CO • CO O (0 (/) N .=. O a) .) J C 0 C Co r co C -0• > O N 0 -O r N a) O E .2 E .-' cv) .J`- -°o2o 2oxo) `oo `>a, � v — ° a° Eo) 0o)dc j O J m N co Z O N coY O c 0 E C 0 00 c N 2U`O c O 0 > N co en < a< rOOtiUrw 2Di— NI- D -, m cv > a.< O o q co 5 5 m C/) O 0_ a) a) N a) (0 a) a) (0 O CO 00 CO a) a) a) "'E C C cc c c c c C C c c c c c it C 'O a) a) m 0) 0) N 0) a) 0) 0) O N N N 0) O` CO a O O o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O1 •� 0 a a a) 0_ a a a a a a. a a as a_ to c W ,x w u au 00 c _ co M 0 N N r l0 O.) CO LO 0) 0 h r CO C -iti im 0 0 O CO O _Q N r N N )0 O O O co N M f0J U a N O 't O O r O I O O O 0 0 00) CO 0 0 m " w E o 0 Co - mL o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 C) N O M V O 7 7 V O w o z Q C Z COCD M CV CO CO O O O Z O N N O O 0 N N N CO on O) M Co n O T C - () c+) no d) co M M h () R f� O N V CO O • 6 O E. u") N. M r) 7 8 > O C 0 Co CO CO CO CO CO CO N r r r r r > 0 co .— r r r r r r r r ...SVH c put x ° dWW ..ISd x a 2 A 4 .VSI x x x x x x x x x 0 ,--- In [!1 •m .U.r c C F C C O N Oi O �= 4 T, 3 O Z 0, c n1 rT1 w w o n o o O _• 0 ~ w $ 0 '0 '0 . . 0 0 a C a �r-� o .ti O Vl = 0 C -p L N W O N O .76- TS• E r�i1 C d C C co J C N Z G'i O U 0 O) w O) • O a is 2 -2 -o Z V N o ° m >. `0 0 of _o c 0 'o .> • '� c C O C i -a 0a 0 0ow c cO O O -° m ° a O 0 C m c To T 0 C o c 0 o m 0 w o) a E °) mo L .W c ma) 0 N C S J c m 0) 000 0 E C 0 O o o . a a a o m w - w O c w co m p H co -o d -0 -0 V° 0 O J E O Q ' Lo CD .5 (co N 'O y -E w 0 0 N -O a p W vc) ow - 0 aoo -a o ma c0 0 C N•C w a fo r) d N N 0 L To w CU U y 'O 0 V U __ w L 0 .3 c ,H c w m 0 L_ n C C N O 0 E C J O S✓i C d O) m O in N J O ° N 0 . 'a c o > mmn - o N c c o •me t Cr 00-5 (7) 08 J UI O Y N — O ` JCO ° U y w T2 D v) c p y N U C C a • m U �. 0 `us J a O c -00300 W N N C T N m 'C a 0 O' > _N C c O C - 0 L O O C W !", ID w cs w z c - m 0 x o w C L * C 0) N C O O 0 . H d. W co o L 'w 6'= c J O a 3 U O) J N 0 CO • v m o E E 3 J c o O O 0 o Q I O _ N d L E cm 0 ~ J Y U O — J C ` N C C is co 7 'O O u to i F°, o o 0 E L E o o c -c _ j m r E ~ a 2 M N cu C th Y N C a o) C „ 0 0 d m U 'O C p_ CO P.( S c Ja-° Qcm o c o � d ..- d mo E ° CO y x ▪.. I:0 C J C MI 0 ° >, w 0 --O 0 c (0 0 a cn 0 0 H n C « 2 ' N ._ O1O y0007 LU 0J $ 0 = a, •E To ° w Tm CO N Vi c m -6 m C coO (y o) a o f cn -- mu m c o N O C :N O to) d co 0 O Z To C H 0 w °' O) O U O N O'er C O > V J 0 w d.� p c (A cn N E C Y O CO -0 O 06 W p c F_ D 0 a 0 0 ° O 0 C C 0 w r0n -O m 0 I O 0 � yw J `° cc w3vm °' L >- vi —> °a °ao 0 E _ to 0 C O) '3 a o 0 o o N ° O o N 3 O et c .? > ? m `m K u) 0 a (° CO E IS) E .O u) Q u) z 2 w 2 O O 2 > [O U u -g o 7a i cu -5 2-5 , m o E u, T m � a< < OI L � .S ya Ma (.7Q nQw � a� V .L m v> L O a cn• m 3 m w it a)I c O TO N m m m _m m - o a) E w C C C C C C C C .C '0 y N .� CV 0 0 0 m 0 w 0 U I m O c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o cu .,a • •C U a 0 a a a 0 a a a (0 N 2 ri O a' re co d 2 T C. w - r w o m m ¢tea ° c . m E n wO w d Cs M c u) > E r O N ° " - M O) N N r co n (0 0 N y- ' c N P-1 �o 0 N (`7N- 0 O O0 -0 N d CO _ o w 0 a o 0 r 0 0 0 0 r o m y.) m y M l- w O O 0 N 0 O h V 0 C o y W y ° _ E o 0 0 00 0 0 O O < z� u .-.• a o 0 r v 0 c N d 0 C Z co 0 0 N co n V CO o c.` O E..) O co co co N m r O) Qon co o) E N N N co r co co r r r r Z Zr a . 0 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.17-3 Package B - Summary of Sites with Potential and Recognized ill , , Environmental Conditions LEGEND B-H1 - Safety Improvements t B-H2 - Tolled Express Lanes 6,- was --..._ \ NS B-H3 - Tolled Express Lanes et,' N eI3 B-H4 - Tolled Express Lanes E3 i 1 r3ites with Potential / Environmental Conditions-1 a Cities & Towns �,�1 Bites with Recognized 1 Environmental Conditions-1 /\./ Highways I Fort Collin /\/ Arterial Roads i ap .. - AL. 4 —1 Ij . Regional Study Area 1• r113 City Boundaries I rmnath O-Semcarre Eaton 1 • 287 Sites with Potential I Environmental CondIions-18 1 .� t 392 i Sites with Recognized 1 Environmental Conditions-12 S Greeley. t .� 34 �` t r . . - - - 1 ' Gardenciry . 1 - Loveland �� 34 I L.7 ,�- . - _- -_-- Evan - , I " La Sale • Campion Johnstown i/ i .1 . 601 el , 1 L4 Herthwd :: � Miilliki�� , i Glad 1 I 1/ i a Sites with Potential red Environmental Conditions-19 i sites with Recognized 66 ; i A Environmental Conditions-2 7 Longmont It I F l -1.i I j ions 1 .. t I i , /^ _ / =11- _L1 Yolkna 0 i a �uestax It. - _ ..•• i / Niwot & O Fredaitk , C __ --- ,_ . / , --JE , r Q a ono Fort Lupton%— � ° azioanel 1 _ Erie le ,.; vFj iw� ' T ~ e i T. Boulder ' t— ----I - -- ' Lafayette.. N"I I Louisville ,�, Dighton t__ .. • Tki�, 13oaMield , . .! - Sites with Potential - �� Environmental Conditions-3 ` \!`\', 36 Nadrgla n Sites with Recognized j --r \ �: J 4 Environmental Conditions-1 lwntian • -- fi hilii / •`_- D /ice t- . l .Denver--)>' iv VV ' I - --, mss---'---- 0 2 4 6 8 10 /1 +- 1 is I I F 1 1 1 r I Miles North , `t -= '1\s Hazardous Materials 3.17-24 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures A total of 38 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package A highway components. A total of 58 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 2 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package A transit components. A total of 41 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package B highway and transit components. 3.17.3.1 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION The process of identifying, evaluating, and mitigating hazardous waste during right-of-way acquisition is identified in Chapter 3 of the CDOT Right-of-Way Manual (CDOT, 2005b). Projects requiring right-of-way or easements follow these guidelines in order to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, acquisition of contaminated property and to ensure protection for employees, workers, and the community prior to, during, and after construction. Right-of-way to be acquired may be modified during final design. The MESA contains a complete listing of sites with potential and recognized environmental conditions that were identified for the project and should be referenced to verify recommended mitigation actions (FHU, 2008c). The right-of-way acquisition process for sites with potential and recognized environmental conditions includes three-steps (CDOT, 2005b): ► Initial Site Assessment (ISA). The ISA is similar to a MESA or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and involves site reconnaissance, historical land use review, and database search activities. An ISA is performed on properties that are to be acquired by or dedicated to CDOT. For properties that will be partially acquired for right-of-way, an ISA, based on CDOT Form #881 Initial Site Assessment Checklist and in accordance with CDOT hazardous materials guidance (CDOT EPB, 2005), should be performed. For properties that will be fully acquired for right-of-way, an ISA or site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM, 2005), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 312], and CDOT hazardous materials guidance (CDOT EPB, 2005), should be performed. ► Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI). The PSI is an investigation performed on properties with potential environmental conditions. A PSI involves a drilling/sampling and analytical program to establish preliminary information regarding environmental conditions on the property. The objective of the PSI is to assist in the decision-making process regarding the potential liability associated with acquiring a property and to provide information regarding health and safety issues for construction workers and the public. ► Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI/FS is a detailed, comprehensive investigation that further delineates the magnitude of contamination on a • property. The RI/FS details the mitigation and clean-up strategies and provides an estimate of cost for the cleanup and mitigation of contaminated property. Based on known conditions, no RI/FS was recommended for any property that would be acquired as part of the project. Hazardous Materials 3.17.25 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. It is important to note that a PSI or RI/FS may be recommended based on the findings of an • ISA. Sites where a PSI or RI/FS are expected to be required have been identified above (see Table 3.17-2 and Table 3.17-3). 3.17.3.2 CONTAMINATED SOIL AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT Encountering soil and groundwater during construction without prior knowledge can potentially affect the project in terms of cost, schedule, and agency and public relations. A Materials Management Plan (MMP), as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a), will be prepared for areas with known soil and groundwater contamination. Construction specifications will be written to include review of the MMP by the CDOT Regional Environmental Manager. Structural excavation, such as caisson and retaining wall construction, may require the dewatering of contaminated groundwater. If dewatering is necessary, groundwater brought to the surface will be managed according to Section 107.25 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a) and permitted by the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division, in accordance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. 3.17.3.3 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES/OBSTRUCTIONS Pole-mounted electrical transformers were not identified as part of site reconnaissance activities. However, relocation of overhead electrical utility lines and pole-mounted transformers will be identified in project plans and specifications. Performance of the work • set forth in the project plans and specifications will be conducted in accordance with any easement agreement between CDOT and/or private landowners. All wells that are located within the proposed construction area, including any that were not previously identified, will be abandoned and plugged according to CDOT Section 202.02 in Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a) and in conformance with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources State Engineer Water Well Construction Rules, specifically Rule 16, "Standards for Plugging, Sealing, and Abandoning Wells and Boreholes" (Colorado Department of Natural Resources, 2006). The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulates the clean up of gas wells and associated facilities. The COGCC clean-up standard for petroleum contaminated soil is 1,000 parts per million (ppm) total petroleum hydrocarbons in sensitive areas with the potential to impact groundwater (COGCC, 2001). The COGCC clean-up standard for non-sensitive areas is 10,000 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons (COGCC, - 2001). A typical clean-up standard used by CDOT for materials management is the OPS clean-up standard of 500 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons. If petroleum- contaminated soil is identified with a concentration less than 1,000 ppm but higher than 500 ppm, CDOT would be responsible for clean-up of this soil. A MMP and a Health and Safety plan, as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005), also is recommended for use when oil and gas facilities are encountered. • Hazardous Materials 3.17-26 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation, transportation. 3.17.3.4 REGULATED MATERIALS CLEARANCE Environmentally regulated materials may be present in buildings and structures that could be demolished as part of the project. Prior to demolition of any structures, an asbestos, lead-based paint, and miscellaneous hazardous materials survey will be conducted at each parcel, where applicable. Regulated materials abatement will be conducted in accordance with Section 250, Environmental, Health, and Safety Management, of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a) and relevant Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) regulatory details. Basic regulatory requirements for the type of materials that may be encountered in the project area are summarized in this section. AST and UST Management Sites with regulated ASTs and USTs will most likely be acquired for right-of-way for Package A and Package B. In conjunction with final design, a detailed review of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety (OPS) files related to these properties would identify the results of any site investigations conducted, remedial systems or actions installed at the properties, and quarterly monitoring requirements. In the event that any of these sites are identified as having active leaking tanks, coordination with OPS would be required prior to parcel acquisition. If site characterization and/or remediation have not been completed, the OPS may require CDOT to complete these activities after acquisition. The OPS requirements may include: ► Removal of any ASTs/USTs • ► Excavation and management of petroleum contaminated soil ► Modifications to or redesign of remediation systems ► Replacement of any monitoring wells destroyed during construction ► Long-term groundwater monitoring During the right-of-way acquisition process, additional properties may require similar actions depending on the results of the ISAs. Asbestos and Materials Containing Lead-Based Paint By law, all friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) must be removed from structures, including bridges, prior to demolition, and soils if encountered in excavated landfill or building debris, buried utilities, or other ACM. The contractor performing the asbestos abatement is required to be licensed to perform such work and obtain permits from the CDPHE. Improper abatement can lead to release of asbestos in soils and the need for soil remediation. Third party certification is required to document that the abatement was completed in accordance with regulatory requirements. The certification is needed to obtain the demolition permits for the structures. All ACM must be bagged and labeled for transport and disposal at a facility permitted to accept ACM. • Lead-based paint may need to be removed prior to demolition if the lead is leachable at concentrations greater than regulatory levels. Where lead-based painted surfaces would be removed via torching, additional health and safety monitoring requirements are applicable. Hazardous Materials 3.17.27 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Other Regulated Materials • .. Prior to demolition, regulated materials must be removed from any structures and appropriately recycled or disposed. Bills of lading or waste manifests are usually completed to document proper management of these materials. Typical materials include polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing ballasts, fluorescent bulbs, mercury-containing equipment (i.e., switches, meters), electronic equipment, containerized regulated liquids such as paints, solvents, oil, grease, hazardous materials, pesticides, and herbicides, and CFC-containing equipment (equipment must be emptied before equipment is removed). 3.17.3.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLANS Prior to construction activities, a Health and Safety Plan, as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a), will be developed. Construction specifications shall be written to include review of the Health and Safety Plan by the CDOT Regional Environmental Manager. In addition, some site- specific requirements may be applicable as discussed in this section. 3.17.3.6 MINE GAS MANAGEMENT If abandoned landfills or coal mines are present below and/or within 1,000 feet of construction activities, the Health and Safety Plan will need to include provisions for assessing and monitoring air quality at all utility trenches, drainage structures, and similar underground construction (i.e., caissons) areas prior to and during intrusive activities to ensure worker safety. Under 29 CFR Part 1926.651(g) Specific Excavation Requirements, • Hazardous Atmosphere, OSHA requires testing the atmosphere of excavations greater than four feet in depth before employees enter the excavation where oxygen deficient (less than 19.5 percent oxygen) environments exist or could reasonably be expected to exist. OSHA also requires that precautions be taken to prevent employee exposure to atmospheres containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen and other hazardous atmospheres. CDOT specification 250.02 states that monitoring equipment shall be capable of meeting the set standards of 1 percent of the lower explosive limit for flammable gas with an instrument measurement increment of 1 percent and 19 percent oxygen with an instrument measurement increment of 0.1 percent. • Hazardous Materials 3.17.28 • N oRat I-25 ON EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 18 Parks and Recreation t • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.18 PARKS AND RECREATION Parks and recreational resources include parks, recreational facilities, and open space areas which offer opportunities for recreation. Trails are discussed in Chapter 4 Transportation What's in Section 3.18? Impacts. 3.18 Parks and Recreation Locations of existing and proposed parks and 3.18.1 Affected Environment 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences recreational facilities and open space areas 3.18.2.1 No-Action Alternative were determined through coordination with 3.18.2.2 Package A local jurisdictions, analysis of Geographic 3.18.2.3 Package B Information System (GIS) data, and review of 3.18.3 Summary of Impacts current comprehensive land use, parks, and 3.18.4 Mitigation Measures recreation master plans. See Chapter 10 for a full listing of references. 3.18.1 Affected Environment There are several hundred properties within the regional study area that offer recreational opportunities. They generally can be categorized into several categories: ► Regional Park and Recreational Facilities. The regional study area has several park and recreational parcels that are important regional amenities. Regional parks typically involve jurisdictional partnerships that contribute to the development and maintenance of the • regional park. These areas serve residents throughout the Front Range and are regionally recognized. Also, privately and publicly owned and managed golf courses in the regional study area qualify as regional resources. ► Community Parks and Recreational Facilities. While generally smaller than regional parks, community parks and recreational resources provide opportunities for community activities and facilities. Community parks often have a diverse selection of amenities that serve residents within 3 miles of the park. ► Neighborhood Parks and Recreational Facilities. These parks are smaller parcels that generally serve residents within 0.5 mile of the park. They often include playgrounds, picnic facilities, paved trails, tennis courts, basketball courts, large grass areas, and landscaping. Neighborhood parks are commonly dispersed throughout a city according to a typical 0.5 mile radius and feature easy access for residents in the surrounding area. ► Open Space. Open space areas include land and water parcels that remain in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state. The intention of open space acquisition varies from growth management to habitat protection and/or passive recreation. However, it must be noted that not all open space allows public access or use. Many areas defined as open space are used as conservation easements on agricultural lands. Smaller open space parcels are often coordinated with neighboring open space acquisitions to create buffers or corridors. Jurisdictional authority belongs to either the county open space department or municipal parks and recreation departments. Open space properties included in this section are publicly accessible and offer one or more recreational opportunities, usually in the form of trails. • For the purpose of this analysis, only properties that could be affected by project improvements were evaluated. These properties include those that could be directly affected and those that could incur indirect effects as a result of proposed improvements. Properties with the potential Parks and Recreation 3.18.1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. for direct impacts include those that fall within 100 feet of any proposed physical improvement. • Indirect effects to parks resulting from improvements could include visual impacts, noise impacts, or changes to access. Properties within 500 feet of either side of improvements were assessed for indirect effects. These properties are shown in Figure 3.18-1. Table 3.18-1 identifies and provides summary information about each park or recreational resource. Proposed parks and recreational resources are those within the project area where funding has been set aside for completion. Proposed parks and recreational areas located in the project area near the project improvements are listed in Table 3.18-2 and shown in Figure 3.18-1. • • Parks and Recreation 3.18.2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 .14 October 2008 EIS 01‘4, information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.18-1 Existing and Proposed Parks and Recreational Resources in the Regional Study Area LEGEND nAltemative Corridors i•� 11 \.'� 85 N A/ Highways /...Nic \ . /',/ Arterial Roads ` - - ' v, ti Regional Study Area / / r',e e City Boundaries f Form Ilins \ \ /f a Cities & Towns I :3827 Proposed Parks and 18 Ault ; 14 • Recreational Resources I 12 31 '_ Parks and Recreational * . 0 Resources j ,____- 2 ' • ,math. Q farm Severance 43, , jp 87 dsor-_ an_ - �_ t� :t. • �` V Lucerne t` 392 _I"! . Greeley 1 \ =„_ - r A 1341 ..N., • _4 I ,4 (1 i Adult Softball Field f GardenC'`y• ' 0 Arapaho Bend Natural Area r' ,4� Loveland b EN. - 1. 1 [vans 4. Archery Range Natural Area I. ' ' 1 �,� ( La Salle ,371 `v+J Barnes Park Jcdnrsiowri Campion � 9 � Benarosa Golf Course Q Milliken 85 (AI Bg Thompson Ponds State Wddide Area Berthoud t / w 56 it Boomerang Municipal Golf Course I uil rest ® City o'Cuernavaca Park , , b %` (j Civic Center Park `s' '1`Q' Coal Creek Open Space 0 .. % I a 9 Collyer Park r;1r as / - 30P�aticrJlr 0 Creekside Park s 1 Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area )on mont I .9 Fox Hdl Golf Course 8 Country Club Cg I `7 Gateway at Third Ave . _ M Itw;,. ,tt 1 ! '- = . Gunnar O I Eli Grant Park 7- . / % 6. I l'_'1 Hillside Estates F TCSPAIi• Q FrederickI Q! Jack Christensen Memorial Track ' rkvil+w Park -Th_T _ Q Ilac"no FortL�our- ‘f ' 5 y 1® I(LarimerCounty Fairgrourtds -. %' 1i � I Lee Martinez Park . Q rEel L .e Q Valmont — Q l ® # Little Thompson River Corridor 7 „2 7 �- .j Wa tie!Jierg Longview Park .. Boulder _ r.. �r' 1 „_ 8' Winer Park • Lafayeue &rghtors (9Atc'+Vninney Hann Sculpture Park , Louisville - .(yS r-_ 77/1 *I Monarch Park ,, Superior —� ' f Old Fon Collins Heritage Park \ Q Eastlake Henderson ?..r Pearson Park 6rvond e�d 39' /./ $ Riverside Park •.— ,`•, t�Nixlhglen', `j, RrremewPark • \ 36 ` �� ' `, 28� 9}Q / 8 Running Deer Natural Area Tltrtelan / Sandstone Ranch - i . / 0 SIgna!Ditch Open Space 72 .` t`\ / 111 Spangler Park '�.- • . St Vram State Park \ � Deriver 70 Thanaeek Municipal Golf Coa• r. / li Park � Washington Park �. . 'p/" # Town Willow Brook Park I-� try 4d Colina Mariposa Natural Area �//�� ., Firestone Central Park • 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles North _ ` Hazy ets Natural Area ,,. Redtail Grove Natural Area .... 'Amp Document-cse (plrk$_u.mull 7,it.2007 Parks and Recreation 3.18-3 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources • Map Name Amenities Reference Resource Type Managed by ID Location Adult Intersection of SH 1. Softball Softball field 257 and SH 392, Community Park Town of Field Community of I-25,Windsor Windsor Arapaho West of 1-25, north 2. Bend Fishing ponds, boating, of Harmony Road, Open Space City of Fort Natural Area trails, parking areas Fort Collins Collins Archery West of I-25, Fort City of 3. Range Trailhead, parking area Collins Open Space Fort Collins Natural Area Batting cages, softball 4. Barnes Park fields, playground, West of 1-25, Community Park City of concessions, Big adjacent to US 287 Loveland Thompson River access 5 Bella Rosa Municipal golf course West of CR 13 in Regional Park and Town of Golf Course Frederick Recreation Facility Frederick Big Colorado 6 Thompson Fishing, hunting, At SH 402, east of Regional Park and Division of Ponds State restrooms I-25, Greeley Recreation Facility Wildlife Wildlife Area Boomerang Golf course, driving range, practice green, Adjacent(north)to Regional Park and 7. Municipal miniature golf course, pro US 34, Greeley Recreation Facility City of Greeley • Golf Course shop, grill City of Softball fields, sandbar, Adjacent to 1-25, 8. Cuernavaca river access, sculptures Denver Community Park Denver Park 9 Civic Center Trail, pond East of 1-25, Community Park City of Park Thornton Thornton 10 Coal Creek Trail East of US 287 Open Space Town of Erie Open Space Tennis and volleyball East of US 287, City of 11. Collyer Park courts, restrooms, Longmont Community Park Longmont playground shelters 12 Creekside Trail Adjacent to US 287, Neighborhood City of Park Fort Collins Park Fort Collins Fossil Creek Reservoir West of Timberlake, Larimer County Natural Area Multi-use, water storage, south of Trilby, Open Lands 13. (including waterfowl and wildlife north of CR 32/ Open Space and City of Palkowitsh- refuge, trail recreation Carpenter Fort Collins Westchase addition) • Parks and Recreation 3.18-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources (coned) Map Name Amenities Reference Resource Type Managed by ID Location Fox Hill Golf Golf course, putt putt, 14 Course and driving range, tennis Adjacent to SH 119, Regional Park and Privately Country Loveland Recreation Facility owned courts, swimming pool Club Gateway at Adjacent 15. 3rd Avenue Trail, art, pond, lighting L to SH 119,Longmont Recreation and Facility Longmont Adjacent to I-25, 16. Grant Park Trail, picnic area north of 104th Neighborhood City of Avenue, Northglenn Park Northglenn Hillside Adjacent to SH 52, 17. Estates Trailhead, regional trail east of SH 119, Open Space Boulder County Longmont Kirkview Driving range, putting Kirkview and City of 18. Park green, chipping area, Mountain Street Community Park Loveland paved cart paths Jack Adjacent to existing 19 Christensen Track, trail, open grass BNSF tracks, CSU Recreation Facility Colorado State Memorial area bleachers campus, Fort University Track Collins • Indoor arena, outdoor Lorimer arena, events center, 20. County livestock pavilions, East of 1-25, north Regional Park and Lorimer County Fairgrounds exhibition halls, camping of US 34, Loveland Recreation Facility facilities, multipurpose fields Lee Playground, picnic area, 21. Martinez basketball and tennis Adjacent to US 287, Community Park City of Park courts,restrooms,softball Fort Collins Fort Collins field, parking area Little Thompson Trails alongside Little Adjacent to 1-25, Town of 22. River Thompson River Berthoud Trail, Open Space Berthoud Corridor 23 Longview Small pond, trail Adjacent to SH 119, Neighborhood City of Park Longmont Park Longmont Playground, 2 shelters, Bisected by US 34, Neighborhood 24. Luther Park restrooms, picnic tables, Greeley Park City of Greeley BBQ pits McWhinney Restrooms, drinking fountain, public Hahn West of 1-25, north City of 25. telephone, sculpture, Community Park Sculpture " ' of US 34, Loveland Loveland visitors center, "Gateway Park to the City Monarch Adjacent to SH 52, 26. Park Trailhead, regional trail east of SH 119, Open Space Boulder County • Longmont Parks and Recreation 3.18-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources (cont'd) • Map Name Amenities Reference Resource Type Managed by ID Location Old Fort Playground, community 27 Collins center, basketball courts, Adjacent to US 287, Community Park City of Heritage soccer fields, skate park, Fort Collins Fort Collins Park trail 28 Pearson Baseball fields West of US 85 near Community Park City of Park Fort Lupton Fort Lupton Lake, trails, softball fields, 29 Riverside playground area, picnic Adjacent to US 85, Community Park Evans Park tables, basketball courts, Evans soccer fields, restrooms 30. Riverview Skateboard structure and West of 85, Neighborhood Town of Park ramps Platteville Park Platteville Running Trail, recycling area Just west of 1-25, City of 31. Deer Natural (mulch) south of Prospect Open Space Fort Collins AreaRoad, Fort Collins Softball fields, soccer fields, trails, picnic tables, 32 Sandstone playground, skate park, West of I-25, south Community Park City of Ranch restrooms, BBQ grills, of SH 119 Longmont concession stand 33. Signal Ditch Trail Near SH 7 in Open Space City of Open Space Thornton Thornton • 34. Spangler Picnic, shelter, East of US 287 Neighborhood City of Park playground Park Longmont St. Vrain Fishing piers, campsites, Just west of I-25, Regional Park and Colorado State 35. State Park picnic tables, BBQ grills, Longmont Recreation Facility Parks dump station, trail Thorncreek Driving range, miniature Just west and Regional Park and City of 36. Municipal and regulation golf course adjacent to I-25, Recreation facility Thornton Golf Course Thornton 37. Town Park Playground, 3 picnic West of US 85 Neighborhood LaSalle shelters Park Washington Playground, basketball Neighborhood City of 38. Park court 301 Maple Park Fort Collins • Parks and Recreation 3.18.6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.18-2 Proposed Parks and Recreational Resources Map Name Amenities Reference Location Resource Managed ID Type by Pavilion, picnic 39 Willow tables, BBQ grills, West of 1-25 at 120th Neighborhood City of Brook Park stream, Avenue, Westminster Park Westminster playground, trail Colina Trail, paved bike Adjacent to US 287, City of 40. Mariposa trail Fort Collins Open Space Fort Collins Natural Area Recreational 41. Firestone center/community East of CR 13 near Community Town of Central Park center, trails, Firestone Park Firestone garden 42 Hazaleus Paved bike trail Adjacent to US 287, Open Space City of Natural Area Fort Collins Fort Collins Redtail Adjacent to US 287, City of 43. Grove Trail Fort Collins Open Space Fort Collins Natural Area 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences The evaluation of direct impacts to parks and recreational resources was determined by • overlaying the construction footprint for each package on GIS-mapped parks and recreational resources, and calculating the acres impacted. Indirect effects also were evaluated for each of the resources affected. 3.18.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would not conflict with nor would it promote parks and recreational goals identified by municipalities and counties in the regional study area. Impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative would include impacts to recreational resources associated with projects already programmed, maintenance of structures, and improving interchanges to meet minimum safety requirements. Impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for Package A and Package B. However, effects on parks and recreational resources in the regional study area would arise as a result of transportation needs unmet by the No-Action Alternative. These would include the increased traffic congestion and impaired mobility to and from regional study area resources. Increased air emissions and noise could negatively affect recreationist's experience in regional study area parks. Portions of the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, Willow Brook Park, Civic Center Park, and Thorncreek Municipal Golf Course would receive noise impacts as a result of the No-Action Alternative. 3.18.2.2 PACKAGE A • Direct impacts associated with Package A to parks and recreational resources in the regional study area are displayed in Table 3.18-3. Additional information about the impacts is summarized in the discussion that follows the table, which is discussed according to build component. Parks and Recreation 3.18.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.18-3 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with Package A • Component Map ID No. Parks and Recreation Original Area of Impact Number Resource Acreage (Acres) A-H2 2 Arapaho Bend Natural 269.56 4.11 Area A-H2 3 Archery Range Natural 55.37 0.09 Area A-H2 6 Big Thompson Ponds 48.61 0.11 State Wildlife Area A-H2 20 Larimer County 234.00 1.30 Fairgrounds A-H2 25 McWhinney Hahn 4.50 1.21 Sculpture Park A-H3 22 Little Thompson River 100.92 2.04 Corridor A-T2 32 Sandstone Ranch 229.31 2.75 Total 942.3 11.61 The following discussion summarizes direct and indirect impacts by component: Component A-HI: Safety Improvements There are no impacts to parks or recreational areas associated with safety improvements north of SH 14. • Component A-H2: General Purpose lanes There are five properties that would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. Improvements between SH 14 and Crossroads include the addition of one general purpose lane in each direction for a total of six general purpose lanes, plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60. These improvements would impact the Archery Range Natural Area and the Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Archery Range Natural Area. Widening would occur to both sides of the highway in this location and a new frontage road would tie into the entrance into the natural area resulting in a slight impact of 0.09 acres to the eastern edge of the park. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Access to the natural area would be improved. Indirect Effects. In order to minimize direct impacts to the park, a 300-foot wall, 11 feet to 15 feet in height, is proposed to run along the edge of the park. This would have the potential to inhibit the view to the east. Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Impacts at this location would result from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north of the existing lot used by CDOT in the northwest quadrant of Harmony Road and 1-25. The City of Fort Collins had previously negotiated an easement in this area of 4.03 acres anticipating future expansion of the lot. The proposed parking lot expansion, the addition of a new ramp and improvements to the bridge over Cache la Poudre would impact a total of 8.15 acres, of which 4.03 acres is part of the easement, totaling a net loss of 4.11 acres. • None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Additionally, access to Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out. Parks and Recreation 3.18-8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • No indirect effects are anticipated at Arapaho Bend Natural Area as a result of the proposed improvements. From Crossroads south to SH 60, one additional lane as well as one auxiliary lane is anticipated in each direction, for a total of six lanes. Three properties would be impacted: Larimer County Fairgrounds, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, and McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Larimer County Fairgrounds. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the general purpose lane and the auxiliary lane on the eastern side of 1-25. These impacts would occur in the non-recreational portion of the Fairgrounds. The new eastern frontage road directly adjacent to the improved highway would impact approximately 1.30 acres of the westernmost edge of the park. Some of the lights adjacent to 1-25 could be impacted as a result of the improvement, but the remainder of complex would not be diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Larimer County fairgrounds as a result of the proposed improvements. Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the general purpose lane and the auxiliary lane on the west side of 1-25 as well as the transition of the ramp from the US 34 interchange south on to 1-25. The combined improvements would impact the easternmost edge of the wildlife area. Walls would be placed in this area in order to minimize impact and the area impacted was reduced to 0.11 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the wildlife area would not be diminished in utility. • Indirect Effects. Noise impacts to portions of the park would exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. An increase is also anticipated with the No-Action Alternative and the increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Impacts at this location would result from reconfiguration of the US 34 interchange from a fully directional cloverleaf to a three-quarter directional interchange. The northbound off-ramp from 1-25 to US 34 would impact the southernmost portion of the park, resulting in 1.21 acres impacted. This impact would result in loss of trails at the park in addition to a number of sculptures. Indirect Effects. The elevation of the ramps adjacent to the park would be 20 to 30 feet in the air decreasing visibility to the park and from the park to the Front Range. Since part of the established "purpose" of the park is to "showcase art"; decreased visibility to and from the park could inhibit this function and result in an indirect effect. Component A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Improvements associated with this component include the addition of one general purpose lane in each direction on 1-25 for a total of six lanes from SH 60 to SH 66 and from SH 52 to E-470 for a total of eight lanes. One property would be impacted by improvements associated with this component: Little Thompson River Corridor. Little Thompson River Corridor. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the general purpose lane and auxiliary lane on the west side of 1-25 as well as the transition of the • southbound ramp at the newly configured SH 56 interchange. Current access to the recreational area would be removed and replaced with a new access from the south ending at a cul-de-sac at the recreational area. The new right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp and the new access would result in 2.03 acres of impact adjacent to the west side Parks and Recreation 3.18.9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. of the highway. Aside from the new access, none of the features or amenities would be impacted • as a result, and the remainder of the recreational area would not be diminished in utility. Indirect Effects. West-side property access would be maintained except for the northwest park road connection to the service road. This connection would be severed, but access would still be available to the south. East-side property access would be modified so that recreationists would use the new service road. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of St. Vrain Park would experience noise impacts that exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. Although an increase is also anticipated with the No-Action Alternative, the increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades There are no parks or recreational resources directly impacted as a result of the proposed improvements associated with this component. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of Willow Brook Park, Civic Center Park, and Thorncreek Municipal Golf Course would experience noise impacts which exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation, for more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Component A-T1: Commuter Rail Fort Collins to Longmont • There are no parks or recreational resources impacted as a result of the proposed improvements associated with this component. Component A-T2: Commuter Rail Longmont to North Metro There is one property which would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. It is Sandstone Ranch. Sandstone Ranch. Impacts at this location would result from the new double-tracked commuter rail line proposed to run south of SH 119 to connect from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor in Thornton. The new track would impact 2.75 acres at the northernmost edge of the park, adjacent to SH 119. A small portion of the trail in the northwest corner of the park would be impacted, but none of the other features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the park would not be diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Sandstone Ranch as a result of proposed improvements. Component A-T3: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver There are no parks or recreational resources impacted as a result of the proposed improvements associated with this component. Component A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to DIA There are no parks or recreational resources impacted as a result of the proposed improvements • associated with this component. Parks and Recreation 3.16-10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.18.2.3 PACKAGE B Impacts associated with Package B to parks and recreational resources in the project area are displayed in Table 3.18-4. Additional information about the impacts is summarized in the discussion that follows the table, which is discussed by build component. Table 3.18-4 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with Package B Component Map ID No. Parks and Recreation Resource Original Area of Impact Number Acreage (Acres) B-H2 2 Arapaho Bend Natural Area 269.56 4.94 B-H2 3 Archery Range Natural Area 55.37 0.14 B-H2 6 Big Thompson Ponds 48.61 0.24 State Wildlife Area B-H2 20 Larimer County Fairgrounds 234.00 4.13 B-H4/B-T2 9 Civic Center Park 17.00 1.18 B-H4/B-T2 16 Grant Park 14.23 0.17 B-H3/B-T1 22 Little Thompson River Corridor 100.92 2.78 • B-H2/B-T1 25 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park 4.5 1.21 Total 688.82 14.71 The following discussion summarizes direct and indirect impacts by component. Component B-HI: Safety Improvements There are no impacts to parks or recreational areas associated with the safety improvements north of SH 14. Component B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes There are 5 properties which would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. Two properties would be impacted by the addition of the buffer-separated lanes between SH 14 and Harmony: the Archery Range and the Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Archery Range Natural Area. Improvements in this location would be similar to those associated with Package A except the impact would be slightly larger resulting from the wider footprint associated with the tolled express lanes. The impact would be .14 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Access to the natural area would be improved. Indirect Effects. Indirect effects associated with noise are the same at this location as those • described in Package A. A similar increase is anticipated in conjunction with the No-Action Alternative. Parks and Recreation 3.18.11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Impacts at this location would be similar to Package A resulting • from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north, the addition of the ramp and the bridge modifications at Cache la Poudre. These improvements would impact 9.35 acres which exceeds the easement totaling a net loss of 4.94 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. • Additionally, access to Harmony would be improved from the existing one lane entrance to a four lane entrance with right in and right out movements only. No indirect effects are anticipated at Arapaho Bend Natural Area as a result of proposed improvements. Between Harmony Road and SH 60, there are two barrier-separated lanes proposed in each direction to accommodate the tolled express lanes, as well as the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Three properties would be impacted as a result of these improvements: Larimer County Fairgrounds, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, and McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Larimer County Fairgrounds. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the two barrier separated lanes on the eastern side of the general purpose lanes. Impacts at this location would occur at the non-recreational portion of the park. In addition, there would be a BRT station in the median with a pedestrian bridge terminating at the eastern side of the highway. The barrier separated lanes in conjunction with the BRT station would impact 4.13 acres of the westernmost edge of the park. Some of the lights adjacent to 1-25 could be impacted as a result of the improvement, but the remainder of complex would not be diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Larimer County Fairgrounds as a result of the proposed improvements. Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area. Impacts at this location would result from the • addition of the two barrier separated tolled express lanes on the western side of the general purpose lanes. These lanes would also accommodate the BRT. The combined improvements would impact the easternmost edge of the wildlife area. Walls were placed in this area in order to minimize impact and the acreage impacted was reduced to 0.24 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Indirect Effects. Indirect effects associated with noise are the same at this location as those described in Package A. A similar increase is anticipated in conjunction with the No-Action Alternative. McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Impacts at this location would be the same as those associated with Package A. Indirect Effects. Indirect effects associated with visual impacts at the sculpture park are the same at this location as those described in Package A. Component B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes Improvements between SH 60 and E-470 include the addition of two buffer separated lanes in each direction for a total of six general purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. BRT would share the tolled express lanes. There is one property which would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. It is the Little Thompson River Corridor. • Little Thompson River Corridor. Impacts at this location would be similar to Package A resulting from the right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp and the ne access to the area. Total acreage impacted would be 2.03 acres adjacent to the highway at the west. Aside from the new access, none of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the Parks and Recreation 3.18-12 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. • remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. The difference in acreage between Package A and Package B results from a wider typical section associated with Package B. Indirect Effects. Impacts to access at the Little Thompson River Corridor would be the same as those described in Package A. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of St. Vrain Park would experience noise impacts which exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation, for more detailed information. Please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Component B-114: Tolled Express Lanes Improvements between E-470 and US 36 include the addition of one buffer separated lane in each direction for a total of six general purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. BRT would share the tolled express lanes. There are two properties which would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. They are Thornton Civic Center Park and Grant Park. Thornton Civic Center Park. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of two buffer separated express tolled lanes to the existing six general purpose lanes in order to accommodate the BRT and HOV users. The wider cross section required for the combined improvements would impact the westernmost edge of the park. Total acreage impacted at the park would be 1.18 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. • Indirect Effects. Portions of Civic Center Park would experience noise impacts which exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Grant Park. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of one buffer-separated tolled express lane that would be added in each direction, for a total of six general purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. BRT also would travel exclusively in the tolled express lanes. In order to accommodate drainage associated with the proposed improvements, two water quality ponds would be constructed. One pond would be located north of Grange Hall Creek, entirely in Grant Park, and one pond would be located south of Grange Hall Creek, partially in Grant Park and partially in the CDOT right-of-way. The total impacted area in Grant Park for both ponds would be 0.17 acres. The property that would be converted is at the westernmost edge of Grant Park. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the park would not be diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Grant Park as a result of the proposed improvements. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of Willow Brook Park and Thorncreek Municipal Golf Course would experience noise impacts that exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Component B-T1 & B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver/DIA Impacts to the Archery Range Natural Area, Arapaho Bend Natural Area, Larimer County Fairgrounds, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, and McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park are • identical to those described in Component B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes. Impacts to Thornton Civic Center Park and Grant Park are identical to those described in Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes. Parks and Recreation 3.18.13 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.18.3 Summary of Impacts No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would result in deteriorating access due to increasing congestion throughout the regional study area. Additionally, five properties would incur noise impacts, which would be similar to the impacts incurred with either Package A or Package B. Package A Seven properties would incur direct use as a result of implementing Package A. A majority of these impacts could be categorized as minor, leaving the features and attributes of the parks intact and not diminishing any utility to the resource. The exception is McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park, where the trail is being impacted, as well as a number of the sculptures. This would likely result in a full acquisition of the park. The proposed improvements in Package A would provide increased mobility and access to and from these recreational resources. Indirect effects would occur at a number of properties, including visual impacts at the sculpture park, change in access at one location, and noise impacts at five properties. These same properties would experience similar noise impacts as a result of the No-Action Alternative. Temporary use of the resource would be required since construction of transportation improvements associated with Package A would likely result in the need for haul roads, • equipment access, staging areas, batch plants, and/or other construction activities. All impacts resulting from construction are temporary in nature and would not permanently or adversely affect the function or physical aspects of the park or recreational resource. Temporary construction occurring on properties where long segments of highway widening and/or new roadway and associated retaining wall construction, would encompass a full range of construction activities over a prolonged time frame, but would not last the entire duration of the construction project. This may include roadway detours and multiple phases of highway construction. These activities are likely to extend several months. Work zones would continuously change until relatively close to final build-out of that segment of the project. More localized construction activity such as bridge demolition and reconstruction or culvert installations and culvert extensions, represents a more focused effort and require lesser time frames to complete because much of the work requiring the temporary construction easement would be demolition and preliminary infrastructure construction, and occupancy of the easement would be completed before site's highway decking and widening portion of the project were completed. All ground disturbing and debris generating construction process would be contained by erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed as part of approved stabilization and stormwater management plans. All disturbed areas would be returned to their original contour, vegetation and landscape appearance in cooperation with and direction from the resource jurisdictional authorities. • Parks and Recreation 3.18.14 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Package B Eight properties would incur some direct use as a result of implementing Package B. At most of the properties, impacts could be categorized as minor, leaving the features and attributes of the parks intact and not diminishing any utility to the resource. The exception is McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park, where the trail is being impacted, as well as a number of the sculptures. Indirect effects would occur at a number of properties, including visual impacts at the sculpture park, change in access at one location, and noise impacts at four properties. These same properties would experience similar noise impacts as a result of the No-Action Alternative. The proposed improvements in Package B would provide increased mobility and access to and from these recreational resources. Indirect effects would occur at a number of properties, including visual impacts at the sculpture park, change in access at one location, and noise impacts at five properties. These same properties would experience similar noise impacts as a result of the No-Action Alternative. Package B would have similar temporary use impacts as Package A. 3.18.4 Mitigation Measures During the development of both Package A and Package B, extensive efforts went into modifying • design to avoid and minimize impacts to parkland wherever possible. Additional information about this process is documented in Chapter 5 Section 4(f) Evaluation. Once the Preferred Alternative is identified, coordination will occur with the local agencies having jurisdiction at the resources. Any impacts incurred at these resources as a result of proposed improvements would be discussed with the local jurisdictional agencies to determine the appropriate mitigation. All ground disturbing and debris generating construction processes will be contained by erosion and sediment control BMPs designed as part of approved stabilization and stormwater management plans. All disturbed areas will be returned to their original contour, vegetation and landscape appearance in cooperation with and direction from the resource jurisdictional authorities. Some techniques that may be used to mitigate impacts incurred at these areas will include but not be limited to: ► Coordinating with the local jurisdiction to prepare for construction at the site, including public safety and security measures, and providing signed detour and alternate access information. ► Replacing vegetation with native grass and shrubs. Mitigation ratios and plant selection and placement will occur through coordination with the local agencies having jurisdiction. ► Using BMPs to limit erosion during construction. See Section 3.23 Construction Impacts for more detail. • ► Compensating for acquisition of the resource. Location of any lost access will be negotiated with park representatives during final design. ► Rebuilding park features, such as trails, elsewhere on the park site Parks and Recreation 3.18-15 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N oRrx I-25qui EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 19 Section 6 (f) • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.19 SECTION 6(f) 3.19.1 Existing Section 6(f) Resources For four decades, the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Program of Assistance to What's in Section 3.19? States and Urban Parks (L&WCF) has 3.19 Section 6(f) provided funding for various parks and 3.19.1 Existing Section 6(f)Resources recreational facilities across the nation. The 31.9.2 Environmental Consequences L&WCF program was established by the 3.18.2.1 No-Action Alternative 3.18.2.3 Package L&WCF Act of 1965 (Public Law 88-578) B 3.18.2.3 Package B which is now codified as 16 USC 460. Under 3.19.3 Coordination this act, the Secretary of the Interior provides funds to the states to plan, acquire, or develop outdoor recreation facilities. Section 6(f) of the Act states in part that: "No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accordance with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location." • In the state of Colorado, L&WCF is administered by Colorado State Parks and identification of L&WCF properties for this project was coordinated through Colorado State Parks. Coordination with Colorado State Parks is documented in Appendix B. Three properties within the regional study area were developed with L&WCF grant assistance: ► Pearson Park near Fort Lupton ► Grant Park in Northglenn ► Riverside Park in Evans Figure 3.18-1 in Section 3.18 Parks and Recreation shows the locations of each of these parks. Pearson Park is located west of US 85 near Fort Lupton on approximately 13 acres. Facilities at the park include a baseball field. Grant Park is located directly east of 1-25 in Northglenn on approximately 14 acres. Facilities include a picnic area and a bicycle and pedestrian path. Grange Hall Creek is located within the park. Riverside Park is located adjacent to US 85 in Evans on approximately 2.47 acres. Facilities at the park include a lake, trails, softball fields, playground areas, picnic tables, basketball • courts, soccer fields, and restrooms. Section 6(f) 3.19.1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.19.2 Environmental Consequences • 3.19.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE There would be no impacts to any of the 6(f) properties associated with the No-Action Alternative. 3.19.2.2 PACKAGE A There would be no impacts to any of the 6(f) properties associated with Package A. 3.19.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B would require the use of a portion of Grant Park. This use is associated with Components B-H4 —Tolled Express Lanes and B-T4 — Bus Rapid Transit. Tolled express lanes are proposed along 1-25. One buffer-separated tolled express lane would be added in each direction, for a total of six general purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. Bus rapid transit also would travel exclusively in the tolled express lanes on North 1-25. In order to accommodate drainage associated with the proposed improvements, two water quality ponds would be constructed. One pond would be located north of Grange Hall Creek, entirely in Grant Park, and one pond would be located south of Grange Hall Creek, partially in Grant Park and partially in the CDOT right-of-way. The total impacted area in Grant Park for both ponds would be 0.17 acre. • The property that would be converted is at the westernmost edge of Grant Park. There are no major facilities within the area of conversion that would be impacted, thus the conversion would not negatively impact the remaining park. 3.19.3 Coordination Once the Preferred Alternative is identified, if Package B were to be selected, coordination would need to occur with the City of Northglenn and the Colorado State Parks Department. The fair market value of the property to be converted would be established and the property proposed for substitution would be of at "least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location." Any impacts incurred at Grant Park as a result of proposed improvements would be discussed with the City of Northglenn to determine appropriate mitigation. At that time, CDOT would work with Northglenn to determine design of the pond, construction details, and a maintenance agreement. Two meetings have been held to date with the City of Northglenn to discuss potential impacts to Grant Park. These meetings occurred on March 30, 2007 and on May 14, 2007. Additional coordination will occur with Colorado State Parks in order to acquire approval on the proposed conversion, if necessary. • Section 6(f) 3.19-2 • N oRai I-25 IN EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 20 Farmlands • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.20 FARMLANDS Under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, What's in Section 3.20? Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS) defines farmlands, as follows: 3.20 Farmlands 3.20.1 Affected Environment ► Prime Farmland. Land that has the best 3.20.2 Environmental Consequences 3.20.2.1 No-Action Alternative combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, 3.20.2.2 Package A forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It can 3.20.2.3 Package B economically produce sustained high yields 3.20.3 Mitigation Measures of these crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming practices. ► Unique Farmland. Land other than prime farmland that is used to produce specific high- value food and fiber crops. It can economically produce sustained high yields of these specialized crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming practices. ► Farmland of Statewide Importance. Land that has been identified by criteria determined by the Colorado State Experiment Station, the Colorado State Department of Agriculture, and the Colorado State Soil Conservation Board. ► Farmland of Local Importance. Land that has not been identified as having national or • statewide importance yet may have local significance based on the goals of the community and of the various agricultural enterprises that maintain a viable agricultural community. Lands that are currently located within 2000 census "urbanized areas" are not included in the calculation of existing prime and unique farmlands or farmland of statewide importance. Urbanized areas are generally developed with impermeable (paved) surfaces that are not available for agricultural production. Lands that are committed to urban development are also not considered farmland. 3.20.1 Affected Environment To determine whether any prime or unique farmland soils or farmland soils of statewide or local importance are present in the North 1-25 regional study area, data were downloaded from the NRCS, Soil Data Mart in 2006. The Brighton, Longmont, Fort Collins, and Greeley offices of the NRCS also were contacted. The NRCS identified six categories of soil types that are protected in the regional study area. Four of these categories were grouped together because all four represent prime farmland only if certain conditions are met. These categories are listed by county in Table 3.20-1 and their locations are shown in Figure 3.20-1. i Farmlands 3.20-1 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.20-1 Farmlands in the Regional Study Area • Farmland Farmland Prime Farmland Study Area Counties of Local of Statewide If Certain Conditions Importance Importance Are Present* (acres) (acres) (acres) Adams County < 1 7,120 19,646 Boulder County < 1 4,282 33,776 Broomfield County 0 438 6,033 Denver County 0 1 2 Jefferson County 0 0 12 Larimer County 3,542 6,770 76,788 Weld County 29,404 48,594 277,838 Regional Study Area Total: 32,946 67,205 414,095 Source:NRCS,2005. Land would be considered prime farmland if it were(a)irrigated;(b)protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season;(c)drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season;(d)irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium. According to the most recent Census of Agriculture (2002), there are 31,369 farms in Colorado. Twenty-one percent of these farms are located in the seven counties that make up the regional study area. This represents over three million acres of land devoted to agricultural activities. • Primary crops produced in the regional study area include wheat, corn, hay, and sugar beets. Land in the regional study area is also used to raise livestock and poultry. Farmland decreased in every county in the regional study area between 1997 and 2002. The size of farms also has been decreasing, which may indicate that larger farms are going out of business and being resold as ranchettes. A ranchette is the acreage around a home that produces $1 ,000 or more of agricultural products annually, qualifying the land as a farm. Of the counties in the regional study area, Larimer and Weld counties contain the largest number of farms. However, in 2002, 61 percent of all farms in Larimer County were less than 50 acres. Farms of 100 acres or more represented a little over a quarter of all farms in the county. Many of these farms are located in the rapidly growing North 1-25 corridor, where much of the existing land is being re-zoned and converted for residential and commercial development. • Farmlands 3.20.2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. . . Figure 3.20-1 Farmlands in the Regional Study Area o m 1-25 LEGEND - EIS lam. Study Corridors �,. •.� '�1. T* ,.. • /1\i/ Highways f.,� Y,0. r -' /\ 7 85 / Arterial Roads f 17& • t .0 1 L. Regional Study Area it. . tit _ City Boundaries I 2 i .; 1 1 . 1 .R°"°a 0 Cities & Towns 1 Fort Colcir\lins , ' �l •- \ k '` °w'�' ', Prime and Important Farmlands er Farmland of Local Importance • i;.x=257 Ate. -% 4 eie Farmland of Statewide Importance i —____.___ , • Tnry nA' �� y -)1 4E„on 4�i w ' �t '� �tti, Prime Farmland A y �� 1, . Land would be considered Prime Farmland if it were t - - _ W'nds°`- t tr. :4 't •1'-1. Uxetn1. (a) Irngated I - • s ' (b) Protected from flooding or not frequently >,r . , �-- flooded during the growing season j ,p itik% , • �,• Greeter (c) Drained and either protected from flooding or I 1 t263i not frequently flooded dunng the growing season ; (d) Irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium 34 - I . . .. ' .._ --1 34 IUrrlenC q 7MillimiallinMain I �: CatrpiorJ - • ' y ~kdxatown ' j 60- '1171!,. &el t .. ti' i-1 85 y 1r '/ —, t , A. 0 I i alb : cutter, f (t I, fhattevllJe P '\ 1 ' t Jigmont t -1 / . oaf . late Vdlr S .� �htesta,e _ Won i:1 J hack` r F. t 7.--. O vim` r%_ ,, O vainMlt _ t •� f . ' J i \Boulder 7 i Gig "Nkidi f - - s >~ .� t ,gee ofi71kL ` !k:T ii,,,,l}1x1 " bb 721t 'A •• QJ 7-N )(I _,_ 1 i—1-41- ' _s______, 0 2 4 6 8 10 / \ �_••�• �� i._ ii_ Miles North I!l1 .\_..:0 1 '.X .,, , 1 uy to c.nw Ue it•-•••••••3 -...•e. Farmlands 3.20-3 NORTH I25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information, cooperation. transportation. 3.20.2 Environmental Consequences • Direct impacts to farmland occur when cultivated lands are converted to impervious surface or acquired for transportation right-of-way. Acres of important farmland lost as a result of the implementation of either of the build packages were calculated for each component using GIS and the limits of construction as defined through project design. Indirect impacts to farmland occur when a farm is severed or access is limited in such a way that it prohibits continued agricultural use. Indirect effects also include farmland that would likely be converted as a result of accessibility to new or improved transportation facilities. For this analysis, indirect impacts were evaluated qualitatively and based upon the findings contained in Section 3.1 Land Use as they pertain to the potential for indirect, induced growth effects. 3.20.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would not directly impact Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.2, growth would continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the study area's urbanized areas in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. As major roadways such as 1-25 become more congested, development would likely be pushed towards outlying areas to avoid this congestion. This would hasten the conversion of agricultural land as market forces push towards the path of least resistance. This may also be the case for many of the east-west and alternate corridors (e.g., US 34, SH 7, SH 52, SH 402) in the • regional study area. The more dispersed development pattern that would occur in response to the No-Action Alternative would result in greater land consumption. The continuation of leap-frog type growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands. The extent of this impact would depend upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. 3.20.2.2 PACKAGE A As shown in Table 3.20-2, Package A would result in the direct conversion of 1.8 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 44.4 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 936.1 acres of farmland that is considered prime only if certain conditions are present (e.g., if the land is irrigated, protected from flooding, drained, and reclaimed of excess salts). Because Package A improvements occur primarily along existing transportation corridors, no farms would be severed or lose access. Impacts are a result of the acquisition of right-of-way immediately adjacent to the existing 1-25 and BNSF corridors and the development of parking lots, transit stations, queue jumps, and water quality detention ponds. As shown in Table 3.20-2, most of the farmland impact is associated with Component A-H2, which consists of widening to accommodate six general purpose lanes in each direction between SH 14 and SH 60, plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60. • Farmlands 3.20.4 NORTH 1-23 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.20-2 Package A- Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component Component Impacts(Acres) Farmland of Local Farmland of Statewide Prime Farmland if Total Importance Importance Certain Conditions are Present* A-H1 0.3 0.6 73.8 74.7 A-H2 1.0 8.6 384.7 394.3 A-H3 0.0 14.2 193.1 207.3 A-H4 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 A-T 1 0.5 4.8 146.8 152.1 A-T2 0.0 16.2 133.3 149.5 A-T3 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 A-T4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Package A 1.8 44.4 936.1 982.3 Land would be considered Prime farmland if it were(a)irrigated,-(b)protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season;(c)drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season;(d) irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium. Ongoing conversion of agricultural land to residential and urbanized land uses would continue throughout the regional study area, particularly along 1-25. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.2, the provision of commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the regional study area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). As a result, the rate at which environmental resources (including farmlands) would be affected in undeveloped and • suburban areas within the regional study area would likely be slowed. This would be the case along the 1-25 corridor in particular where substantial agricultural lands exist. Indirect Impacts Outside of established urban centers, farmland would likely be converted to residential and commercial development around transit stations and along feeder bus routes. In some cases, this development is already planned. For example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit- oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. However, without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities and would consume more land. 3.20.2.3 PACKAGE B As shown in Table 3.20-3, Package B would result in the direct conversion of 1.7 acres of - Farmland of Local Importance, 35.7 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 889.4 acres of farmland that is considered prime only if certain conditions are present (e.g., if the land is irrigated, protected from flooding, drained, and reclaimed of excess salts). Because Package B improvements occur primarily along existing transportation corridors, no farms would be severed or lose access. Impacts are a result of the acquisition of right-of-way immediately adjacent to the existing 1-25 corridor and the development of parking lots, queue jumps, transit stations, and water quality detention ponds. As shown in Table 3.20-3, most of the farmland impact is associated with Components B-H2 and B-H3, which consist of widening to accommodate additional buffer or barrier separated tolled express lanes in each direction. • Farmlands 3.20.5 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.20-3 Package B - Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component • Impacts(Acres) Component Farmland of Farmland of Prime Farmland if Local Importance Statewide Importance Certain Conditions Total are Present* B-H1 0.3 0.6 73.8 74.7 B-H2 1.3 10.3 444.5 456.1 B-H3 0.0 24.8 331.5 356.3 B-H4 0.0 0.0 37.5 37.5 B-T1 0.1 0.0 2.1 2.2 B-T2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Package B 1.7 35.7 889.4 926.8 -Land would be considered Prime farmland if it were(a)irrigated;(b)protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season; (c)drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season;(d)irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium. Ongoing conversion of agricultural land to residential and urbanized land uses would continue throughout the regional study area, particularly along 1-25. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.2, the introduction of bus rapid transit along the 1-25 corridor would represent a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive for transit oriented development. As a result, growth would continue to be market-driven and would continue to expand towards the east, spreading—rather than shifting—in its concentration. Indirect Impacts • • The more dispersed development pattern that could occur in response to Package B would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. 3.20.3 Mitigation Measures Coordination with the NRCS was conducted throughout the project and is contained in Appendix B. Form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form for Corridor Type Projects, was submitted to the Brighton, Longmont, Fort Collins, and Greeley service centers in September 2007. This form calculates the relative impacts of each build package on farmlands within the regional • study area under two methods. The first identifies the total amount of both Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide and Local Importance present within the regional study area and weighs them against the converted amount of farmland by each build package within the regional study area. The second method addresses the type of farmland impacts that could occur. The result is a score of up to 260 points that represents the value of the farmland being impacted. If the score is less than 160, no further action is required. The scores assigned to each package by the NRCS service centers are provided in Table 3.20-4. • Farmlands 3.20.6 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.204 NRCS Site Assessment Scores Service Center NRCS Site Assessment Score Package A Package B Brighton 132.7 127.7 Longmont 138.7 169.7 Fort Collins 175.0 186.0 Greeley 164.0 167.0 The impacts to farmland were calculated by component; however, total acreage impacted by Package A is 982.3 acres and by Package B is 926.8 acres. Coordination with the NRCS during the Draft EIS regarding impacts by county indicate that although Package A directly impacts more land, the relative value of the farmland impacted by Package B is higher. Therefore, it can be concluded if Package B were to be constructed in its entirety, there would be greater impacts to farmlands. When a preferred alternative has been identified, additional coordination will be conducted with NRCS to establish whether avoidance and/or mitigation measures are required based on consideration of the entire preferred alternative. For scores above 160, there is the potential for an adverse impact. Because the majority of soils classified as prime farmland are adjacent to existing transportation corridors, an adverse impact is not likely. Coordination with the NRCS is on-going to determine whether avoidance and/or mitigation measures are required. • If any important agricultural features are affected as design is further defined, mitigation will be considered as appropriate, such as replacement of irrigation ditches and pipes. Loss or damage to crops resulting from construction activities will be compensated. • Farmlands 3.20.7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • "RI • N oRm I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 21 Energy • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.21 ENERGY 3.21.1 Introduction This section evaluates and compares energy What's in Section 3.21? consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of the No-Action Alternative and each of the build 3.21 Energy as measured in British thermal units 3.21.1 Introduction packages, 3.21.2 Environmental Consequences (BTUs). The regional transportation system 3.21.3 Mitigation Measures currently consists of passenger automobiles, trucks, and buses. Both build packages include these modes of transportation. Package A also includes commuter rail. Energy calculations were based on regional travel demand model projections, combining data from Denver Regional Council of Government (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources are directly related to energy consumption and primarily result from the combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles. These emissions are normally presented as the total carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent released, and they take into account the global warming potential of each chemical species emitted from a source. For example, combustion sources emit small amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), which has a global warming potential 310 times that of CO2. Each ton of N2O emitted is equivalent to 310 tons of CO2. All greenhouse gas emissions presented in this section are • presented as a CO2 equivalent. Energy sources for transportation are most commonly petroleum-based fossil fuels for automobiles, trucks, trains, and buses. Neither of the build packages under consideration in this Draft EIS would use vehicles that run on electric power. 3.21.2 Environmental Consequences Energy would be consumed for both the construction and operation of transportation improvements associated with both build packages. This section evaluates and compares energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of the No-Action Alternative and each of the build packages (Package A and B), using the following methodology: ► The forecast year used was 2030. ► Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data were estimated using the North 1-25 Regional Travel Demand Model (see Table 3.21-1). ► The regional study area was defined as the regional transportation network, which was modeled for air quality and travel demand purposes. ► Regional energy consumption in BTUs was based on estimated changes in vehicle miles traveled, in accordance with the FTA's document, Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria (FTA, 2006). ► Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated from BTU estimates developed from the • energy consumption estimate multiplied by standard tons of CO2/ million BTU conversion templates, provided in the FTA's Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria (FTA, 2006). Energy 3.21.1 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.21-1 Daily VMT in the North I-25 Regional Study Area . Alternative Total Daily VMT (Auto, Truck, Bus, and Rail) No-Action Alternative 48,684,000 Package A* 49,147,000 Package B 49,124,000 Source:North 1-25 Regional Travel Demand Model. Notes:"Package A includes annual rail miles traveled in addition to auto,truck and bus miles; Package B includes only auto, truck,and bus miles traveled. Daily energy consumption and carbon dioxide production were used to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions in this project. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated by multiplying the daily energy use (tons of CO2 per million BTU) by CO2 conversion factors taken from the New Starts Criteria (FTA, 2006). Passenger miles were assumed to be 92 percent automobiles, 4 percent heavy trucks, and 4 percent buses of the total regional annual VMT. For Package A, rail miles traveled accounted for less than 1 percent of total VMT. 3.21.2.1 DIRECT IMPACTS Table 3.21-2 summarizes estimated daily energy consumption as a result of operation of the No-Action Alternative and the two build packages. Table 3.21-2 Energy Consumption by Alternative (Daily BTUs) BTUs Consumed Difference from • Alternative (millions) No-Action Percent Difference (millions) No-Action 403,220 N/A N/A Alternative Package A 407,055 +3,835 +1.0 Package B 406,865 +3,645 +0.9 Source:FTA, 2006 and North 125 Regional Travel Demand Model. Table 3.21-3 summarizes estimated daily CO2 production as a result of operation of the No- Action Alternative and the two build packages. Table 3.21-3 Daily CO2 Production by Alternative Difference from Alternative Produced (Tons)* No-Action Percent Difference (Tons) No-Action Alternative 31,132 N/A N/A Package A 31,428 +296 +1.0 Package B 31,414 +282 +0.09 *cO2 Produced:All greenhouse gas emissions in the study area are presented as COs equivalents. Source:FTA 2006. • Energy 3.21.2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • The No-Action Alternative would utilize less energy than either of the build alternatives. As shown in Table 3.21-2, Package A and Package B would use approximately 1.0 percent and 0.9 percent more energy respectively than the No-Action Alternative. The rationale is that the added capacity provided by the build packages would attract VMT from other areas. This, in turn, would create an increase in daily VMT within the regional study area and a corresponding decrease from surrounding areas as more trips would be diverted. These same trends were found for CO2 production. Both build packages would produce more CO2 (greenhouse gas emissions) than the No-Action Alternative. As shown in Table 3.21-3, Package A and Package B would increase CO2 production by approximately 1.1 percent and 1.0 percent respectively over the No-Action Alternative. Over time (after 2030) it would be expected that the rail components of Package A would provide more options for lower energy consumption because more trains could easily be added. The tolled express lanes (TEL) in Package B would eventually fill up (with bus riders and carpoolers) especially in the segments of the corridor with only one TEL in each direction. The transit stations associated with both packages would, over time, serve as a stimulus to transit oriented development. This would be more noticeable with Package A. This transit oriented development would potentially reduce energy consumption due to mixed use and higher density development, which would reduce trips. In addition to energy consumed during operation, energy would be consumed for construction of Packages A and B. This is described in Section 3.23.3.2, Construction • Impacts. 3.21.2.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS Under the No-Action Alternative and both build packages, population in the regional study area is anticipated to increase 79 percent by the year 2030. This increase would result in substantial additional demands for energy for construction of new homes, in gasoline for automobiles, and in natural gas and electricity for utilities. It is anticipated that the additional energy demand would be directly proportionate to the increase in population as land development occurs. 3.21.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation of energy consumption during operations will focus on a reduction in daily VMT. This reduction can be achieved through successful transit oriented development, congestion management, and effective improvements to the roadways. These measures all work to reduce overall traffic time by increasing travel efficiency. • Energy 3.21.3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N oRnh I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 22 Public Safety and Security • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.22 PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 3.22.1 Affected Environment What's in Section 3.22? The following section describes existing 3.22 Public Safety and Security conditions, programs, and services associated 3.22.1 Affected Environment with public safety and security in the regional 3.22.1.1 Safety study area. 3.22.1.2 Security 3.22.2 Environmental Consequences 3.22.1.1 SAFETY 3.22.2.1 No-Action Alternative 3.22.2.2 Package A Public safety refers to existing potential safety 3.22.2.3 Package B hazards and existing operating public safety 3.22.3 Mitigation Measures providers. Highway Safety Highway safety, as it relates to crash rates and geometric deficiencies that affect them, is analyzed in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. This section focuses on the facilities and services available to commercial vehicles as they relate to safety. Approximately 16 percent of daily traffic (approximately 8,000 vehicles) on 1-25 is made up of trucks and commercial freight traffic. The Interstate Commerce Commission has set hours of • service limits for commercial drivers that legislate mandatory rest periods after every 10 hours of driving. In Colorado, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates a demand for 760 rest area parking spaces during the peak hour along interstates carrying more than 1,000 vehicles per day. There is currently a supply of 167 truck parking spaces statewide (FHWA, 2002). Truck parking is available to drivers at state rest areas and at travel plazas and truck stops. Within the regional study area, the Poudre Rest Area is located at Prospect Road (Exit 268) and 1-25. There are two travel plazas: one located at SH 119 and 1-25 (Exit 240), and one at Johnson's Corner, located at Exit 254, just south of SH 402. Transit Safety Transit safety reflects existing transit facilities in the regional study area. There are currently four transit service providers in the regional study area. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is by far the largest transit provider, serving the Denver Metro Area at the far southern end of the regional study area (south of SH 7 and in Longmont). RTD contracts for security on vehicles and at stations, as well as park-n-Ride facilities. They also use video surveillance on vehicles and at selected stations, as well as park-n-Ride facilities. TransFort (Fort Collins), Colt (Loveland), and The Bus (Greeley), the other three transit service providers, all rely on coordination with local police departments through their dispatch centers for security services. In addition, Fort Collins has full lighting at its transfer centers (Downtown, CSU, and South) and video surveillance at the Downtown and Colorado State University (CSU) Transfer Centers. • Public Safety and Security 3.22-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. Freight Railroad Safety S Three freight railroads operate in the regional study area —the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and Great Western Railroad (GWR). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reports at-grade crossing safety using accident predictions. An accident prediction is a value that indicates the statistical likelihood of a collision at a crossing given the crash history at that location, physical conditions (including crossing protection), and both roadway and railway traffic levels. BNSF operates their Front Range Subdivision along the west side of the regional study area. The railroad operates four to six trains per day on this line. The rail network interacts with the roadway at 90 locations. Two crossings along the existing BNSF alignment are currently grade separated: US 34 in Loveland and US 287 on the northern edge of Berthoud. Otherwise, the existing BNSF crossings are all at-grade. The annual accident prediction for the 90-crossing corridor is 2.37, implying that two to three collisions can be expected in this corridor each year. This prediction is an analysis of the rail corridor unaffected by transportation projects. UPRR operates three lines in the regional study area, one of which would be utilized in proposed future transit projects. The Boulder Industrial Lead historically connected Commerce City to Boulder via Thornton and Erie. This line is anticipated to be used for the North Metro FasTracks rail service south of SH 7. North of SH 7, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) removed the bridge over 1-25 near Erie when the interstate was widened. Rail service along this line has been cut back, and there are no trains that operate • north of SH 7 today. There were five active at-grade crossings between SH 7 and 1-25 before service was discontinued. GWR operates several lines throughout the regional study area, though there is only one interaction between a GWR line and a roadway. Emergency Service Providers There are 114 fire, police, and emergency service provider locations within the regional study area, as shown in Figure 3.22-1. In interviews with Larimer and Weld county sheriffs' officials, it became clear that each responder uses 1-25 differently depending on the circumstance. Lane widths on the interstate are considered too narrow for most fire vehicles and police cars. Weld County responders usually consider it too congested to respond in minimal times, but Larimer County responders rely on it as one of the few continuous north- south routes in the county. Fire. There are numerous fire districts within the regional study area including volunteer, rural, and metro fire departments. In addition to fire and emergency response services, these departments are often responsible for disaster/emergency planning and fire prevention education in their communities. There are 61 fire stations providing fire and emergency response services to residents throughout the regional study area. Each town, city, and county within the regional study area has individual fire facilities or combines its fire services with other jurisdictions. For example, the North Metro Fire Rescue District provides service to the cities of Broomfield and Northglenn as . well as portions of unincorporated Adams, Boulder, Jefferson, and Weld counties. Public Safety and Security 3.22-2 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . Figure 3.22-1 Emergency Service Provider Locations within the Regional Study Area IN LEGEND At Study Corridors /V Highways tialk..— 'I, on /\/ Arterial Roads /a' i Regional Study Area !/ v le City Boundaries / P'" t 4 i \ a Cities & Towns ! Fort Collins \ .._=„... / Police, Sheriff, or Emergency i ; Ault , 1. 141 Service Providers ! 1; I 4 r r 4* _Tpmalh .r_ Severance Eat ii 1 — i!! 1 i '287 ' luc4eme \&I2 . I - • !r : .Greeley 1 - 1 / __j _.W....". •a rat% Lax t't•IY t�ED Loveland i Evans e to Sahe . / '7 I tampon -r__ �Johnston • L-- ..4 . s1 0 / 60 Berthoud �! ATlfiken $5,/ j. 56 / -- — rib estf I 0 SONOtiet j Mee I f / L66 'Hasit) , ildiii, HI, f ; 1 Longmont ' lone ♦ ; / I # Vollmer l O I Firestone I r �. Worn � eflC.�l_ f. t411, .... ....7,-I ----Y.\-- �/ . If t je O Darnm Fortlup;rr. 5 " ` 0 Gunbarrel I \H: ;___s )øaIø____t! it—Nut g/ Valmont O in 'j Vtrattenberg ! �, [',1 ^- - I 1* 1 , , ,- ' ' IlLi ' ightcr .. al.. - - i �.�. tai ' _, \ I / •\` ! E3r :iirficlA . Hen,t n---�/� I • .;'/ iiiiii --- F� I r �/, !' a ea i � , Ir 1 %1 411-. �� ' inix - _ % I a . • Denver-AILY L., slay[7N - - t ...a• • a r, --"---N_ k ._ 0 2 4 6 8 10 A\ --air rip rm`ts .. ;.� .l . . / I I Miles North ION -. �l 0 Mao Dec~•C69 rtJ_Pitnntn Stnate*mo) 2 22 2C*7 Public Safety and Security 3.22-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. In addition, a fire and police station is proposed and would be located east of Johnson's Corner • and south of CR 16. This fire and emergency facility would service the Johnstown Fire Rotation District with officers also present from the police. It would be a new and additional service for the fire protection district that is currently north of US 60 at CR 15. The location was selected because of its proximity to 1-25 and because of community development near the 1-25 corridor. Driveway access would be to CR 16, which has access to 1-25 at Exit 254 and at SH 402. Police. There are 21 police departments and eight sheriffs' offices providing public safety services to residents throughout the regional study area. Sheriffs in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties coordinate search-and-rescue efforts, handle civil processes and evictions, provide animal control services, respond to hazardous material events, and provide public safety services to residents living in unincorporated portions of the regional study area. In addition to these county services, each municipality within the regional study area has individual police departments geared toward crime prevention, law enforcement, and traffic management. Sheriff's offices and police departments that serve the regional study area are shown by location in Figure 3.22-1. Emergency Service. Emergency medical response services are provided to regional study area residents by local fire departments and hospitals. In addition to these service providers, numerous independent agencies provide emergency response services in the regional study area. Several jurisdictions have joined together to meet their emergency response needs. One example is the Weld County Paramedic Services, which was created through a joint agreement between Weld County and Greeley to serve both incorporated and unincorporated communities in Weld County. • 3.22.1.2 SECURITY Security refers to crime, and related crime-prevention methods and services. In general, security in the regional study area is typical of many growing portions of the nation, with property-related crimes being most prevalent (theft, vandalism, etc.). The various policing entities described above respond to these crimes. Currently there is a security presence at the existing carpool lots along 1-25. County and municipal police officers patrol the existing carpool lots on an as-needed basis in response to police calls and reported crimes. There has been growth in crime rate related to property (vehicle break-ins and/or thefts), illegal drug trafficking, and illicit sexual activity at these facilities. In response, CDOT and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) are working cooperatively to improve carpool lots at the following locations including installing lighting and security cameras: ► SH 34 — installation of security cameras ► SH 402 — installation of security cameras and entrance lighting ► SH 60 — implementation of access control (one-way in and out with curb added between the frontage road and the park and ride) ► SH 119 — installation of security cameras • Both CDOT and NFRMPO have identified available funding to make these improvements. Public Safety and Security 3.22-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.22.2 Environmental Consequences Public transit and transportation projects could impact public safety and security by increasing the demand for police and fire protection in the communities they serve, or by increasing or decreasing the potential for accidents involving pedestrians or automobiles. Potential impacts to safety and security as a result of the No-Action Alternative and the build packages were evaluated. The differences in public safety and security between the No-Action Alternative and two build packages are difficult to quantify. There is a potential for moderate increases in theft, vandalism, and other emergency services at commuter rail and bus stations but no quantifiable evidence to show that these increases would result from implementation of either build package. 3.22.2.1 No-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Because the No-Action Alternative involves the existing highway and bus system, local jurisdictions and the Colorado State Patrol would continue to provide security. The existing railway system would be maintained by the freight companies who operate them. As congestion increases, there would be a greater likelihood of both highway and railway crashes within the regional study area and emergency response times would be negatively affected. Weld County emergency responders have indicated that they would avoid 1-25 due to increased response times as described in Section 3.22.1.1. The likely higher number of crashes • also could affect the likelihood of a crash involving a transporter of hazardous waste. 3.22.2.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes safety improvements, structure upgrades, construction of additional general purpose plus auxiliary lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Police Protection and Community Safety Services Components A-H1 and A-H4: Safety Improvements and Structure Upgrades. Police protection services would be required for project security during both the construction and operation phases. During the construction phase, security would be required to minimize or prevent construction site thefts. Control of security at the construction site would be the responsibility of the construction contractor. When a site theft occurs, modest increases in police services would be required for investigation, arrests, citations, report writing, and court appearances. Responding to site thefts is within the existing responsibilities of the affected municipalities listed in the section detailing existing conditions. Responding to construction site theft would represent a minimal impact to the overall police workload and is not envisioned to necessitate an increase in staff to maintain existing levels of service. Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. 1-25 would continue to be patrolled by the Colorado State Patrol. In addition, each county or municipality would have a local law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction on intersecting streets. During the construction • phase, security would be required to minimize or prevent construction site thefts. The construction of general purpose lanes also would potentially result in an increased need for security and municipal law enforcement due to increased traffic. The accident rate is projected to decrease, however. Public Safety and Security 3.22.5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Components A-T1, A-T2, A-T3, and A-T4: Commuter Rail and Commuter Bus. During the • construction phase, security would be required to minimize or prevent construction site thefts. During the operation phase of the commuter rail project, police protection would be required to ensure safety on the trains and at the stations and park and rides. Although an operational authority for the commuter rail has not yet been identified, the creation and maintenance of a transit system that has a consistent level of service, safety, and security would be one of the over-arching goals. For discussion of impacts, it can be assumed that the standards practiced by RTD, the largest transit service provider in the regional study area, would be implemented by the commuter rail operational authority. The commuter rail operational authority would provide uniformed, armed security officers who patrol, by vehicle and on foot, the park and rides, trains, and platforms associated with the commuter rail system. Security would be provided seven days a week during all hours of revenue service. All elements of the commuter rail system would likely be designed generally in accordance with RTD's Comprehensive Safety Certification Program (Interview with Dave Genova, RTD, May 2006), ensuring that safety issues are addressed and that the level of service is consistent throughout the transit corridor. Security on Commuter Trains. Armed security officers would be provided on vehicles and, at times, off-duty police officers would be utilized. Increased demand for local police protection could be required. The operational authority would likely have surveillance cameras on board commuter trains. As with existing commuter trains, police and firefighters would be permitted and encouraged to ride the system for free if identification were presented to the operator. • Security on Commuter Buses. Armed security officers would likely be provided on vehicles and, at times, off-duty police officers would be utilized. Increased demand for local police protection could be required. As with existing commuter bus services, police and firefighters would be permitted and encouraged to ride the system for free if identification were presented to the operator. Security at Commuter Rail Stations, Commuter Bus Stations, and Park and Rides. Passengers would congregate at station platforms and at the park and rides, providing an increased opportunity for crime. Parked cars also would be potentially exposed to theft and vandalism. Security forces hired by the commuter rail operational authority would be responsible for public security at the stations, in conjunction with cooperation from local law enforcement jurisdictions. The stations would incorporate security design features, such as lighting and in some cases cameras, to deter criminals. Based on historic RTD experience, special security at the park and rides is not anticipated, although cameras would be placed at any identified high crime park and rides. When thefts occur at park and ride facilities, security forces would work with local police to apprehend criminals. When a crime at the stations or a park-n-ride facility occurs, police involvement would be required for investigation, arrest, citation, report writing, and court appearances. The presence of security forces at the stations would not require increased staffing for local police within any of the affected municipalities. • Public Safety and Security 3.22-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Components A-H1, A-H2, A-H3, and A-H4: Safety Improvements, General Purpose Lanes, and Structure Upgrades. The impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services as a result of safety improvements, construction of general purpose and auxiliary lanes, and structure upgrades would not be expected to differ substantially from those described for Police Protection and Community Services relating to Component A-H2. Service for the regional study area would continue to be provided by existing local jurisdictions. Safety improvements, construction of general purpose and auxiliary lanes, and structure upgrades would potentially result in an increased need for fire protection and emergency services due to increased roadway traffic. Components A-T1, A-T2, A-T3, and A-T4: Commuter Rail and Commuter Bus. A commuter rail line and commuter bus service would require fire protection services for control of fires in the vehicles and at the stations. It is unlikely that a fire would occur at the stations because of the simple design and nonflammable construction materials. There is the potential for fire in the trash receptacles and because of the concentration of passengers at the commuter train and bus stations, the potential for increased demands for emergency services exists. Because the potential for fire is low, it is not anticipated that the commuter trains or buses would necessitate the hiring of additional fire protection personnel in any of the affected communities in the corridor. While the stations may occasionally require first aid calls, the • potential impact is considered negligible. Pedestrian and Vehicle Safety Components A-H1, A-H2, A-H3, and A-H4: Safety Improvements, General Purpose Lanes, and Structure Upgrades. Highway safety information, relating to crash rates and the geometric deficiencies that affect them, is documented in Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. All four transit service providers in the regional study area operate buses, which are subject to highway crashes. Planned construction at the interchange from 1-25 to Johnson's Corner at Exit 254 would provide improved access to the rest area and higher capacity for truck and commercial freight parking in accordance with standards for mandatory rest periods as set by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The addition of pedestrian facilities in certain locations to ensure safe access to and from transit stations would enhance pedestrian safety within the project area. Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail. Proposed commuter trains would interact with the roadway network at 90 locations spread along the length of the rail components. Some of these are already grade-separated, others would be grade-separated as part of the project, and the remainder would stay at-grade. To determine design alternatives of rail crossings, two distinct analyses were undertaken: an "exposure factor analysis" and the Federal Railroad Administration's GradeDec.Net analysis, which evaluates benefits and costs of rail investments. • Public Safety and Security 3.22.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Exposure factors are used to evaluate whether a crossing should be grade-separated. • An exposure factor is the product of train volumes and roadway volume. Crossings where the exposure factor is largest are typically candidates for grade separations. Exposure factors were calculated and evaluated for each of the 90 crossings. Crossings are generally clustered in developed areas such as downtown Longmont and downtown Fort Collins. Exposure factors were calculated for existing conditions and project conditions in the year 2030 for the No-Action Alternative and two build packages. Of the 90 crossings evaluated, 14 crossings had exposure factors at or above 1,000,000. Many of the rural crossings in the corridor had exposure factors under 100,000. Every crossing in the corridor received at least lights and gates as a suggested minimum improvement. Each of the crossings with exposure factors over 1,000,000 was further evaluated for grade separation and recommended for improvements. The commuter rail operational authority would be responsible for implementing design plans and coordinating efforts with freight railroad companies to ensure that at-grade crossings would maximize safety to vehicles and pedestrians. Design measures could include grade separation, installation of gates and lights, and installation of 4-quadrant gates with medians. In the base year, a point of analysis that evaluates the regional study area in a year with no planned construction projects, the overall corridor was predicted to have about 2.4 grade crossing accidents per year. With the improvements defined during the exposure factor analysis, the corridor accident prediction rate dropped to 0.7 grade crossing accidents per year. This is a 70 percent reduction in predicted accidents. Assuming a 2030 design year, a corridor-wide benefit/cost analysis was performed. The results indicated an overall • benefit/cost ratio of approximately 2.8. This positive benefit/cost ratio indicates that the recommendations made would increase corridor safety without over-designing it. To help ensure passenger and pedestrian safety, transit stations would likely be designed in accordance with RTD's life-safety standards. Warning signs, tactile strips, signals, and fencing would be provided to protect pedestrians at station locations. Some stations would require pedestrian overpasses or underpasses to get patrons from the park and rides to the station platforms. These overpasses and underpasses would be designed with adequate fencing and lighting to protect patrons as they walk to the stations. Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus. The addition of commuter bus service to the transportation corridor, as well as highway safety related to crash rates and the geometric deficiencies that affect them, is described in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Alternatives. Each of the transit providers in the regional study area operate buses that are subject to highway crashes. Impacts associated with the addition of commuter bus service are described in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Alternatives. Summary of Key Impacts for Package A Key safety and security impacts associated with implementing Package A would occur temporarily during construction and permanently after implementation. Temporary impacts include: ► There is a potential for increased theft during the construction phase. • Public Safety and Security 3.22-8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Permanent changes include: ► There is a potential for modest increases to police services in response to increases in crime. ► An increased security presence would be needed on trains, buses, and at proposed stations and associated existing stations. ► A 70 percent reduction in accidents associated with trains and other vehicles is predicted. 3.22.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes safety improvements, construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. This alternative was described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Police Protection and Community Safety Services Components B-H1, B-H2, B-H3, B-H4, B-T1,and B-T2 : Safety Improvements, Tolled Express Lanes, and Bus Rapid Transit. Impacts to police protection and community services from implementing Package B components would not differ substantially from those described for Package A. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Components B-H1, B-H2, B-H3, B-H4, B-T1,and B-T2 : Safety Improvements, Tolled • Express Lanes, and Bus Rapid Transit. Impacts to police protection and community services from implementing Package B components would not differ substantially from those described for Package A. Pedestrian and Vehicle Safety Components B-H1, B-H2, B-H3, B-H4, B-T1,and B-T2 : Safety Improvements, Tolled Express Lanes, and Bus Rapid Transit. The construction of tolled express lanes and the addition of bus rapid transit service to the transportation corridor, as well as highway safety related to crash rates and the geometric deficiencies that affect them, is described in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Alternatives. Each of the transit providers in the regional study area operate buses that are subject to highway crashes. Buses operating in an exclusive facility with only one lane would be safer than buses operating in multiple general purpose lanes. Impacts associated with these bus components are described in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Alternatives. Summary of Key Impacts for Package B Key safety and security impacts associated with implementing Package B would occur temporarily during construction and permanently after implementation. A temporary impact includes: ► There would be a potential for increased theft during the construction phase. • Public Safety and Security 3.22.9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Permanent changes include: • ► There would be a potential for modest increases to police services in response to increases in crime. ► An increased security presence would be needed on trains, buses, and at proposed and existing associated stations. 3.22.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for temporary impacts during construction include: Potential losses at construction sites will be mitigated through fencing and on-site security provided by contractors. All construction contractors will be responsible for safety at their respective sites and be required to follow all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements applicable to construction site safety. Each contractor's site safety plans will be approved by the appropriate agencies or a construction management consultant, if chosen. The appropriate agencies will provide a site safety officer to monitor site safety. Mitigation measures for permanent impacts include: The design of bus stations will incorporate life-safety standards, similar to RTD's Comprehensive Safety Certification Program. To ensure consistency of service across the transit corridor, the commuter rail operating authority will be expected to adhere to these same standards. These include measures such as fencing to protect patrons from the track • area; well-designed pedestrian underpasses; lighting as a deterrent to crime and to ensure good visibility in stations and parking areas; and, where walls and elevator shafts are constructed, the use of transparent materials to provide better sight lines and reduce concealment areas for criminals. The commuter rail operational authority will likely use applicable National Fire Protection Association guidelines for life-safety and fixed-guideway transit systems. Local police will be encouraged to use the park and ride lots when they need to fill out paperwork in order to increase their visibility at stations. It also will be helpful for the commuter rail operating authority to work with neighborhoods adjacent to stations and park and rides to establish neighborhood watch programs and encourage regular attendance of police and security personnel at neighborhood meetings. Before project startup, the commuter rail operational authority will host training sessions for all affected police, fire, emergency response teams, schools, and employers who either are responsible for police or emergency response or are located in the immediate project corridor. These training sessions will cover the details of commuter train and bus operations, potential security issues, and agency responsibilities. • Public Safety and Security 3.22.10 pig • NORTH I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 23 Construction • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.23 CONSTRUCTION This section identifies the impacts that are expected during the construction phase of the No- What's in Section 3.23? Action Alternative or either build package and 3.23 Construction mitigation measures to address impacts. 3.23.1 Construction Schedule Construction activities and associated impacts 3.23.2 Environmental Consequences would be similar for both build packages, 3.23.2.1 No-Action Alternative although in different locations. Therefore, impacts 3.23.2.2 Build Packages are discussed generally and not by package, 3.23.3 Mitigation Measures 3.23.4 Summary except where there are notable differences (e.g., commuter rail for Package A). While other sections of this document address permanent impacts that the packages could have on the environment, this section deals with the potential temporary impacts of construction. Specific construction methods would be addressed during the development of the final construction plans for the Preferred Alternative. In general, highway, rail, and supporting facilities construction includes mobilization, utility relocation and adjustments, demolition and site preparation, and lane or track construction (earth work and paving). Construction sequencing strategies are required for a project of this size and would take into account minimization of related impacts. • Concerns expressed through the public involvement process regarding construction impacts focused on noise, visual, and traffic impacts. These concerns are summarized in Chapter 8 Comments and Coordination. 3.23.1 Construction Schedule This section identifies and describes various construction impacts associated with the alternatives as well as construction scheduling and phasing. Package A would include highway widening and also double-tracked commuter rail construction mostly along the existing BNSF right-of-way using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont, construction of a new double-tracked extension from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton, and construction of associated commuter rail stations and a maintenance facility. Also, highway interchange improvements, commuter bus stations and parking and carpool lots would be constructed as part of Package A. Package B would include construction of bus rapid transit (BRT) stations along 1-25, a transit maintenance facility, highway widening including the addition of tolled express lanes (TEL), interchange improvements and parking and carpool lots. The approximate construction schedule for the project under ideal conditions and the possibility of project phasing are described in this section. Approximate Best-Case Construction Schedule • Either build package could be built in phases if warranted and if funding for the entire project is not available. The construction schedule is expected to be somewhat similar between packages. The only difference would be the development of rail lines to support the transit component in Package A. It is estimated that construction for the entire project Construction 3.23-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. would require up to 96 months in a fully funded scenario, if the project could be funded as • one project. The schedule would take into account various construction activities grouped into the categories of: mobilization, utility relocation, demolition and site preparation, lane construction, and interchange and structure construction. The time required to complete activities for each of these categories as well as the relative timing of the activities during the course of the project has been estimated (see Figure 3.23-1). Figure 3.23-1 Approximate Best-Case Construction Schedule for Both Build Packages Activity Mobilization Utility Relocation ,. Demolition and Site Preparation Track/Lane Construction Interchange,Station .. , and Structure Construction • nine inMonths 0 6 12 18 24 30 30 42 48 54 . 60 68 72 78 84 90 95 Construction Phasing The phases would be determined once a package is selected and analyzed, along with a funding strategy, in the Final EIS. 3.23.2 Environmental Consequences 3.23.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would involve very little additional construction over what is currently programmed, approved, and funded to support the growing population of the regional study area. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would result in no construction or utility impacts aside from those associated with the programmed projects (see Chapter 2 Alternatives). 3.23.2.2 BUILD PACKAGES Construction of either build package would create various temporary impacts within the project area. Some of these impacts would be common to both build packages while some are specific to particular components of a package, such as the incorporation of a double- track commuter rail line in Package A. • Construction 3.23-2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Transportation Construction detours can create short-term impacts on local traffic circulation and congestion and inter- and intra-state travelers using the 1-25 and US 85 corridors for commuting. These impacts may include delays or the need for alternative travel routes to reach residences and community facilities. Emergency service response may be negatively impacted as a result of construction, as well. In the more populated areas, such as the Denver Metro Area, these impacts could cause greater congestion. Delays to the traveling public and inconvenience to corridor residents would occur. A primary goal of CDOT during construction of the project would be to minimize inconvenience to the public through construction traffic planning during final design, and by monitoring and adjusting these plans throughout the construction phase. Construction activities associated with the additional double-track along the BNSF/North Longmont Metro Connection corridors would impact roadway traffic at rail crossings and possibly train traffic along the existing railway. These impacts, though unavoidable, could be minimized through a variety of techniques. Overall construction impacts to roadway crossings are expected to be minor with employment of mitigation measures listed in Section 3.23.3. Pedestrian and bicycle mobility is important within each of the package corridors. Construction activities could temporarily affect local residents who use these facilities and • those who use these corridors for commuting and recreation. Land Use Construction of either build package would temporarily affect access to the different land uses within the project area throughout the duration of the project. These impacts would mostly be limited to areas that are in close proximity to large-scale construction activities, generally not greater than 300 feet outside of the work areas. Economic Conditions By implementing either of the build packages, the economic benefit of additional employment within the project area due to construction would be evident. This additional employment includes construction-related jobs that are directly and indirectly related to the project. Jobs created that are directly related would include jobs that pertain to the actual construction activities of the project. Jobs that are indirectly related would include positions that would help support the construction efforts by supplying goods and services to construction workers. Restricted access to businesses located adjacent to the rights-of-way during construction could have the potential of negatively impacting the performance of some of the businesses. These impacts may see a partial offset by increased retail sales due to the presence of construction workers. • Construction 3.23-3 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Right-of-Way . Some additional land would be required in areas adjacent to the existing rights-of-way for construction staging purposes. These staging areas would be used to store equipment and materials and would also be used to provide parking for construction workers. These necessary areas would be purchased or leased, usually as temporary construction easements, before the start of construction. Air Quality Without mitigation, excavation, grading, and fill activities associated with construction activity could increase local fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust is airborne particulate matter, generally of a relatively large size (greater than 100 microns in diameter). Because of their large size, these soil particles typically settle within 30 feet of their source. Smaller particles could travel as much as hundreds of feet, depending on winds. Construction activity would increase emissions from additional traffic and detouring. Also, construction would require the disturbance of soil, which would produce fugitive dust or particulate pollution. Construction-related activities that may cause soil material to become airborne include the following: ► Digging and dumping of soil and discarded construction materials (asphalt, concrete, etc.) ► Material hauling ► Wind erosion over exposed construction sites ► Re-entrainment of construction dirt deposited on local streets by vehicular traffic on the streets The amount of airborne dust generated and the airborne concentration of particulate matter that human receptors would be exposed to would depend on a variety of factors and would vary from day-to-day, depending on site and climate conditions. Factors influencing fugitive dust emissions include: ► Soil type ► Area of exposed soil ► Location of construction activities relative to potential receptors ► Volume of dirt/material to be moved ► Wind speed and direction ► Soil moisture ► Time of day ► Season of the year The length of time that any particular receptor would be exposed to construction-related dust would be relatively short, lasting only during construction activities. Construction would • likely proceed in a linear fashion with site excavation, bed preparation, and track installation beginning at one or more locations and working along the alignment. Construction 3.23-4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • Construction vehicles and equipment would generate the same exhaust emissions as motor vehicles on area roadways. The emissions contribution of these vehicles would be short- term and minor when compared to usual emission levels from day-to-day traffic in the study area. Additionally, construction equipment would generally be diesel-powered, emitting relatively low levels of carbon monoxide. Exhaust emissions could temporarily impact sensitive receptors located adjacent to the areas of construction. Noise and Vibration Construction noise would present the potential for short-term impacts to receptors located along the existing rights-of-way and along the designated construction access routes. The primary source of construction noise is expected to be diesel-powered equipment, such as trucks, earth-moving machinery, and demolition equipment. Demolition and pile driving could be the loudest construction operations. Demolition of structures, such as existing bridges, is generally conducted at night because of safety issues requiring full or partial closure of the highway and local streets. Piles could be required at most major bridge installations and could have both noise and vibration impacts. Alternative construction methods, such as the use of caissons or pre-drilling for piling, could replace pile driving in noise-sensitive locations. The majority of noise receptors are located greater than 50 feet from areas where pile driving or other high-noise activities are • expected. Increased noise impacts are expected to occur only in areas near residential developments that are in the vicinity of interchanges requiring demolition and replacement or major renovation. These impacts would occur primarily in the Windsor area and the north Fort Collins area along 1-25. Vibration caused by construction activities would present the potential for short-term impacts in areas where pile driving and compaction equipment are being used. The potential for building damage from pile-driving vibration is estimated to exist only within about 50 feet of the activity. Vibration from compaction equipment is less severe because it does not propagate through the lower soil layers like pile driving does. Construction activities in close proximity to buildings (i.e., within 50 feet) must be sensitive to vibration damage potential. Extra care would be necessary when in close proximity to buildings. Details would be developed during subsequent design efforts. Table 3.23-1 shows typical noise emission levels of construction equipment that could be used for either build package at 50 feet. The impact levels from construction noise would depend on the sensitivity of the noise receptor, the magnitude of noise during each construction phase, the duration of the noise, the time of day the noise occurs, and the distance from the construction activities. A detailed description of noise level measurements (dBA) can be found in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. • Construction 3.23-5 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.23-1 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels at 50 Feet • Typical Noise Typical Noise Equipment Type Levels at 50 feet Equipment Type Levels at 50 feet (dBA)from Source (dBA)from Source Pile drivers (impacts) 101 Loader 85 Rail saw 90 Tie insert 85 Scraper 89 Pneumatic tool 85 Paver 89 Impact wrench 85 Truck 88 Bulldozer 85 Jackhammer 88 Concrete mixer 85 Mobile crane 88 Concrete pump 82 Pavement breaker 88 Compactor 82 Truck 88 Compressor 81 Grader 85 Backhoe 80 Dozer 85 Source:FTA 1995. dBA=A-weighted decibel The potential for construction noise impacts Table 3.23-2 Acceptable Construction would vary by location and land use. It is Noise Levels likely that noise impacts would occur in Noise Limit, residential areas within 50 feet of the Land Use 8-hour Leg (dBA) railroad alignment as a result of Day Night • construction of the double-track commuter Residential 80 70 system. These impacts would be Commercial 85 85 intermittent and temporary. Potential noise Industrial 90 90 impacts to commercial or industrial areas Source:FTA 1995. could occur within 50 feet of the rail dBA=A-weighted decibel alignment from construction activities in Leg=sound pressure level areas where pile-driving activity would take place. Table 3.23-2 identifies acceptable noise levels from construction activities for associated land uses and time of day as provided in the FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual(FTA, 1995). Construction vibration impacts would result from the use of construction equipment such as a pile driver, a bulldozer, or a jack hammer. The vibration would be generally intermittent and temporary, and therefore, would not result in an appreciable impact to receivers along the alignment with the exception of properties in close proximity to construction activities. Table 3.23-3 identifies vibration source levels for construction equipment at 25 feet. Detailed information on vibration measurements (vdB) can be found in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. • Construction 3.23-6 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.23-3 Vibration Source Levels For Construction (From Measured Data) Equipment PPV at 25 Feet(in/sec) Approximate VdB at 25 Feet Pile driver(impact) 1.518 112 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Source:FTA 1995. PPV=Peak Particle Velocity VdB=vibration decibels Ecosystems Wildlife habitats adjacent to the railway or roadway improvements would be impacted during construction. Some wildlife would be driven away during construction activities due to the increased noise and activity. These impacts would be primarily limited to the undeveloped areas of the project area. Farmlands Farmlands adjacent to the alignments would be impacted if construction activities are required to extend beyond the right-of-way or if access must be modified. Also, dust • generated from construction activities could settle on agricultural lands, possibly temporarily altering soil composition. The impacted farmland areas are scattered throughout the project area where land is undeveloped or primarily rural. Cultural Resources Construction could damage or remove archaeological or paleontological resources that have become buried beneath the soil surface, as discussed in Section 3.15 Historic Preservation and Section 3.16 Paleontological Resources. The amount of damage would vary, depending upon soil strata, type, and condition, materials, and type of structure. Construction could have both short- and long-term impacts on cultural landscapes by introducing intrusive elements into the landscape, or by removing character-defining elements of that landscape, such as large trees, irrigation features, or open spaces. Parks and Recreational Resources Parks located adjacent to construction activity could experience temporary impacts during construction. Detailed information on each of the parks and recreation areas can be found in Section 3.18, Parks and Recreation. Impacts to these areas could include construction noise, dust, visual degradation, and increased traffic congestion inhibiting access to the park and recreation areas. Visual Setting Short-term construction-related visual impacts would likely occur as a result of the proposed • build packages. These impacts would include the presence of construction equipment and material storage, temporary barriers, guardrail, detour pavement and signs, temporary shoring and retaining walls, lighting for night construction, and removal of existing Construction 3.23.7 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. vegetative cover in the construction zone. Residential areas near construction activities • could experience visual impacts resulting from construction activities. It is assumed that the construction of either package would be conducted in phases so the entire corridor would not be undergoing construction at one time. The greatest visual impacts during construction would be associated with construction lay-down yards (staging areas), construction traffic/equipment along 1-25 and the rail line, clearing/demolition of the bridge structures, safety barriers, and signage and flag-persons. The impacts would be visible both to residents along the 1-25 corridor and the rail line as well as travelers on the roadway network within the project area. Floodplains and Water Resources During construction, stormwater runoff could present the potential for violations of water quality standards if discharge occurs without the application of best management practices. Without mitigation measures, stormwater runoff could cause erosion and sedimentation and transport spilled fuels or other hazardous materials off the construction site. Both packages cross several drainage basins. Groundwater could be encountered during relocation of deep utilities, excavation, and construction of tunnels and below-grade roadways. Dewatering and treatment could be required where groundwater is present. Both build packages would cause an increased risk to surface water quality due to proximity of construction to tributaries of the South Platte River. These tributaries include the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek. Final • design would include runoff prevention measures to minimize the amount of sediment reaching surface water bodies as a result of rail or road construction. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.-Section 404 Temporary impacts to wetlands could occur within the drainages of St. Vrain Creek, Little Thompson River, Big Thompson River, and Cache la Poudre River. These impacts would primarily be from construction equipment adjacent to wetland areas. Wetlands would be restored to the extent possible if damage from the equipment occurs (see Section 3.8 Wetlands). Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials could be encountered during construction in several ways. The movement of earth, particularly excavation, could uncover sites with hazardous chemicals or petroleum products. Former or current gas stations can frequently contain petroleum contamination that could be encountered during construction. During construction, it is expected that there would be excavation and drilling for caissons to support underpasses, overpasses, and bridge development. Any of these activities could cause an impact to soils or groundwater containing hazardous waste and, possibly, a potential impact to human health and safety. Prior to construction and right-of-way acquisition, soil sampling would be performed to determine the nature and extent of contamination at sites with recognized environmental conditions. The results of this sampling would be incorporated into a health and safety plan • that would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential exposure of workers to contaminants and hazards. Soil and water management plans would be Construction 3.23.8 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation, transportation. • developed to minimize runoff and impacts to uncontaminated soils. Contaminated materials would be disposed according to Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requirements. Utilities Construction associated with either build package would require excavation, grading, boring and other activities that would have short-term effects on utilities. This would include crossing existing lines, relocation, modification, and usage of temporary easements. The process of relocating these utilities could cause temporary planned or accidental disruptions in service to local residents in the project area. CDOT would be responsible for utility relocations and replacements required by the build packages. Mitigation would include meeting and consulting with the municipalities and utility representatives during the final design and construction phases to coordinate planning and construction activities. CDOT's goal is to minimize and, to the extent possible, avoid interruptions in service to corridor residents and businesses. Energy Either build package would require a substantial one-time energy expenditure related to the manufacture of construction materials, transporting of materials to the site, and construction of new facilities. Construction energy consumption is based on the number of lane-miles • and track-miles proposed for each construction type; at-grade and on elevated structure. The build packages require energy to construct additional lanes, double-track commuter rail, stations, and maintenance facilities. The energy consumption estimated for construction of Package A is approximately 2,112,000 British thermal units (BTUs), while the estimated energy consumption for Package B is approximately 2,300,000 BTUs (see Table 3.23-4). Table 3.234 Energy Consumption for Construction Lane Miles/ BTUs per BTUs Alternative Type of Construction Track Miles Lane Mile Consumed (in millions) Surface Road/Railway 122.9 13,885 1,706,467 Package A Elevated Road/Railway 3.1 130,739 405,291 Total Construction 126.0 N/A 2,111,758 Surface Roadway 128.0 13,885 1,777,280 Package B Elevated Roadway 4.0 130,739 522,956 Total Construction 132.0 N/A 2,300,236 Source:FTA, 2006. 3.23.3 Mitigation Measures CDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005) and CDOT's Construction Manual (2002a) outline basic mitigation measures that contractors are required to take on any construction project. Appropriate application of these mitigation strategies would be defined during the final engineering phase of this project. See • Table 3.23-5 for a summary of construction-related mitigation strategies. Construction 3.23.9 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.23-5 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies • Most Impact Likely Recommended Mitigation Strategies Impacted • Implement construction best management practices. • Use noise blankets on equipment and quiet-use generators. • Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period. • Use alternative construction methods, such as sonic or vibratory pile-driving in sensitive areas, when possible. ▪ In residential areas, construction activities will be minimized during the evening, nighttime, weekends, and holidays when receptors are usually in these areas. • Nighttime construction will be desirable (e.g., commercial areas where businesses may be disrupted during daytime hours)or necessary to avoid major traffic disruption. • The major noise source on construction sites is typically diesel motors; therefore, all engines will use commercially available effective mufflers and enclosures, as possible. • Modern equipment will be used with improved noise muffling and all equipment items will be evaluated to ensure that they have the manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measure, such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine vibration Local isolators intact and operational. Generally, newer equipment Noise residents creates less operational noise than older equipment. All Local construction equipment will be inspected at periodic intervals to • businesses ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise-control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding). • The use of impact pile driving will be avoided near noise- sensitive areas, where possible. Alternative foundation preparation technologies will be used, such as vibratory pile driving or cast in drilled hole. • Temporary barriers will be used and relocated, as required, to protect sensitive receptors from excessive construction noise. Noise barriers should be made of heavy plywood or moveable insulated sound blankets. • Plans will be made to conduct truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations so that noise will be kept to a minimum. This will be achieved by carefully selecting routes to avoid going through residential neighborhoods to the greatest possible extent. • Construction 3.23-10 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.23-5 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies (Cont'd) Most Impact Likely Recommended Mitigation Strategies Impacted • Good public relations will be maintained with the community to minimize objections to unavoidable construction noise. Frequent updates of all construction activities will be provided to the public. This program should keep residents informed so they may plan around periods of particularly high noise levels and should provide a conduit for residents to express any concerns or complaints about noise. • A community noise and vibration monitoring plan and a noise and vibration control plan will be prepared to ensure that Noise (Cont'd) contractors take all reasonable steps to minimize noise and vibration due to proposed construction activities. The noise and vibration monitoring plan will be prepared before initiating any construction. The monitoring plan will clearly specify monitoring locations, measurement duration, and monitoring procedures. Construction and vibration monitoring will be conducted according to the monitoring plan. The noise and vibration control plan should include construction equipment noise levels and proposed noise and vibration control measures to ensure that the contractor will meet noise and vibration criteria. • Local • Use enhanced signing. residents • Use alternate access enhancements. Access Local • Use advertising/public relations. businesses • Do not close multiple interchanges concurrently. Travelers • Limit detours. • Place detours on major arterial streets and ensure no local street detours are implemented. • Schedule construction during periods of least traffic. Highway • Use geometric enhancements including wider lanes and •Traffic better visibility. detours •Lane • Limit construction vehicles to major arterials. Local • Enforce speed restrictions; provide adequate space for closures residents enforcement; make prime contractor accountable. •Congestion Local • Use courtesy patrol. •Construction businesses vehicles on Travelers • Use enhanced signing. local streets • Phase construction to limit traffic in neighborhoods. •Safety of • Comply with American Association of State Highway and lane shifts Transportation Officials(AASHTO) guidance and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. • Coordinate work activities to ensure they do not coincide with sporting, school, or special events. • Construction 3.23.11 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.23-5 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies (Cont'd) • Most Impact Likely Recommended Mitigation Strategies Impacted • Implement advanced traffic diversion. • Use intelligent management systems and variable message signs to advise/redirect traffic. Highway • Work with Regional Transportation District (RTD)to offer (Cont'd) enhanced operations during peak construction. • Develop traffic management plans. • Maintain access to local businesses/residents. • Coordinate with emergency service providers to minimize delay and ensure access to properties. • Provide well-defined detours for pedestrians/bicyclists. • Enhance safety through the use of adequate signing, Local fencing, and lighting. Pedestrian/ residents • Implement a public relations program. Bicycle mobility Commuters Bicyclists • Comply with American Disability Act requirements. • Construct new bike/pedestrian overpass as a detour before old is demolished. • Use wetting/chemical inhibitors for dust control. • Provide early investigation of subsurface conditions. • Prepare a well-defined materials handling plan. • • Employ educated contractor with trained personnel. • Require prompt and safe disposal of waste products. • Implement water quality best management practices. Environmental • Prepare well-defined stormwater management plan. Impacts • Conduct monitoring. Construction • Dust/air workers • Institute resource reuse and allocation. quality Downstream • Ensure regulatory compliance. • Hazardous water users • Cover trucks hauling soil and other materials. waste Local • Stabilize and cover stockpile areas. • Water quality residents • Minimize offsite tracking of mud, debris, hazardous material, • Resource Local and noxious weeds by washing construction equipment in use/recycling businesses contained areas. material • Avoid impacts to wetlands or other areas of important habitat value in addition to those impacted by the project itself. • Control and prevent concrete washout and construction wastewater. As projects are designed, ensure that proper specifications are adhered to and reviewed to ensure adequacy in the prevention of water pollution by concrete washout. • Construction 3.23-12 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.23-5 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies (Cont'd) Most Impact Likely Recommended Mitigation Strategies Impacted • Store equipment and materials in designated areas only. ▪ Promptly remove any unused detour pavement or signs. • Follow CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005), including sections regarding water quality control, erosion control, and environmental health and safety. • As soon as practicable after construction activities have been completed in a disturbed area, begin permanent stabilization to limit further erosion of soil. • Remove soil and other materials from paved streets. • Incorporate recommendations as appropriate from the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) report, Reducing Diesel Environmental Emissions in the Denver Area (RAQC, 2002). Impacts (Cont'd.) • Operate equipment mainly during off-peak hours. • Limit equipment idling time. • Use recycled materials for project activities to the extent allowed by good practice and CDOT construction specifications. • Use construction equipment that use ultra-low sulfur fuels to the extent practicable. • • To mitigate potential water quality problems from construction, best management practices will be implemented as part of the stormwater management plan to abate and control suspended soil loading from erosion. Best management practices used will be consistent with the MS4 permitting requirements, requirements of Northern Front Range flood control districts, as well as practices mentioned in CDOT's Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide(CDOT, 2002b). This will include such measures as silt fences and detention ponds. Rip-rap slope protection will be utilized where necessary to prevent Floodplains and erosion. Any impacts to surface water quality as a result of Water Resources construction will be temporary. Mitigation measures for contaminated groundwater potentially encountered during construction are discussed in Section 3.7 Water Resources. Section 107.25 of CDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005)deals with contractor's requirements for water quality control. • Source:CDOT, Construction Manual, 2002;CDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2005. Note:Mitigation required by CDOT Standard Specifications and Construction Manual(2005)are in bold. Construction 3.23.13 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 3.23.4 Summary Package A would have the greatest construction impacts (noise, air quality, and transportation) to residential areas since the construction of the double-track commuter rail would extend through residential areas. In contrast, construction of Package B primarily would involve the widening and addition of lanes along a corridor that consists primarily of commercial, industrial, and agricultural development. Construction of the build packages would cause varying temporary impacts to traffic patterns and congestion, noise and vibration, air quality, and visual presence. These impacts would be short-term and isolated in extent depending upon the types and location of construction. Through the planning and implementation of mitigation measures during final design of the Preferred Alternative, these impacts would be minimized. • • Construction 3.23-14 • N oRTi I-25 Lig EIS a information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 24 Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long -Term Productivity • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation.• 3.24 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY Implementation of either of the build packages would involve short-term uses of the environment as a means to achieve long-term productivity gains and benefits for the What's in Section 3.24? regional study area. The uses of the 3.24 Relationship Between Local Short-Term environment and the specific long-term Uses of the Environment and the benefits vary between the No-Action Maintenance and Enhancement of Long- Alternative and Packages A and B. Term Productivity 3.24.1 No-Action Alternative 3.24.2 Packages A and B 3.24.1 No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would result in minimal anticipated short-term use of the environment because no major transportation improvements associated with this project would be made to the regional study area. The No-Action Alternative would provide no long- term productivity improvements because current deficiencies, as described in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, would continue. In fact, long-term productivity would be expected to • decrease because increased traffic would place greater demand and stress on unimproved roads. While the No-Action Alternative would provide the least amount of short-term uses of the environment, it also would impact long-term productivity the most. 3.24.2 Packages A and B Because the components proposed under Packages A and B would result in similar short- term uses and long-term benefits, they are discussed together in this section. Short-term uses of the environment under Packages A or B would include: ► Loss of soil through erosion and fugitive dust ► Temporary disruption of traffic and businesses in the proposed construction areas ► Temporary visual impacts during construction ► Temporary noise and vibration impacts ► Temporary use of land for construction staging and storage of materials • Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 3.24-1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information, cooperation. transportation. Either build package would provide similar long-term transportation benefits. Long-term • benefits under Packages A or B would include: ► Improving travel safety within the regional study area ► Increasing the efficiency of movement within large and critical transportation corridors ► Decreasing the overall travel times throughout the corridor ► Improving product and material distribution ► Improving access to businesses within the travel corridor ► Improving emergency vehicle access ► Modernizing existing transportation infrastructure to accommodate future demands ► Creating more environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing transportation corridors ► Improving air quality within the corridors by reducing traffic congestion The two build packages have some key differences that could alter the way they use resources in the short term and enhance productivity in the long term. Package A would tend to reinforce development and add density in the core cities along the corridor which could help to alleviate development pressure along 1-25 and therefore result in less impact to wildlife habitat and farmlands along 1-25. This likely pattern of development with Package A would also enhance commercial productivity in the cities which is where it is more likely to be sustainable over the long term. • • Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 3.24-2 • NORTH I-25 EIS a information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 25 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.25 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Implementation of either of the build packages would involve a commitment of a wide range of natural, What's in Section 3.25? physical, biological, human, and fiscal resources. The 3.25 Irreversible and Irretrievable commitment of these resources would be based on Commitment of Resources the concept that residents in the regional study area and the State of Colorado would benefit from the improved quality of the transportation corridors. Benefits would include improvements to safety and accessibility, an increase in travel efficiency, and increased availability of services. The benefits of the build packages are anticipated to outweigh the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. Land that would be used in the construction of transportation improvements associated with either of the build packages would be considered an irreversible commitment of - resources, since it is unlikely that this land would ever be converted to another use. The removal of vegetation for construction of additional highway lanes or railway lines would result in an irretrievable loss of vegetation from the regional study area, however much of this would be considered short grass and is thus covered within the CDOT short grass prairie initiative. The short grass prairie initiative is a proactive conservation/mitigation measure developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nature Conservancy, FHWA, and CDOT. As part of the initiative, CDOT directs funds to purchase priority • habitat conservation sites in order to offset habitat loss caused by future transportation improvements. Wetlands within the alignments of the build packages may be removed or degraded by construction and roadway activities, and though regulations and policy regarding wetlands compensation are designed to ensure no net-loss of wetlands, the original wetlands would be considered an irretrievable loss. Direct removal or major alteration of historic structures and substantial encroachment upon historic properties required for construction of the transportation improvements would be considered an irreversible loss of historic resources. Package A would require the acquisition and removal of three historic buildings, and an additional two linear historic properties (one irrigation ditch and one railroad)would be subjected to substantial direct impacts. Package B would not result in the taking of any historic structures; however, one historic irrigation ditch would be subjected to substantial direct impacts. Parks and recreation areas would be impacted by both build packages resulting in irretrievable losses of these areas. An approximate total of 11.61 acres would be impacted by Package A while 14.71 acres would be impacted by Package B. Fossil fuels would be irretrievably expended in several ways under each of the build packages. Fossil fuels would be consumed during the construction of transportation improvements during grading, material movement (e.g., hauling aggregate for concrete), • and other activities. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3.25-1 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Construction materials, such as aggregate for concrete and petroleum products used in • asphalt and in the operation of construction equipment, would not be retrievable. Irreversible use of resources may occur at gravel mining sites that are used by contractors. In addition, considerable labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These irretrievable losses are in exchange for the benefits provided by the proposed build packages. CDOT is committed to the concept of sustainability in order to preserve, to the extent possible, vital natural resources in the State of Colorado. Sustainability is defined as the wise use of our planet's resources such that the quality of life for future generations will not be compromised. CDOT has initiated a program that stresses sustainability concepts to its contractors. Contractor requirements identified in CDOT's construction specifications include recycling of pavement and steel reinforcement materials, and the use of environmentally sound materials. CDOT also encourages innovative approaches to construction and highway operations, such as the use of solar power systems for lighting and traffic signals, the use of recycled materials as asphalt compounds, and water and stormwater management systems that incorporate concepts to protect and conserve water resources. Fiscal resources, such as state and federal funds required for the implementation of the build packages, would be consumed and unavailable for other projects in the region. However, the funds invested would benefit the travelers of the roadway and transit facilities and the communities relying on the roadway and transit facilities for connectivity to other communities. • Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3.25-2 qui • N oRrx I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 26 Cumulative Impacts • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.26 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations What's in Section 3.26? require federal agencies to identify and 3.26 Cumulative Impacts analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative 3.26.1 Methodology impacts of a proposed federal action in 3.26.1.1 Scoping and Agency Coordination 3.26.1.2 Geographic Areas of Analysis sufficient detail to make an informed 3.26.1.3 Time Frame for Analysis decision. A federal agency's responsibility to 3.26.1.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future address these impacts in the NEPA process Projects was established by the Council on 3.26.2 Affected Environment 3.26.3 Environmental Consequences Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. 3.26.3.1 Land Use The CEQ regulations define a cumulative 3.26.3.2 Water Quality mpa�t as 3.26.3.3 Wildlife 3.26.3.4 Wetlands 3.26.3.5 Air Quality "...the impact on the environment which 3.26.3.6 Historic Properties and Districts results from the incremental impact of an 3.26.4 Conclusion action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." - 40 §CFR 1508.7 • Direct and indirect impacts were discussed by resource in the preceding sections. This section addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative and the two build packages. The analysis of cumulative impacts takes into account past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of responsible party in the regional study area, to determine the environmental impacts that might result from each alternative. In accordance with CEQ guidance, analysis was performed using available or reasonably obtainable information. 3.26.1 Methodology As part of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process, a methodology was developed for the analysis of cumulative impacts that included the following steps: ► Identify the resources to be analyzed for cumulative impacts through the public and agency scoping process ► Establish appropriate geographic boundaries for the analysis ► Establish an appropriate time frame for the analysis ► Identify other actions affecting the resources of concern including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions ► Document impacts to resources from past, present, and future projects and determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative impacts • Cumulative Impacts 3.26.1 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 3.26.1.1 SCOPING AND AGENCY COORDINATION • Cumulative impact analysis is resource-specific and is generally performed for environmental resources directly impacted by a federal action and/or identified through scoping as being key resources of concern. Agency scoping meetings were held in February 2004 and May 2006. At these meetings, project needs and potential and cumulative impacts were considered. The following agencies were invited to attend these meetings and/or submit comments in writing: ► Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) ► Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) ► Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) ► Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) ► United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ► Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ► North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) ► Regional Transportation District (RTD) ► State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) ► United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ► United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ► Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFRRPC) • Agency scoping and coordination identified six resources of concern to be evaluated for cumulative impacts. All social, economic, and environmental resources were considered before identifying the important issues within the regional study area. The identified areas of particular concern within the regional study area are: ► Land use (growth) ► Water quality ► Wildlife ► Wetlands ► Air quality ► Historic properties and districts 3.26.1.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF ANALYSIS The geographic resource boundary to be used for the cumulative impacts analysis is based on the resources of concern and the potential impacts to these resources under a build package. For most resources, this boundary consists of the regional study area for the North 1-25 project. East-west boundaries extend from US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) rail line to approximately 3 miles west of US 287 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line. North-south boundaries extend from Wellington to US 6 in Denver. The regional study area spans portions of seven counties and includes more than 38 incorporated cities and towns. • The air quality analysis considered a wider area for the analysis of cumulative impacts to reflect the boundaries specified by the Early Action Compact (EAC) with EPA. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.26.1.3 TIME FRAME FOR ANALYSIS The time frame for the analysis of cumulative impacts should allow the analysis to recognize long-term trends while remaining focused. Time frames are typically based upon the availability of data or a meaningful event that has influenced existing conditions (construction of a highway or railroad, for example). The time frame established for this cumulative impacts analysis extends from 1950 to 2030. These dates were based upon the availability of aerial photography (1950) and the project horizon (2030). 3.26.1.4 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS Current and reasonably foreseeable actions within the regional study area include development, transportation, and infrastructure projects that are expected to occur regardless of the improvements that are being evaluated in this DEIS. These projects, listed in Table 3.26-1, Table 3.26-2, and Table 3.26-3, include those that are under construction or have been approved, as well as proposed developments that are known by planners or developers to be reasonably certain but which may not have been approved or permitted as of March 2007. Developments were compiled from the 2030 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan, the 2030 North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan, the 2005-2009 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and development plans, transportation plans, and capital improvement programs from regional study area jurisdictions. • Due to the size of the regional study area and the number of cities and towns it contains, data collection was based on readily available data and was limited to those communities with populations greater that 15,000. Only two percent of Arvada is located within the regional study area, and no ongoing or planned developments in Arvada fall within regional study area boundaries. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26.3 o m • t�. y C C C a 1.5 E E E c NO a 0) > C 0) > > CO CO O) 0) s'ra` ,_ C 0) O) O) a co 0) O O O) 0) 0) 0) 0) O) O C C C C '- 050) 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) C C C C C C ' E a- 'E C C C C C C C C 'E E E C E E a c a 'E C c E E E E a c C C C w 0 m '6 =o o '0 '5 =o =o N a) m a) a) a) E 0 E a) m 'o a) a) a) a) E co co co CO u O -co C ] > .7 .7 .5 _ ._ 7 'O 7 'O D o ' L '0 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O- .C L .C .C NIW a a3 a) a .o a .0a _or) 3 333 3 3 0 a) 0 33a 333 3 o) aa) aa) aa) a) a — o T Y w T T T T T >. T T T T .0 T .0 T T T T T T >. N T T T T o U 'U 'U 'U 'U 'U U U o o "U 'U 'o .0 o .0 5 5 5 5 5 "5 C '5 U 0 .5 a) to co co co co a) co a) co co co co co co 12 co . co a) co co co co co 2 co co a) co Eaa F to a d m co N m co co m co m co m m a N co m «) m .O- CO CO CO m m m N . CO m m co Q o 0000 00000000000 C U C U U U U U U U C U U U 0 z Y TD J Y co N N v C 0_ co a) o O E 0 c o CD c m o C 2 0 m a0 0 w N N N N N N N a ,N C00 m 0 N co .0 = C N N .�' N D C C C C C C E Ca) E C C O C C C 0 Co > 0 N u m E CO CO CO CO CO m CO E > m m m m m y N m E E ru in c > a) N m a) m a) 0 0 0 cD (0 V 3 > O c0 a) -0 V c0 Oro' o > > 0 0 0 C1 C) C) C) 0) 0) C 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 00. 00 ;203000 O a o O -0 a 0 0 0 0 m (o C N CD N N 7 N O a E 7 N Co J N N N i_ 0 O a a � 3 v v v v u o N E E E E E E E o E E F 2 E E E m c g - E Q ) 2 2 2 2 0 0 () o 0 0 0 0 o C > 0 0 0 o 0 o c D 2 >. >, co co 2 2 3 3 .. C 0 0 a) . 2 '._ w w w — .r w w 0 2 w w w o o N co co to t D N a) o a) a) m w o) N -o a) a) a) C a) a) a) 2 2 O 'o '30 a m m 3 3 3 3 3 3 C V V 'a 'a o 7 'o o m 0 -0 -0 3 C -0 'o a m a O m m c O O m m m N m N O C O m O m O O co_ Cl) rxcezz zzzzc.) § § § § m` (L) fx c § § zc.) §§ 2CC CC siLE 71 IIIP o c 'Sb O T T a T T T T T T a T T T T T o C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C () O J 0 0 0 J 0 J J 0 0 0 O J V Ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "O 'O 'a) D 0 '0 '0 'O '0 o0000 00000000000 C C C 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •� N N 00 NU) N N N 0 0 N N N N CD Q) Q) 0 0 0 '` �E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E -0 1 E E E E E E E E E CO m CO m CO m m m CO m CO m CO CO m J J 0 0) o) o) o O O O OO O O O O -0 -0 -0 'o 'o as -0 -o -0 -0 a -0 'o -0 0 0 0 ' ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ < < < < < < < < < < < 00 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 3 a) Y Y 0) 0) a C 0 a) a) a) 0 d co (6 V a co C U o > m W > a0 m N W a) N O cn >. -� C O 0 N CC c o N q Q m >, m > > `m in 0 2 0 m 0 o a) 2 O p d co CO N o ¢ C O o t m N U U C CO ir) CD 3 m a > a _ ° a 2 > s i... o O N 0 m g m O) fF, co >' LO m 7 L N Q o o m V m `) C to ¢ 0O O O D 'o 20 m m v m 2 m CO aai 3 C7 M c .Cori m y Y 0 o a O. y o N L -0 00C m .c > J m fo 0 'a o >, W W 0 O O m -1‘-'1 N N o CC -- co) Q a—>i o c a m a o o m -0 j °) t d o a) = O a1 i.., z 5_ O C 0 'E C O C N- O C aa) a o E 83 N m0 6 H) • C M N o t C) ` N d �r- m o U > cn - m o > Q ' in 0 m e coo .-N- .. 3 3 am -c c ¢ a •• — C -o a) 2 -51. 0 -0 C ¢ c Ca >. a) d 0 .C V -0 -0 L. E -0 O -2 -2 a0 •o 2 3 _I > 0 3 > o on m = o a) C N .§ a U `m oaoo m &T `m m or a 3 >, a) m m ` o � Ufl > (°n _ 33 aa., Z c `- E aa� aa) aa) N 42 CO O O o o a) 0 ai o hi aj Z' m O a 0 N 5 aj m - N. 7 d 3 5 N C aj E O '0 E a -0 0 0 0 c o m o c o o -o a o O o W C�) o C o m 22 — N 0c0 C>) (+J L0 N 3 C>) L a) N J N U m N N d w m ca m m O) > m N o d a) d 'O U N it U a) L > U C > L .0 C m C C C a) m (.. m '0 m m 1$6 +x' ". •- .LQm Qc' UoLo mQD• ^ o Ear 65 m ¢ Ea ¢ • N -0 3 -oot L V61 ▪fa -i N c co N > N. C o O N 0 0 m 2 N o m r E c0 N }T• N N c • F' cco D > ¢ — W Z W U r N (n m m r- 7 N ¢ m r d cn r- (n (n N co U m (n c/) O u o cri ,:U' .9'' '� 0 O) O> O) O) c C 0) O) C 0) D) 0) 0) co 0) 0) O) 0) 0) 0) ' " C C c c m m U C C O C C C C C C C C C C C ,.•` (� o a C C C C �, C C C C C C C C C C C C CCCC Fa a) 0 a) m "O a) 0 0 y 0 a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) 0 0 In 'm O -0 a 7 'O 'C .= C 'O 'O a) 'O V 'O 'O 'O a 2 7777 i W o 0. 3 33 3 co a a) 3 30 3 3 '3 33 3 3 3 33 3 ., T w > Y w w > > a > «>. .> .> > > >. o 1— .5 .0 .0 .5 .0 U U U U .� U U U U U U U U U U U co a7 a> co co coca C C y> co C CO CO CO CO C CO CO CO CO a a s a a n a a a c a a Cl Cl n a a n n n a E a7 tom co fa (a C co may co a7 a7 a7 al a) m CO CO CO m O 15 00000 U U 0 0 0 U U U U 0 0 U U U U z = N -° co V c C (0 > a m o 0 0 f 4 0 0 co N C -O 0 .,_ > 0 'C CO = y D) O m w Co 0 c M a) a) co U a) w a a m a) (n ` m Z O C � � N C a U ND "O m >i EQ' O y N ,, m o C O 0 C C . N co co W y C y) U) in u) co U) 'Cl O. a) a) a) — tL„ m O C C o N a) a) a) o a) O '0 o a) a) a> o `y .` C C C C U m U E O C C C C O -5 -5O C C C C O O 0 co C ° mH N 0 co co co co C0 -- C co co co co O 0 V V n C -0 O '0 C .c re > c V n n n (O ._ (n7 n co n- n OD) 0 0 O 0 6 CO E E J O.o OOOO 00 0 0 0 0 ea C NN N O � 2 CM .0C .00E0 NNNN0 't '- •tNCNn NN 0J 14 5 EE E m 'u) t2W3m30c -0 EEEEEEcQ) EOEEEE 0 0 O 'C c , C U D T E T E a) m O O O O p` O C c O E 0 0 0 0 W. w O O O L O t0 a) a> a) '2 O` r= w w w w a) O C a) r`- w w �' C O O C y ° ° 3 > 3 > o 0 a1 C C C C C C C C > C C C C T} as N C ° 'COnyOO � Oa ._ CN >NNN .- a � maO` aaaa U (n z § HsUc2Um Em .EaEN > > § . NCt § g § § §- E 11, • _U C ≥ N jy f7 0 c O pp o E ar g u '° -0 -0 "o c c c CO c (II c c c v 1,, E E E E H > > > > c w000 U U UUUU 0 0 O 00 C . o 0 o O 00 co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n, CO m` m m 0 0 0 0 0 w (7 W W L.L. u- u_ W W W LL 3 a) `N Y n a) C U co p r U a Q CO o rn Q a0i > O t C -N0 C P. a ≥ O J U E N C C@ O 0 CO 2 Q p 'O 0 O O J u7 - O Ely 'O fyC la > (n O Y m0 a) co N O N 0 2 a) T m 4- o;'. 0 C .E ° E d' a) 3 2 a) O a) O S C Q°. 2 u N CC E aa)) a) 0 0 Q m m cQ > Q a°i = •Em x c a> ,,,,>t. n 0 'Cr > a> al O a) o (J r Y4 Z W 0 a) Cr) Q ti a) (N C Q 0) E C 0) C Y V o H a0 > co — O a a) o a> c co — _C 0 d y Q n o o a>i a) N n o o > p` y m a m co p m `m c ° ° aci ro U . 2 U Q o > —I a u o F. > > 0 a5 ° O a) W U O 0 Cy a .N j j co 0 0 W )f) C C c C O co N .N 0 N 43 a) 0 o O U O 0 a) N o O O 0 — w d N C N N cm, 0m m m E o O COCtW a°i ItU a) u_ > CO W N M > o c c d p m m 0 7 5 CC c o C iD XI P O 0 •— > m a) C 'O m O a) co N N E E m n > N N N N � O CO H - mo n0w > co< D a-, co LLQ (O) O) in CO O & J ca P0W co CO D 0 Y c O C c a7 m a O) 0) m2 C m C C c c C C C C CO C C C y c C C O) U m 0) C O) C C C C C C C cm O) O) O) d N "0 aC) O N �o N 'o t N v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aa)) O "o V o N � 8- m a) a3c3 ac) a 0 _0 _0 0 -0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .0' fl -0 a ,!, W g aO o m F4• g ~ a O u) O O 0 .O .O .O .O .O .o 'O 'O .O .O .O .O .O .O .0 'O '0 'ftm 0 m m m m m co co co co m m m m CO m co m co m CO ii IL- a-Oaa a aaaaa aaaaaaa a a a a a E Y it m 0 m co m co m m CO CO CO CO m CO m CO m CO m m m CO O mmUa00 0 00000 0000000 000 00 z - o CU E o 0 0 Es 3 T 'm m co a `o o `o CI C C — y N 0 O m 0) CO N OW N u) N O a) C a O` o c a) a) V) LI) 0 a) o •C 0` O 0 0 a .� O O -O 0 0 m m a) 000) 0000 C O ( O `y •` O) c C C m c _c -0 m at C C C C C C C O m O (a O m m — m m 0 c c o m m CO m m m m CO "0 o 0 `0 0 a° N O �° •v v a o -L ° o 7 V V V 7 V CO 3 O c C c p O- O 0 -r_ o c 0 , m e m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m E E E It 0 -0 m • CO - 0 0 3 0 0 c 3 3 3 3 a) Y O V .C N N y C c O j( C (0 N N N N N N V 00 00 s. � a E t E c E mo o c o o a3 EEEEEEE E c c c c Q t y 2 -82' E 2 C E � t T t c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 -- -• t N -5 >' a C p_ C O) C C > 3 7 C C C C C C C (tI O O u) y O 0 ' 0) 0 0` N w •o y O O O O O O O `O N N - m E N - o o X 72 Y N 32 al O' 0 0 0 0 1 -0 'O 'D S- V .F o o E o u) o f 0. 1 0 n 6> ct .=_ cdoetoz 3 � UUnUnoc...\-1 in g O c c T T T T a0 O._ O CC CC E ai > > 5 5 > �•+ c c c c c 0 ; 00 00 U 0 c) 0 iN E) O O O 0 O T T T T T T T T T T T TO O 's 0 0 0 U 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` y N N 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0) a) a) a) a) a) c E E EE C. -c t t -c -c 0 00000 0 0 0 0 O 0 _c .Z Li_ LL LL LLL LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0' 0 -o' CO CO CO a 5 3 co tu 4... N in > 0 N = ad N C P (O m0 N a co (n CO CO u) J � CO Lo V co c ° 3 (v 0 m o Lo CO o O r a) .7c2 m C (n u) /n in N (n 2 ',- .2 � N 0) >U 2 r O) 0 2 Q) - V E j o O O T O O N O o OI-I 0 7 E o o a) N 0_ 0 m CO m 2 z s wi E E 0 Q Z, aci c 0 .- (5 M d O bm y o O > m A a) = � � 465 65 > Co w z >, v ma Q w rintA o � 0 " � 0Q Cr rro o CC t. O m — 7 1� O C S T a D) D) N. CO" C N Q' N CO U m .r v it U 2 . C c o ro m Q Cr) C c, U x o O H O O V -p 2 J 'N C N Y O) 0) 0 'E O 0 T YO O UO w r-- 0 r5 a CU U 0 0 o in m aci x m m `c 3 3 "4 3 3 m u) L0 M N N o (N ch x w a a O 0) 3 o m at N 0 N 2Luz 2 CC CC 0 W . M c m .S cn = 2 0) > O ch aa) aa) T To C o 0 (n U 0 lil m • O O C V O O V V u) d' n ro > > > > J 0 (Si (O N N- i V A E Nr a � > (h (hero OCNQQinQQ � cro cor co co • OO cis m m x Cu` z Cu) (fir (O co 3 > 2in O co o) >>m > 2 CC cc ct H 2 co O H 7 7 V r D H < (n CO r N ro u) 5 < u) 00 0 U s. O t M1x') « N E E ; - c N N m m O m m �^° 3 cc O 0) 0) 0 C C 0) m 0) m 0)— 0 C 01 m C 0) - i 0) C C " 'O U C C C c c 0 'O c 0) O) 0) c U C d i73 0 a0) O N E Cu N 0 N 0 O N E.0 u ac) '"C—O t '-C—O N L ac) y 0 'O -° 17 c a) C C :0 :0 -O 7 0 o 2 c 'O -= -5 5 :O c :0 N W o a s 3 3 m a) a) 3 3 3 3 3 0 o al a) 3 as a 3 a) 3 I--I o T « .> «-o -c, N «« > « > «E C T«««««.>. « F U 0 0 a a L o 'c O c o U o m .� a) a 'V .0 'V _U o .0 .0 .0 70 m m m E m m m m m m m 'y w m m m m m m m m a aaa) a) a) aaaaa aa- c a`) a) aaaaaaaa O E Cu m m . Y .-. m m m m m m co m m "' Y co m m m m m m co `o O U O00 ES OOO U O U U J ... m OOOOOOOO z 2 -0 0 C Cu E C m 17 -0 m c a) m > O a) m m o m c a w o 0 m E m ON N Y m m O` co E 3 U c a) am a a� 3 ad 'c an d C O m en U) C cDCc Cu 0) 0) 0 u) N 0) 0 - E -2 c - O O C c Q O c CO O C m o o m a) m m m m C 0 0 c m `y .` E u) c m N ) ° ° c C C c c -O o m a) 3 O O c a) E 0 ca c ;- c V o a) a) 7 c0 c0 7 7 O O > N C 'c 2 a) o d E 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 3 o E E c o a m m0 c.,4 c E Co c 0-N N N N N O m �a_) O d o a) a) X c E 4 c ma! E o 2,f, sE E E E E E -c — C E O C C m c o Q U 0 >. m 0 U c 2 >. >. O O O c 0 0 0 a) m 0 m m y 2 2 m m O C) 2 C C 2 m .. Cu m c w r—c m w w '0 7, EEao N2 a a) a) co C `n m •° :o o m o o o •° v •° ° -° a 0 o o o o a°) o o o o - ° a t c.) c21..) = 0a 2cccc C'•I � ZIYr ° CCCCUUftns � Er- • b ≥ N q C) O C >, T T A •ti Vba 0 C C C c T >. >. d O O O O 3 N 0 W U U U °U ow a) a) '0 '0 'O CO O O ° ° C_ C_ C_ .� 'c a`) a) a) a) > > > m m cca m m ° O O m mE E E °m 0 t Pt E EE C > > > > > > > > o `° 6>)) ,)) >a) a>) a) 0000C _: J J J J J J J J J J J J H > > > > > i+ ..n 3 0 >` y m V V m 0) M a) O U) O ^I 0 = L C a u1 m 715 r N C CO m N O O N. O O UJ > MM « u) a a) a a) i 0 Q `� a) c„.) o O 0 C `O «O (O y O O LL C C) U m 0 0 > '0 r r 0 Qi O m co -0 0 Q c_ °i J > u) N a) .c c a N )f) > it 0 Q' 2 > C E 0 0 t m 0 7N N > U r of = C btr) = > a) O H Z (m0 .c C H C co O N C N u) 'O r N C U 7 a) t` c co0 ° o) 2 a> io r` c ° c ° a>>ci m 2co Q ° et LL a° o CL C C — a° ° > ° ~ V C CV 43 O 1H 0 C c ° O N m N - CO < 00 C CC m C � : LL co N L N NO 'O U am m m p m u) 0 N m .> 0 O m > m c 0 (. rn y ei a_ .3 � Ec oo � D co tea' � � Q � > aci t o r0„ U tii � � L0 m � � OnL0 u, m`lcniTh o � Mw m ° taarmi eg O r)i CC a' a' au o i cn 0 0_ o 2 co 0 o co co o f ° N S0 1 F. O OO mM OOcn » 7mOU- Oa_ DDctO � ra0u) '.44 d CCCC CCCCCC •E. 4 '> O o O O o 0 o O o 0 H✓ A 0 Q 3 3 0 c c c c c 0 0 0 0 N N N J c 'Cu a) a) a) c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0) o) o) 0 To aJ ` 2 2 12 0 0) N 0 N N N 0 N CD CO .�.0 co co vl 1m cii a a CCCCCCCCCC 0 N N I1� c° c c c 0000 -0 -0 -0000000 m 0) 0) w a a�ai c co co m o o o o > > > o 0 0 o O o c c c U .E a �. a o d o o N o 0 o o o a) o a) N •C c c c a) c a a -o a a a v -o -o a -o 0 O o c c c c a a a c c c c c c a3 a) co CL CL �C o _ /� @ 000 N N o N N N ;.. t- y o c a C 'm N O J J J J J c J J J J E N E a oO J 0 co NN_ N )n N 7 N co J N O CO O 0 0 0 CO aN ro � � COoovrCOCO — O E o = a) w .- ,- V r) CO 7 N N r) r C > o c "O N 0 6- >.4-,..-' E a t ac) ac) 0 0 0 0 0 aC) 0 0 0 0 0 ..,: r...., .0. N O. 0 m - c 6 'aiE aN Ea)) aaaaaaaaaaaaa Ewe -0 c E a m d `u o:N �° o o� o OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a.- 0 0 0 a7 E ° a) r C o a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 J m o E a) 0 J .. > oNa) ca 0 J C 0 0 O > > > > > > > > > > > > > a) c t "00 a) 'O a 3 '0 N E E 0 '00 N -0 '0 "0 "0 -CD CD CD 0 -0 -0 -0 '0 'O "O 'O CD t 0 N .� t a O 0 0 .(7/..° 0.O 0 N aa)) a.- a a0) -0 N CO CO CO a (6 CIS0 co co .0 co 0 co C N -0 N .6 N 0 J t c N 2 0 J �O 0 N„ N J c c c c c c C C c c c c c c J J cu c c 0) N 'C 0 N O 000 0000000000 :O O N a) 0 d m C C N 00 "O 'O p p :0 _0 "0 :O "0 'O -0 V 'O >.N N EO (0 C _ _ co O N O O c — N O p N .. en N 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 CO N E — O w a) CO a) Mr "air 4. 0)2ra' Cr Cr Cr 4: Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr C 2ao o aa. I in u R c a O -o ALE U C C C C C c C C C C C c C a) y 'O 0 0 m 0 0 0 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4` N -o -o -o -0 -0 ID ..C .C L L L L L L CC L -CC MP c0 > > I3 3 3 3 3 J 0) 0) 0) 0) 00) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) o c c ar ' m it it it it m mmmmmmmmm mm mm it 00 3 U Y. .. N A., C 3 0 co E +' 0 a) LL CU 0 a) a) 0 ) 3 J No (1.2 "C N C _ a t c E U Z " a d 5 m 12 o 0) a; a U T CO C0O) " 0 _ CO T rn 2 o > 2 0 d d n a) ca ° -oT .0 0 c r -o co Q Zm 0 -5 co d m im y = m o (0 ~ a a>i Z d r0 m LL C c 5 0 ra 'p Z -c (a co CO j) a) o 0) a " v o E .. N v m e o. N_ Z N 0) O U) CO N > co 7 V co N c N. m co co O �_ N a 7 0 O) Y J N a) 'O k J m O N m M 0 y LL N m a) 0 c c .c N E Y o -o O E N .N C J J J 0 a -0 N Y 0 m r O 1.1143 "' 0 0 U m a) c c Ta d ll o c a) d m a) co d aciv i O ,a; 0_ 0 a� E o o o o �, N 0a. of Z U __ o rcO U -c > co V . a) 2 a (0 o L L E E E m x as 0 m - s N a) a) 0 O rtl o 0 o (0 N N C I- ° L O 'O OS L ° co r .c c CO N N o • H > m m I- .j CO CO aaaCOI- <D 0- t) a0m C O m m 'O E a C > C O CCECC -O C C C 41'1/4 in O O O N 00000000 O N N aa'i a 'o v v o t w m m 2 a C > > > > > a 2 2 2 U1 is (n U) N N c a C .O o C C C C C CO C C C HI'1 Q O) c� c O 'as O O O > O O O O O a O O O r�r W V C C C N N N E N 2 N N N N N N N N E O 0) (0 C C C O C a C C C C C C c a C D O E 0 �j c N O O e F N N C CD N u N C O) O O — m >. an — C CO c -p _ O O N M N a) .N co (n L y a) m E >. CO I" M co a E O) .o O7 O .O O N CD O LOO -0 N a h .N L N C N N CO CO CO C LO N .. .. .. .. .. 0 C C'� C o ul > 0 N N E N � C" 4O = c [0 a) c) o f N C N C N 0 N C C V u) a) .m 0 OO _ C > > > ,_ > C O O E O c Sa N N > C > C > 0 > '=O �. 0 m 0 C o 0) N N N> c N p N O a) O O .O O N O a) O N N N N C O RS V a) V a 'O -O "O N "O - N C T_U "O TC C C 'O N -O N -O "O "ON O "O CU N .� 0 a) (6 co (a fO j N .Yl C1 E m o o _E C N C N 00000 co co a..' N p N N C O C C C C =p a+' N C m 2 O) 2 O1 C _ C al C C C CO _ C C O) a) N N a) — a) >.= O C a) a c o a a) a a) N 0 o m 'C = O .E - 17 >•-O E -o -en- Oaf op a) in - V) - p = p O -O v :O T._ .O a) x0 `m m a) Ea) a) voOOa0 .NtroC' 0303a) oOam N 0E : 00 2 ccia Li- W aa Itcm -o - 0 2 � a 00 -0o -oara .- LY a a m Ea .c u) —I o eel c co C o E O ' E a . bA in coN N in cocoto U) ≥ co y 0 N N 4) N V) N N m co > > > C C C C C CCCCCCEC C C CC CU W CO CO O) N CO CU CU co a) (0 N N 4 ' O 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W U i C r N 0 a) N N y M C C O V V .S N O > > .p .p = _ T C C In LA in c ¢ < ca C co @ c0 M V L\ 3 N N N CD O O j N a) a) V O > 2 N E @ (7 co N 7 .O >` C CO 0 C O C (n O L ¢ ¢ N 3 0 Po CO 0 C N c U c c _� > t' Y ¢ 2 OO a p 2 7 C -acn _0La ¢ EC a (n C C C O Op N •O O 2 71O- co O c a n Na) d N- C CD C a) 045 (n C C O O (`p N M 0 ] w CO N E E 0 co O - '6 O ar a) C% Q L ac) t . 3 > O 0 L > < N 12 co 0 m E a a`n) o o ¢ o C W r in " a O 65 U Z co. > U z CO N Z N N E .C c v '0 U O _c C C O M '' 3 (n o a) N J T c co ty O` O m C — N U 'E U C o N O -0 "0 a.) C C N a n c° > mow ' d Z ≥ 6 z z r 3 > a) o Ea 0 c an _ n (n a E a a) L C1 a) 1) 0 in N O 5=-14- a a) c o E > > 'y F- 3 3 a)m o m N N N " O Y C (a U Ual N (/O inc a) N 'OO V N O N �O a a) x Y c m O O Y W y r CPS w 0 .2 c° a C a) > ¢ E UQ cina 0 co0 _i a @0 j CD N U E > o aoi 0 U O= m �s d`- O co` a) CU a c 0 N p O ¢ (� � .C CO 2 N Y a) a) a) E c O) C o co Y .-�I ul O) m L a1 O N a) C O C U co og O R or a) a) O Lu) . O co a) L C 0 N C O c ' .. co N a) �' a) > - > 7 C W a Om ¢ (n CON 0 F— co _ Z co 03O (n av) a cn K ¢ a ¢ F— > C C C C C C C C C C C C C C • a 0) a) a) a) co C ) ) a a) a) a) a> a) E E E E 3 E E ° E E E E E E E E b a) a a a aa) a a 3 o -o o -o o � o -o - o o -o ` ov o-o o-o o-o o-o o _o-o of (N 4 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 8 C O > O O c a) O O O O O O O O O O > O O O O N �1 -capd-O a -O d -O c -D a O -a a-O n v n v p_c `O_-O c v n-O a 1 ;7.� $ a a a a m a a a a a a a a i-i o ) Fat m o m Fi g a) c t m m o m o Fat; m o m o c t m o m -- C .—. C .—, Cma) a d o a) a 0 o m a m d ' o m C Q C C C � C � C C C � C � C � 0 m Q m Q m O m N O m 0 m C Q m Q m O m O m O m O m O m O LCC E a_ o.a. aa_ a o_ a a 0_ a a. aU aria_ as ad aa_ aa_ aaz.a_ a CD c- O O a) CO T r 0 0 a) 0 O O N O C C C M .N. NE C m c v Zr) To.4 a) E m x E v) _O m co O O Oc C) w6 N L C =O) 0 L @ m . 2 0 U E .5 LoT O ` ? O co y N. .. T t/) N U O ≤ ?` O l0 O U O N C .^� C C Ea) U co a) 7 a) ea N m o Q C 3 O O CO Q CO Ct co I. r O a E E a E T E c o a) m g > g 2 rn th E o aa� O.= a- o M a o 00 a) rn c 0 OO O U O of O o O E _ M MO- O o m r O) C (.0000 ._' C� O a) Or aNi O > N > � � E m 0 � in a) N '� ,� mom0 om es o a) •t € o -coN tr-- a) a) c m h a in 0 0)05 N ,- > N- O M 'on c m m o C U) cc) C C a P C ;.I OCLs is m Jaw oy 0 uj a) �O 70N2 N O 2 Om a) > ON o Om 0y J W c j c oi C O o T) O a` O N M m ,- ` N N LUp ) = a'p y 0 71). 2 y a, a `1 'C o V 7 T.o T N 7 m m j Tri) d ace) j O O N V1 m J . J L N y J o J C C E ) m xa m E a) E co Ws aa) E a') _ Lo o� do 0 . um a) > •N d X aa) 0 E a) v Ez 2 md' Oa' a mC_ rr CC alp or CC Ua_ r UV CC O � E0 CO CC dCCOia_ OU0r )n — U 1 a -+ O a) N co N 0 0 N is N 0) 0 0 0) 0 0 0) E G O 'U C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C b 5 -- b50 O O O O o o o O O O O O O In O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 .` C C C 'C C C C C t C C C C -C C C adz () oo-) LL LL 11 LOL U. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Li. LL LL LL = U C •w r C C a) • 3 C co C N O N ° O C y a) 2 C N N a' -0 1n a)> O m a) J L m m p LY U N O C .> EV al Cn CB o d L U O -O C N _ N _0) >. -0 LL ) c oI. 0 r'r C OO N H a) G CO O m O `) a) co a) y 2 0 (0 W N N @ m a) t9 a) N N cli 171 15 °D c 5 5 com O E 2 LY O y L a) o lL u o c �° o E H m -o U U m D r LY 0 O J co J H C o m d' m O O O CO O m 2 't E -o = C a - m a E m z w m c m a) E F U O a) d O Y F /� O N ~ ? U N a) L OU N L a) E J (. C > a_ O J 0 in C (a o � >a o 5 c a_ E - a) w m is a) E o ,- o m > o a`) N O v) -o 0 U O CO m L ,.�es o c _00 0 co y to co aa) a) m a) m `'K > 0 a) C c °a a w 0)) .- aa) cid L = E m o t ac) O o -o o m Ca) 0 o) O N N O L N C (o co m c > >, U Q C Z m m ≥ CO _ m a N cc a o 3 a o ai g m o) a) 2 t z E > C a m m > v) W [M U O .. N ¢ -c .o m m m a c0 , nacLL O a) O N LL C O N v o a) m > o m m a) co CC > m 3 c 2 W 0 a) m . R V Z N m m a O 0 a) L 0 0_ >.J H m m .C O U .c m G O R O V ` N `m 'C T N .? x0 o O -C 2 O t aim N N (a O .c F2 O • 'C� dW ¢ m O w O WO LL LL J LL m0 2UWILF CH H (7 r o V 'O 'O V }�..* > > > > e 06 O O 2 2 O 2 C N E C C $. E -> a a j a o '> a o O ' N Na a r o p cu m a> a> a> t- a> O E a> ` 0 Vii_ co a1 o CO a> C T T C T C T L(� � y a>i o w C -o E c E c o E 0 0 i W o a > m m > o o -, > o o U o o ° ° O co O cc 2 a) 'O 'O E a) '6 N m 17 a) a> 0 t2 CO a @ aJ cc a N - O 0 a N O C N O CC E d nQ a a Q D U U Q D U D D O D D O `o Z C m C in 0 N -0 _ _ 0 C C O ° "O O O co N -0 O P O 0 a> --c E a= o 0 N. 0a2 T _ co a v C a> 0) co 6 a1 a E CO C N N C ° ° a) G O O a> y C N (O N .- o a> N "O a) co o in -oc . > En ° ° o C E c .. In o' clop E ° C '0 « ° 5 o) E -0 o E E. m E o a) E o0 3 ,0'� N E a a>a> E C °'a E c o o 'Eao > E aNcootl1N 'O co a o 0 c) m O -.0 7- o a r o a) a) 0 2 E M C O) c a 0) o a) �V,. aN> o 0 0 N c O ° > O - c a>i c o a o N o 0 0 > aa) w -o m a d cl C C c 0 'L> N N 22C -0 0 a3 a1 -O E a) o C O a> a) N a) -0 a— 1 E N ° E ..N� co N 0 N E N 'U 0 co C c° -°° E ° E m E E °) E N u°)> ° in Q a � a) E -0s -cn -0 CCasa a aoaa> > 00 o c> 2 O = tea° ° c°n ° ° ° ° c 0 a) 0 0 co oC o 0 0 0 ° oaN � oo C NC7E m -o ° oca> � ° movo � � E@ i 0r U -ov 0 -u wvn200 EC.) �ro0 CCr0 ° 0 ED 00 o0 LO Or N pit U C 0. • OD O a — C C C C C C C C C C C C C ry • ;� O C y N rT, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > N a E E E E E E E E E E E , c N U 0 a) c a) C E c 0) O) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) o 6- C a) `,k 0 ° O C C C C C cc C cc C a) —) LL U -, U U J U J J J J J J J J J J J U C _ .w a) a N d C -o > D N _ ID 3 `m > > a a) o ai Q 0 0 c .C 0 x -° aN in r a 3 a> o E o) o o C N 0 C .4_ 0 a d Ci i4 y 0 N CO O C O O it N o m a E N m la a)CO CO m o E a> U cu c „ a> c ti- cu c —W C0 0 C a) 2 ° 3 o- CO P. 0 .C E co > z E (0 E > m c o o o o -o Q o m o m U)) O a> E 2 .j a d z �> m r °) c co E m aNi a m E aco L a> 3 C7 c > C ty z J 'O N O) z _ C N > O -.. ., O Y E Fr C O O ° r>o O .. 'w-th > a) LL O 0 y c 0) m ° oa�`� cn 0 m ° t= ddU L N- 0 U) c00 0 Cpl : L K E co co c U o y p - 0 C)) >0 a)C a) cell ac) m 'viol') CO a E N 8 0 in O) U > Y C a> y > C > aO>.• 0 V m N oN co E -c)c T 0 x o 0 -0 -°c - 3 E o a o C c moo a x czlN N a) ° m u) m o a' U CO c o > .� € a) co E a) 2 0 w V N 7~ N T Z` a> fi N 0 aN> — x O > > N .` - a) D a ft ° E LLJ d ei w m a. C C C D r 0 C a) N 0 aa a) C CU) L N 'C .- 0 co :.6 m C co C ° > 0 in T O Qd ^. a) -o 7 a) m o -� v� 3 m i� C Q a) E o t o)U r a) -° _a eg cc ? co (7) E y ca a) -0 5 E2 a) m 0r CC< > .N o)CC � mC co n s n Cod . a To L C —,m E a ° Q ° m ° o m c o m o 0 F � � � o W it 0 H co < oo < fMU UmDcow co0cpxcrx 0 0 0 a) • > > > C N N 0) N 0 2 2 a) a) 0 N N 2 .5 .5 .5 .5 5 a a '> '> .> > '> a �a J .0 ° d ° a) a) N N 2 ° ° 2 d a ` co o w N C C E E C T >, C C C C C a ° a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) ea (n c E E E E -o E c c E PEEEE c i ILI g o a a 0 0 > a o o a a) a a a a o 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 �, a`) a) a) a) a) 2 a) -C '6 a o a) d a a) "O > > > > a > c C > a > > > > C o c a) a) a) a) a a) 0 0 a) a a) a) a) a) 0 E 0 Q 0 O Q 0 o Z a rc w co O) I C O N 2 c o m a) o J >_ m u) p o .v 2 E a) c) a) a1 ?� .o '0 ) r Cu M N L O ul .y �a _) N f� N V L (O d M M (O r- o J N O O M C • CT .. '0 tilt) .. Or .. .. C .. a1 c a1 U •.. .. .. .. ca co (y C O W C U>CU a) C W C C p C C C C O C ° y a E N m O. ERE N a a a C a M a c 0 a a a co a� E S c ° o G co C O o O " O O p 0 o J o o V (n o O O c o c a o 0 a a7 a) " al a ' 0 a) a> a) > C o a) a) 0 0 a) ° C) O .Vr 0 O O .= a) J N °) a) 0 O a) a) ? a) io 0)y co N a) a) 0 o E > to C a) (a C , c L "O o) in t C o co o o -o c_ S "O a) -o "O a) o "°O > ?+ a) ° ° (a m .S ° T0 O m m CO .4 a m m E m a) - 0" a) m o m m o m c 0 w o -o a N a '- C co co C -p C ° ` C ° C o C -� ° O ° Ca. c C C c E 2S O O a) 3 ° a) a) a) C ° 0 0 m a) a) a) ° '- a � a) Eao7o >.1 a m c � 0a o :o >. Eo ° oad :o o 6 :o -0v >. E o C1 > M > E .N 7 O .N ._ ° C T Ny co .N c( a) .—a> E Ed °" a) C a) (.) (V Ea) O a) E En "O 0 O0 U° cer O � mct .- U -oLLr— CCMd' S° U � (nCC O CC d' I- CC ° 2a O a V) In Ta a3 c n f. O 0. EN •� V 0 -.- 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y E EE EEEEEEE EEEEE E IIIM N•� .c 0) co co o) a a O) 0) o) a) o) O) O) O) 0) 0) C C C CCCCCCC CCCCC C 0J 3 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E J Jr J J J J J _I J J J J J _J J + C.) C .+ E a) •.4 ° ° C C a> 0 ° Cu a) Y 0 c L N 0 0 = in d L > C 0 = c C Cu I a) r p = Q Cu Y V C ° r a! coN N C a c a S a L u o d c c > 2 LL ≥ E o i... co a) (n 'O a U O m N O a) _ °) O O Q Q ° N N a) E 2 N cn C L d (n i� _ a) N- 0 3 0 E L r- y (n m a a) up ° 011 at N O j v c c c ° I o c o a Q 0 i a� c o co co m.o E A. 111 m o m a) t �_ > > ° �_ 0 c0 2 U `o ^' J a) c c 0 C 0 ° U 0) 'I ° t cci O N in O 0 y c CO0 c° cp m c Q L p L Q CD 0 Wp .c o //�� Z a) a) (O o O J O° O L C -C C F�1 N d? S C 0 J Vl ° 0 J Cu ° Cu u) (n I 0 c y 0 a) (n C u) p Z a) w L ° E m m 3 ° N ° •C o > o 3 0 0) a) w -p a) ° ° . m E et O O Cu L r 0 a 0 w C '° 0 N E O N O` .a a O d J L p Cu O ° a) c = ° > V) a ce a ° p ° 0 J J a) .C ≥ L Q L j in 000 E ° C .0) oa) Y N €.0 .°`• (n 0'cii J o0 Z .0. °O 00 -0° L ° J E J N N O ° (n ai t co 0 7 0 , (n Q O C O J w a O co ._ N o a) > > > m cmaa 0 c°) J )- 00 � a) - o o c°)c m z a) - W d [n ca 2 c c Ems C ° C x U N C J Q. N a)c coca a.~ a1 1,1) ° ° )O O W (n > N al " > ° C 0 ° N ° T a) a) � N a) w 0 it (n:75O ia- 0t ° `ao) °De ° 0.) ‘_ r 75 a)N o .c ° c ° ° m 0 ° Coo 0 ac)cot') EU H I 2 ,- 2 (n - - - d0it cai2 (0O (0 ascoKHCC — 3D X • ;- d pi = C C £ 0 0) C a) a) f,..? 0 c O E E *, t = A a `mal a a a0 ?C'p'' c N L a 2 ru> > a co O o a a I11 C�I A N .o o o c a oo a a" n y Z IN-) w o > JO u) C > O r -..O" r O N C O) O) O C C 2 U °a E o E a a E c c E E a a v c c c c = c c d o a E o a c o 0 0 00002 m m a E ¢ � a a ¢ MO_ a (7 aO as a a <n a a z ma `o 0 o) d) o 0 o 2 c T y c' 0 0 m ° o L N .N N N • Cc = C O O 0- 0Q y a 00 O L - V N 0 F-, N C 3 M - d c o o .. o C 0 0 .. .. E 0 .O .. .. ... .Dr,. c N O E c• in V) c N- O ac) U W a) 0 41 N O O U (Q a) 0 Ti L6 v E aoJn � a) aE . ( EL) E2 > o roa'0 E E ;. It a o Em O E -o a o am au a) 0- )n � n"Dis n o O M N CO — > 0 .N_. (O OM O N '5 .r. N a) 0) O _ O Nr N a) D p • LO CO U_ N ..Vr of O -8 O N > J O > .N. a) N c O O a) o C > c ° N ° N a) o C -O N at CI C .C O)C >` m - m U c -a- 0 -00 -0- c2 c N C —O 7 a) c m N PTY. E O O is 0 0 CO al N. O ° :0 a) o to a0 (o (o > ° 6L ° 7 -° vE 30 -° aEEtEo aoi ° v >.7 >• .-0 —a°) a) )EEo7Eao > ° 2 >w a7)') °c) 00 E -o 0c E o N E > Y a>i m -- .7) 'E ° > ° > E ` E 0.E 0 V) 000CC U) ,o 2NHUCt ° DaO3C � C@2 a) a) w ^y U L O a 03 • t a) o N 00 -0 -0 -O "0 -O -O -O v -O "O O d CD _. .5 C cc C C C C C C C C C ,o O W N N .N N .N co m al o o a) as co 0 o a1 aJ ei o a) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J J J J > > > > > > > > > > > > J aJ —) J J J J J J J J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U W -° N C c O N0 0 COL cn >> _ a Y COCO J N (3 -o C 0 V = O O L c a) aJ (n O a L J V y O CO > J 'O O M O J S a C a) ¢ c q c 3 -°'o o a) c 0)) (n L H m > u,ca c O 0 15 O c = C Oct J j c O) `) C co 0 5 03 cc o0 0 m U 0 J O 0 o 0 c co1° CO N C 't L J oy L as 0 3 j j 0 O N U 0 O N 0 N co N 0 aJ CO ° o m c0 o LL O d = a) N71) U O C Q w O Z (n ° Z Z N 0 = L (/J CO a) a) b .o .. co E m rtii w H o - `o (.0 C ° a) to a) to (Vtainel' cr) co N O ° i0 E Z ° L- C O N N a o) 5 8 N o d a O La Q O ° c in N c � (q iJid _m (n c w 12 _ Z` E N Z o0 a N > c N W v W - (+i ce co m� @W C moo 5a) 0 N -ooa = E 3 � t O .QJ m ' 3 > > c 2 ° J oJ ° a) mJa`) .E < -o° vl -1-' 0 U Y occr ° @ > a) JaciL ca a o > �_ a me 115 O td F - m 0 a) O C O > O > o) > E o O N k 0 H C7cod Z J > ¢ W (n ¢ 2 w O ¢ H f H � N e a e� m j m ... .... N 0 t° (° N 0 0) N U) N a a a a a a a a O) 0) 0) O 0) ` '; .. o m CO CO CO m CO in r�- ea y Z Z w CO as as co a _ _ _ N n n n N 1.1 a C CO CO CO CO C C C C c @ c c c c W o .E •.E .E .E 'E E E E 'E a a a 'c 'c 'c 'c .- .- .- .- 1.1)- .- .- C (0 f6 N C C C C E d d d d d N N co C cc CO (1) DI CO E d d d d d 0 d d d it it it a d d d `o 4 .S p C N N N .N. N O O F-� N . N N N 0 N N N pl 01 O O)'? 'c W c 01 N C) 0) 0c O) 'c 0) -N N N J tF C 'E 'N C C C N CO N 0 = T N L N N 0 J N 'y +' 'N 'N O N 1° N E E Nri.s c`') O) _ CO r— N N r CO Cu r m M O N CO N N O) >. C) , N r (O N .. _ O C C co C .� C -, C C O C N C E C N C E C N U C C .� .2 N N N a) a) r 03 a) N N N `) N N 0 N E N a N N E (° N 00 " of E EUEE EE E EcEoEEE EUE ! ENa._ E EN O •` a a am CL a� a a0 am aU a O. a- CL or a a0 O O O O ,, O 0 O O o N or� O m O 0 (0 o = O m N 0 o a m ✓ y N N N N N � N r N N U N co N (O N a) 't N E N Q7 > p N N (p O N N N N "O co N N a a) a) N N N N -0 N N t° "0 "0 -0 C -0 C N -0 C "0 V N C -0 C V -0 C -0 -O C -0 V C 0 CO a) co toy°1, m N N N N N V N N a) To u To _N N y) To N To To N To j N To N 'U y To co To C N C C O C O f°— co C O ° C C ° O O C O C N C O C O 2O C 0 0 0r C C O .' p o "0 N -0 T"O at 7 T co 7 m 7 cu L N T"O T-0 U -0 >,'CI J. Cu -0 T E O) -p Cu V J. 'C$ N Cu N U .N ._ N ._ N o ._ 4J N 0) N Y ._ .N .N Cu y ._ N ._ r N ff E .N O .N ._ K � ; (n co ; �° K ,° o ; a° o ; oIXQJa ; f2 ; r ; mlar ; @Ur ; olw° N IS (° C 10 O o O E v O r O -0 -0 'O 'O V -0 -0 -0 'O 9 'O 'O 'O -0 'O 'O OD C C C C C CCCCCCC CCCC a) W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m CO 14 �w > > N N > > > > > > N N > > > N A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = CY„Fs -, J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 3 + U L B O t Y �C C7 o N N -p (D J N N N ~ > No 0 in C L N -p C O 0 N J V m t6 O O O Cu C t° m L N C7 ljj 0 N N C L Z N > j N > -c, N O O •O -0 N d c C N a 3 Q (° L.. C Z M C o N 0 N C > N Pr m m m c N `o o > a) o °� m o M 3 N P g C 3 x 0 O) 2 N 0 0 v O C N Cu d m 'O Y (6) § m L m C N 5 ell C) > N O c N N CO J r 0 o Cp 0 `p m a 0 00 N C 2 _ N -O p (/) C N C -p a) o o C > in N "A o o C Z C 3 a`) m aJ N C a c J '� m CO O L Cu N N E O -t C h C M O C t 0 N N J CO (° > O O i1) > O r 0 O 0) N L N r Q Z L C ZLip N < W N C L a ? .EC U) j N > 0 p w Z o as � ' "I" r c 3 0 a>i w to ' Cu o a TY o TO O O J in C N (O = N O O "P F Z a s s o ? r . (al °n - E C° o m° ° r 092 - a c• O O L a92 o C ` O N its O N .J O C L O a o y z p Y 12 p N W N Z N N N Cu Z V Z O N Z E r >a> aiZ m 2 > , '> N > o > w ai C Y �° N m Y ° C > p).0 J N N N La N O L C C t -- O O W d re) Z C11 ~ CE Em —N. C V miromcr C7 m 0mm Y0Z) t O °J 0 3 N C CO N J N ° O N C a W Cu C N N ° m O tv °)_ _ co co V A C `) OJ_ .a °O N a' a N "o •' Y -t C) c O >N C d Y J 0 N CCI N O H Cn (/J > Q' J J (n V Q J LL J C JM > 1 (/) 0 UOQ Y OLL • l t` 0 A ).. T C C C C C C C C C cc C C C cc 0 0 0 O O O O O O 00 O O O 00 a m y r O .v T) i.1 .0 0 00 O u0 m 0 « 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ' ' ' ' ' 2 o a. 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 in 0) a) a) a) a) O . . (/1 To (A C C C C C C C C C cc C C C cc I� `v 0 0 0 -0 o coot o O O O O O O O O a -0 o N a 0 0 0 0 0 000 %) 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 a) 0) 0) >...i W g a) a> a) a) 0 °o. 0) 0 0 0 a) 0 a> a a a d c a a "O "C 'C c o a a C 'O 'O 'O c O O O E 777 Q D 7770_ D 7 77 7 7 7 DD a s a zc c c) E C C C C C C O C c N N c .... .... C C C a) 0 0 a) 0 m 0 O Cr) 0 0 0 0 0 a) a) E E E E E E > E E ' N E E E E E E a a a a a s a) a a a a a s a a 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o o " 0 0 0 0 0 0 c - t > > > E > > > 0 > > E E > > > > > > ca o o a a o 0_ m 0_ E E a 0 00 a) C .` -o -o -o 0 � a -o a m -o -o a o a a -o -o a a O O a) s m a c o m m E m m m m m m m m a, 0 'u 'e 'u > 'e 2 '2 E •2 2 > > •& 2 2 '2 p a`) a`) a`> -0 .0 0 0 0 0 a`) a`) 0 a) a`) 0 00 a`) a`) E E E c E E E E E -o u) - 0 E E E E E E EEE a E EE @ E E = = E E EE E E 000 O O O ..=. o o c C c c o 0 O O o 0 000 0 0 02 0 00 _ .c c a) 0 0 w = a) D 0 0 00 00 •0 'm m 'CO E a) m .� r , -N 'm m -= in T w •T a 'ca m 2 0 'm 'a _ a s a) 0 ,n d a a) 0 L a) 0 a a) E a) E a) a) 00 E O 0 a a a 0c' a a s W U a a a s @ a w a a a s 0 a a a u tt c a r. o 0 0 0 a) a) a) 0 a) 0 8 m 8 E v, • •O r.0_ 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 a) u) 0 0 0 OCCC C C CCCC C C C_ C C C C CC C_ CC N ad N c c c c c c c E E E E E E E E E E E E E E '� M •tid � 0 0 0 —co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 U) 3 222 L L r0200 O o 0 0 00 0 0 O 00 0 0 0 E U C D m N -O c o N C "O w m c c a) c c> C > O c N a) j co t S co > N 0 a O N ¢ > C cn a (o C C O .c a) 0 0) Q T, C ' C OL n L 7 a) ✓ 0 0 co (V > >. C C co J > V C a) y m O 2 L a) c N Q @ N > O a -a > N > D •o oU (00 o 0 Y v Q r 0_ Q < 0i is f� 0 C c j a = 0 0 � @ c C 0 � 0 0 L > S o a) 0 >� V) S N N _ a L@ 7 O Q c N N L Ai C 0 d C C c E E O "O 00 O L M E a 0_i O -o U a> a) CO ca 0 0 O a) 0 N O E O O `�- 5 0 0 N d OJ 0 'O a) 0 0 C U CD - O N O O O u) c O N 0 C O O 0 0) C E N A, o N m -0 a) c > c a) a) E d o o c o ,—, J — J o m > > N > in N c -D C o L C o u) o 0 CI) E . C > Q Q o Q a) CO C a) O O E E N a> Q a) L o 3 a) d 00 o C O C OO C 3 C 0 //�� O L.. m L_ L 0 w) L I.y Z o ¢ co N a) N O C J O 0 0 E V) w 00 a) 0 o N C > O O 0 U co r . < mom z o > N 3 `m a) co 0 z 3 N b Q N . d E 0_0 0 u0i t L L m 'O z Q 3 — d 0 L 0 0 t N a d ec 0t- 0 '(0 a L a 0 0 .� m N F. 2 O u) a) •J Z a on To c U a) gi 0 .) o U 5 z m a : o m c r 0 0_i o .. � o 00 0 d —() EMS c -a 2 o) = > z N c z a m U N m O N ma) Nco CO w -P- maw ca daa) � ` m � a U " GnN 43 wo cam ≥ m a) a) 22U r .. > > a) CO Fa mm2 2 N cn co - 0 as ca.) 0.) 0 d0Sk W Ql [n a) — mT2 W 3 c N 0 Y U U m O` >. 0 " c C) L o C 0 0 cLa r Q o) > � al o 0 0 a) t C > 0_ C p)(/) 0 2 a) to o n co 2 0 td .o > a) '5 _ , > a> @ a) J L la 0 C L U 0 C C _@ O — ata) a La < E acNCa) 2 E of U 0 — Yco = (ao .co co .O c,... (pc.- r0oc 07- -0 D -a winw00 0D -O > u a a 00D D 0 L c0 -0 O c o C 0 0 0 c6 J J a cV L o m 'N a) c fa > > [ t _i2Z030 z (ncnrn Q 0 CO 0 m 0 U_ U_ S Tr a = 1- (00111- CO cOOTOI 76 n CCCC C C C C O O O O O O O O i° 7 O O 0 O O 0 0 0 �. ` J J J L L 2 J L L L tr) ((JJ�� _ - N N y N U1 Co Co U1 (4 1 - v N -O -O -0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 a '0 a -0 "O 0 -0 -0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 1-i W8-o 0) U) N U1 0 > CO CO Cl) U) 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 CU 0 N N a 0 a o a a o 0 0 a o E a a a D D 7 D a D D a < a a a D a a D O a z ._ 0 0 C 0 C 0 O) C 0 01 C 0 0 0) 0 C) C_ 0 c1 C 0 CI • 0 a _ a N N E 46 a 0 U) co 0 a U) E o N o O 0 0 E N 0 E o Oa > L .. > .. .. N > Oa . V Oa > O C 0 ` C 0 C C C 0 C C a) C :� Ti.) -° J 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 > V 0 0 0L E 0 EE E 0 0 E E 0 0 E ; C v N o a V) a w a a N t a a v 00 a C 'C J O J o O o J O o J o a3 0 u ) - � cr1.1O et 0 a� X C aa) x 0 T 0 0 a, s a) m a>i a`, x a. 0 E Em@NEu, mm mw m0Eu, E am p co E E m O C .c C .- `r • C C c C o u, C O C E a) _ \ o J 0 J o J 0 = 07 .c 0 J O U m C J L C J o co co c J '›` 0 = 0 LO -o >.E-• O -O J -o T ` .O T E. M = c -00 >. 0 .O >._ I B -O >. a� @L° a E mco aa'iN a E .c a E m � a)co > a E aa) a� E a) m r aO) E 0 CC 0 F `oa .° H oCtmCCwa0 n aH oa m aaav) 4! mQ Hc0ooma u, �. is it C O. Coo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E to o U) UI UI co U) C U) U) C C CO U) U C CO C U) C C V C C C C C C C C 0 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C C C �/� w •E •E •E •E •E •E -E .E .E .E .E .E .E .E .E .E .E .E .E • FBI 'c co co U) U/ co co co co U) co U) co U) 0 U/ N U) CO co O z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E M C 0 C LI Oil a7 V _ J i+ 0 C > C 0 C -0 72 -0 cJ ca w> m co C ° N 0 C 0 L C J 2 V > 0 no i > ID C r m r t J 0 C C ¢ 0 N U) 0 j Q C a co C < b V) N -n J .° Z V (I) — O 0 c CO C C C 0o 0 0 0 > 0 N 0 aD co 0 N 0 0 N J J Q V C J > > aJ "° > CO 0 C 0 = 0 N C c 0 Q O c c < 0 C J > N CO r y •o > CO o C r W a) (V ° Q d o Q I- o `O 3 ¢ n m o `oEls 0 r E ' C aa)i C 0 C -O - W O 0 o 0 0 0 a o o., got o N 0 N E 0 Z ° O N c° 0 .0. c E LO 0 OO C O a = C to 0 c0 C O J E 0 e- @ 15 N "O U C 0E 0 U N C 0 L D 0 r 0 co �''i E N O O J C -c N 0 y J a5 ° 2 0 0 L C N m C ICI Z c> c C 0 00 O J a) N O r E o 0 0 0 0 LLa N co li .) -c N OU Q C Z °� L t w p $ yCT) a) N O 3 V N C y o y t t o -E Z co 0M 3 mfr = c A o z d oN m m co o z E Z, 3 N m° 0 o U) -c 04 vl L 0 a c Z v) J C .. o J 0 Z 00 a o r -O a" 1 E a x Eo c -0 J -2 = E n � ° m2 T c z co E ° N 3 0 r.,.- 0 Co °)-° 0 0 aJ y 0 0 -- O a1 = 0 0 a) 0 0 Z > L L Z C 0 (a 0 a— -o 0 0 (0 > ≥ S 'C > -0 CO E 0 — E ` .. 0 -C > J 0 Co 'C 2 0 J 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 N vi OW -E5 oZ o (0 00) m .0 'O J •` L r Nco 0'ku 0 - c o o 0 -O m 0 a 0 0 N L N 0 0 a m .. -0 .0 C O o 0 W 0 co co = m 0 co m Cn C .0 Q .0 (a N U1 {!J . M 0 . C co mo E m a a) U) 3m OocacojCam coca) comco -C 00 CO .0., ^V" L d -00 'C N 0 N 'C L C O N W Tc0 mar Q ` :O �O j t.,• > pL > co .C .C L G O -0 0 0 > J -0 0 0 0 0 "O 0 -0 ECO t 'O CV 0 Y J a 0 J. 0 m J E J al > ccel . OO H Z m u)> O m co OOZ < O W Nar2 N2 (oJ 0 5WY < Jmam 2oaa 0 N C C C C C C C C C C a O O O O O O O O O O 2 :r 'o U) U U U t U_ U U U U U '# - V Jr2 2 2 i 2 2 2 2 k.. 0o w N N N N Jr Jrl Jr in U) N 4 ie M C C C C C C C C C C 1-1 6 a) 0 a) a) OU OU CD 0 O o N o 0 0 o C . o a) a) o W o N > N U) N > > a) W l--1 o a N ° a a`) 0 ° 0 0 0 0. 0 a O` a) ° 0 a a N `o ° c a ° V c a c c c o c ° C. CO. c ° o ,-t 0_ D < 0_ D D Q ) D D 0_ D 0_ Q D < D 0. 0_ O z _.. U) N U) O N O V) 0 C E a) co N O 0 a N a O O a O 0 C C C C N C C C 0 .) C N .--ci 0 0 0 0 > a) > a) a) a) > a) > E E E a) E o E E > a> E a) 0 'a o a 0 — 0 - 0. 0 V 0. 13 d > ° ° > @ ° > u, E G N a) o a) a) a`, o a) c a> a) m ea o a 73E -o E -o ° E t E E � w mw 0w E 0 -‘' E mY ca &3 E m ° E C C C O -2 , 0C C 2 O L O C J C J C J \ \ C J — C m Y ° C C o > CO 'O > CO O - CO V — a> ') '> L O co 0 y J t U 0 E N 4 .2 El 2 0 E . d E E a) Ea)a) 0 E a) a) E ° E E= E a) O ° rn a> dN d H2O a O � SPa as 0a (nOO OrrtcnO 2 >° � Et � o ct) w . 0 co to g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) a) 0 0 0 0 Q) 0 0 a) 0 a) a) 0.r- e •O ® U) U) U) U) 0 U) U) 0 0 .1 0 U) U) 7) U) Cr) U) 0 U) U C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C d 4 v E EEE E EEEEEEE E EEE EE E Eco c.i F"I • 2- U) U) U) tn U) U) U) U) U) N N U) U) N U) U) U) cn U) N 0 m a) al 0 0 0 0 0)) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 E ✓ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U N L ZZ O _ C N .3 -o a -o a) a> s o > 0 m ° m Q ° in ca a> tan 0 U> N C -O o o Z E 3 a o 3 E aa) > co F- 0 ca •O• m 0 0 Y Y a U < 'O O J N a J CO .�.. 'Oo 3 in U ET Y 0 V 'C O O` °' O E a C N a E C to .O .,.• J O L v O LL ? C L (n O } 0 0 0 c B } N a) Cl C V U 0. 0 m •® U Z E co m a) m aci > o 0 0 a s o caw m aa) J :? ° tq QQ o °' coo °° aa)) o c d N c c -O N c 3 -0 t co o m - O o c m o > E a> a> a) C C C C O L C O O cc a > 3 at — L CD O O a) a) t0 > - co or ®r ® or L to O Z N Q COz Q m ° 02a)a) 0 < 0 a) ` E c E 07,..3 .. > 3 0 'O ° '- c c u) in Jc c (0 Z TJc o 0 0 0' E co c -0 a) ac co C 4) 000 c 0 > a) ai a) > L O- c L 0 N (6 a) C O l0 Y CO o r E C n .N > Q w ai m 3 Q ° > a> E t 2 a) (D m °m a) 0.- in E a) 0 J o t 0 O) J Y r (n OO N J C L J O co N m C m co m U -0r m -oo -c > aa)) ao --o °c 3 OE 4 > •Ego U o n' C0 'C C r O t L ' 'O .C Y tO O O (a < !ELSE J o N L. O ( Z O N Z t6 Cr ° J 00 '— N 0- r LL _ o N \O E 2 J a) 0 3 J a) _ a) 0 N o > ° ° O coao (n N N C7 c o VC '— — J > ≤n 3 o cn m Y W � M i Ca' 0c/D0 c � c mco U 0 Ums m o ymm oya m « 55 o :oQ cEs< -°o ° Q c m c (L) E ° °) o C .oma>> °° 00c ` a) J C N U> r N >` U> U J Y > 0 U) U a) co � 0 d >m s � o .Eo0 D� o cm mmao00 ° > om a > m = E-' cn corO (nzr2 2m2 $ co mmYU > 2mw -JaI o • q C C C C C C C ._ , .... C a O O O O O O 0 0 m . U C C U U U . U C es 2 r N N in y -17) O L N V) C tri ((//�'� 'm V) 0 "O "O C C -0 0 -0 -0 0 -° "O C -O 17 1) "O U 0 C d (v Ma a O O O O o O 00 ° O O O ° O 0 O O O j 0 0 O) r�r W 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 > 0 0 o a a� 0 x V o o _° 'O o 'O a o 'o a s 'O a o 0 o C D _O CON o C c c ca c a a c a ry c c ma) [W; E D (10_ D D a D Q a D Q Q D Q 0.. 0_ d J D D MCC O I.5 Z N O C u) N 0lc a C O lUll a) O O O E O y C aa a a E E a r E O ao p .. a .. .. Q m m m N O V C C C Y .� N O +• ° o a -o aa) 7 V a > O C C E a E C u m m CO m m — m - D E E o ° o d E E E > 0 m �° > .- °-E x a c O > c m m m E E E , o E ° O E10 ° E � 'm a>> 13 19 a>i si. E E E co L E y '5 E .� ^ y m aa)i a o _0 o o Q' 0 0 0 L C 3 o L 2 a) 2 o C c E C "O c j C y j j >, • ° \ 0 V O r O ` 'O 'E 'O = O -0 >'O U O 'C w a) a -°p >.'O V t N W �0 N O O a) W U O O N - Fs a) E a) a) y N O a) L a> p N .c x00 X a> a E .x L (Ua O x N inert 0 2 ,- 2 0 2co2 CCon aa � OO — u CJa2E w - - U C n G Q ° N O 0 0 a) O N N Y) N N O) N N N 0) N N N E co O +o C C C C C C C C C il)C C C C C c Co C C C C Q C_ C_ C C C C O_ C C C C C C C C C C C C C ad w E E E •EE E •EE •E •E •E •E E •E .E E .E E E .E •E .E y °w • m aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa>> N aN) aa)) a) ( N o aN) "-a a) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) v c E X § § + U G O - C C 0 -om N 3 > 0 o N n ca C 2 >U 2 V) t Q J L C c O C C .° +. (V a -O w >. o > p C m m c 17 (O 'O (n -a co0 CO c CD m C >i E v > ° O ] C ° CO 'p CO m O -0 `o 0 CO Y O c, Q 3 c ° LO m O m )* O m O 0 y r... b O > > C 0.i as CD 0 ad C =O O to U ° Q Q O F, C ° 7 U N r c ° N C > C C U - r O Q co (y, U m 0 43 c co (° y Z 0 N C ° v O O O Q a) o 0 O m d w a) -o •. L C E O J 3 N c J m m co o 0 >> U Y E 8 U N C o N O C O 0 N ° O O O O > 7 m a) C c J ° C N L ° ul a, a "° L 3 E O "O L a y V C OU E O r O N U O Qm Q ° o o c m UL 3 > c U -Q U c d E 3 ? Z p C N ° C o r a) U Q « CO L C c C •-• .m (/) rip -c Ts tscy 00 2 (73 m E C c 3 o L .C '. 2 0 Dr,D ° O)ME N U Cu z .J a a) c o C U O TA Q O CO Y Z O = L Z 00 N. a) O j CO > c Eat 3 am t U � `m t -o > ° ao C > E U r L co >,-c) Cl- N m 3 ° co 0 o o m m ° a d 0) '> o m o c E > Z � m > U' O N O a U N a) Z o 0 m C N o T as N m .. N 0- >, C m 3 d N N °) 2 m m m - co—c a E C Z OIm U L O rn 2 U m m CO ° m la Y Y Y Y Q N ;.0 C m N V C 'O E E C p a) W M VI > ca N O > C E 0 C 0 ca. O (n C J C m U ° ° Q a t O ,: > `�° coc � ° a> a) >) U U Q ° � c ..., u) 3F � Uy N m , off o2U s_ r ' 0 0 0 c m C — O)— c Q)-° O 'c ° O O O O T y E L C Oa. I L G b ° O O — -Q a p m p c) cum o O 0 E d O a_ O ` co ` (p O O 0 C • OO F" co wm C a' C p co _ C O) C C a 2"i a N 2 N ≥ CO C CO N c a c a a di (p a) N a d u) y E C a) C J N - 772. N E m m o) 4 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 a m o n O. C C C C _a) a) .5 N .a) ' C C .a W a O la a) > > > > > `a a7 > o o o 0 o ax) O- =o ax) -o V =o 'o ax) a co o a S > N NN C a) _O C .O .O .O .O C a) C N .O o a) a) a) a) c n C o n D n C C on n 0 2' l a (1) (n a (!) CO CO CO < U) LL a' (f) O 4 CILl I CL o C j Ea) Lc O C .a) t J C (a C a) "O N ti «° c um a°) a) a a 0 o a) a) 0 a) a E w ° o' c .a a coo a > > a) o a > > o no- a) o 'n 0)) m L V a1 a) p > - - -00> O E C a)) d a a) �, ° N Y m b 0 -o \ a E E E Ems mc � 5 m ° zO., m m (pro m a)Pi m m y m s ° m a m ...7. C a C C a C C a C C E C C a CO O - 'O N 6 a) N E E a) -N m C E E Loa > E E O a) a) ) a) a) o o x a) mac)) o O O) a>i a) 0 O E CC CC 2 CC CC 0 0 2 CC O o d' 00 J 'O CC I mu a -y U Ro O O Co.a • O •^9 U V°) N N fO/) 0 O N tO/) 0 0 0 O N N N N N N N N ≥ IA y t "O a 'O 'o '2 'O 'O 'O 'o 'o V 'O 'O 'O -2 'o tO m of C >C >C C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C C >C >C CC_ ID CO C -O -O C C N Xias J C to C (o CD CO 3 O V M N CO o ai N U CC E = C O) C "O ^ Cu m a) ac in) V) 2c I J co co > o( > N U 0 U O ct a) 0 U d >. C o ar C - c 0 0 m ° ° !n c 3 m o O a) 0)) m 1° 122- o (%) m o m ^ 2 d CD C L'yi-i 2 a 63 r- ° v a`) a 0 a ° E ♦+ 0 a) f� C -O C ° ° CO ° O L++ C C L.. WO .- O O O 0) a) 'O C E U - C O 0 2 U (-) ° a ° a E CC E Cu ° a) E 0C1') N ° m C a c a O U O a) 2 a N co ° O C p O U U a1 N O cm '''.Y.c> a) a O Nd U E C C p) O L Cu v w > c0E Cu 0 0 Cu 45 1) ° m c a`) 5 t L)J O a) O o C L C O a) _ a 7 N to E O 'C y m u) E o E 5 p o a) a) 5 r ma) = 3 0 0 • Z LO A , o 5 o °` cet we w 'O a) . a) N Y .C C C C O (n. as (n f/) E d J O` ° a) L > cc a) a. O N N a a E En- ch 0_ 12 N O a 'O a. ) a j ° a) t u)) 0) a1 5 5 O O > co C > L > O > CO a 3 EZ Y o a) a) m -O a a c 5 a) a) y c a) o a) C a) O N (n o NQt:Es - n al tOt0) (n Ec0° n U mmz CO co N 40 a) dam ° og- [o > .. Z0E > a (nam >._ c0E a) 'Tr as N CD N -o C = 0 O o C o 0 a• .. 0 m W ° m 0 _ o a m Lm N 2 c m W .0 M D c ° axOU Cu) or. CJLL .- > 45 E o n) as � C o � U ° o t O — c0E � � os 3 � m � a) LEas > int° rna boa � 15 fct 7, a Erak o mm o s ds .92 mN ...,. a0) o cU m5 m o o - i mo ° � as � o ` \ . ; 2 ; a \ \ \ ) • 3 ( _ u E - - s - / \ \ @ c I o ( Ws § ± B § « § CD Z - , 3 / >. § y $ \ / / CO2 ® - 3222 = . / 7 en {z § I ! Ec 2 , ra / ` « f ! / ® ) ) \ \ (7 / _ \ y ) § \ / ) \\ $ ; J ) 2 ) � 00Q) / 22 ) \ { o ) ( s \ k /» « � [ {� \ \ `� @ / } » / 0 : _ : =% 35 ® t E ] a) as o0W ° $ 7 { / \ z f233acCDCCUC nm \ / C 0 § cO,- t = W � { ; 2 : 2 2a = t > ! § , 3er § ® ! : 3 - & \� a 02323 : 2 »fe : ± 3W32f ! A11, ` = cGa0 a ) § ) ) } { ) / § / ) { \ } ! - - - , f ) / / / / DQ § % ) / ) 0 I— ) a 0 \ ® ` — E 2 E a 0 ) k ! 2 } / CO O 15 � / \ 3 CO ? / ( \ ) \ w 2 Q ) - a Rr � o ° f a d j Co\ \ z \/ e : • Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Additional future actions not included in Table 3.26-1, Table 3.26-2, or Table 3.26-3 include the following: ► Expansion of local transit services in Fort Collins, Johnstown, and Windsor ► New park-n-Rides: Church Ranch, Superior/Louisville, Flatiron Circle, and Broomfield ► Infill, redevelopment, or revitalization plans in Longmont and Loveland ► Sidewalk improvements and minor trail connections in Broomfield ► River restoration, most notably the Fort Collins Downtown River Corridor Implementation Plan, which protects and enhances the Cache La Poudre River ► Minor water/sewer improvements ► Annexation proposals As Table 3.26-1, Table 3.26-2, and Table 3.26-3 show, substantial development is anticipated within the regional study area in the near future. Development is especially strong in northern communities, where large residential and commercial developments are anticipated. More than 12 annexation proposals and planning boundary expansions are currently being considered by Longmont. Development is also strong in Westminster, where large residential and commercial developments are under construction. 3.26.2 Affected Environment • The Affected Environment section provides the historical context for the cumulative impact analysis and includes an assessment of historical growth and development within the region. Historical actions impacting resources of concern are described in greater detail for each resource in Section 3.26.3 Environmental Consequences. Early settlement in the area between Denver and Wellington began in the 1800s with the cultivation of agriculture. Some of the earliest settlers developed planned communities under the colony movement. The premise behind this movement was to have an entire group of people, or colony, settle an area together in a cooperative manner rather than have each family unit settle on its own. Colonies were established in Greeley, Platteville, Green City, and Evans. Shortly after colony communities were established, individual settlers came out to Colorado and moved into Weld County. In the 1860s, the area was an agriculturally productive region, which had expanded from dry crop production to include cattle grazing and production. In the late 1880s, new advances in farm machinery (e.g., steam-powered tractors) allowed farmers to increase the size of their farms and acreage of their harvests. By 1895, Weld County had become one of the major potato producing areas of the nation. Feedlots and meat packing operations associated with Monfort, Inc. (established in 1930) had a major influence on the economy and population the regional study area north and south of Greeley. The Monfort feedlot grew quickly into one of the largest in the country, with a 3,500-head capacity in the midst of World War II, 8,000 by 1950, and 32,000 by 1960. During the 1960s the feedlot expanded rapidly into the first 100,000-head feedlot by 1968. In 1960 Monfort purchased a slaughterhouse in Greeley and five years later added • processing to the plant. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-21 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Sugar beet cultivation and processing had a major influence on the regional study area in • the late part of the 19th century. The state agricultural college in Fort Collins (now Colorado State University) experimented with sugar beets and helped publicize their suitability for the irrigated plains. In 1901, a sugar beet processing facility was opened in Loveland. Local farmers started producing sugar beets in such quantities that the Loveland plant could not process them all. As a result, sugar beet processing plants were built in Greeley, Eaton, Fort Lupton, and Windsor. In 1905, the Great Western Sugar Company was formed and thousands of acres of sugar beets were brought into production, as were many new settlers to grow beets, ship beets, and process beets. Sugar beets continued to be a strong part of the region's economy through World War II, until beet diseases and competition from other sweeteners led to their eventual demise. The "Dust Bowl," although geographically defined by the federal government to include southern but not northeastern Colorado, still had a major impact on agricultural production in northern Colorado throughout the 1930s. Farmers eventually recovered and continued to prosper. By the mid-1970s, Weld County was ranked number one in the state of Colorado for total crop value. The development of the railroads supported the burgeoning agricultural economy of the regional study area. Operational in 1870, the Denver Pacific rail line traveled through Weld County in a general north-south direction, bringing settlers to Colorado and facilitating the distribution of agricultural products. Although the Denver Pacific was the first railroad through Weld County, numerous other railroads were developed in the ensuing decades that extended service to other agricultural areas. The Burlington and Missouri River Railway . extended their line west from McCook, Nebraska, reaching Denver in the early 1880s. The Union Pacific then built a line from La Salle generally following the valley of the South Platte River eastward to Julesburg. This made a good network and a solid connection to the eastern regions of the United States. In promoting their service, the railroads encouraged thousand of farmers to relocate to this area. As rural areas developed, the pressure increased for local and regional roadway connections. Early roadways were built between Denver and Fort Collins, through Denver, and in Greeley. The beginnings of the interstate system came with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944. This act directed the Bureau of Public Roads to create a master plan for an interstate highway system. After the planning, little else was done until the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized $25 billion for 12 years to move forward with construction of a national system of interstate and defense highways. Interstate 25 was completed during the 1960s. Traffic far exceeded original projections and numerous improvements and expansions have been constructed over the years. By the late 1980s, new off-ramps known as flyovers helped drivers get on and off 1-25 at greater speeds. The access improvements provided by the intestate system spurred new growth along 1-25, which has necessitated further capacity and interchange improvements. The North Front Range of Colorado has experienced tremendous growth over the past 50 years. As Table 3.26-4 shows, Adams, Boulder, and Larimer counties experienced the greatest increase in population between 1950 and 2000. This growth has translated into the development of housing, employment centers, and community facilities, focused in the 38 • incorporated cities and towns present in the regional study area today. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-22 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.264 Population Totals by County 1950-2000 County Population 1950 1970 1990 2000 Percent (%) Change 1950 to 2000 Adams 40,234 185,789 265,038 363,857 804% Boulder 48,296 131,889 225,339 291,288 503% Broomfield 7,261 24,638 38,272 427%1 Denver 415,786 514,678 467,610 554,636 33% Larimer 43,554 89,900 186,136 251,494 477% Weld 67,504 89,297 131,821 180,936 168% Source:Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office,Historical Census 1870-2000. (1)Percent change in Broomfield is calculated between 1970 and 2000,since data for 1950 is not available. Based on population and housing forecasts prepared by DRCOG and NFRMPO, population is expected to continue to increase within the regional study area through 2030, whether or not any transportation improvements related to this project are implemented. According to the data provided by these organizations, population within the regional study area is expected to increase 79 percent by 2030, translating into approximately 339,000 new households. 3.26.3 Environmental Consequences 3.26.3.1 LAND USE In the early 20th century, the regional study area mostly contained small farming or mining • communities. Larger cities with a variety of land use activities included Denver, Greeley, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Boulder. Population growth and increasing water availability (made possible by the Colorado-Big Thompson River Project in 1937) contributed to the expanding development that occurred throughout the 1950s as undeveloped communities began to devote more agricultural land to residential and employment uses. Construction of 1-25 north out of Denver began in the early 1960s. By the time the final segment between Fort Collins and Wellington was completed in 1968, low-density, suburban residential development was expanding outward from major city centers along the highway. Expansion of 1-25 helped spur development north of Denver and contributed to land use change in the years that have followed. Communities whose town centers had been built along the BNSF rail line (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont) realized that access to 1-25 was crucial to increasing commercial and industrial growth in their cities. In response, they began developing commercial and residential uses east of their city centers and closer to 1-25. Population growth, development, and land use change have continued within the regional study area. Industrial development along the UPRR between Greeley and Denver has resulted in the expansion of residential and employment uses in the communities of Brighton and Fort Lupton. Major commercial centers (e.g., Flatirons Crossing, Centerra) have developed around highway corridors. Residential development has continued north of Denver in a suburban pattern. Communities have used programs to preserve open space, parks, and agricultural lands as a means to separate themselves from other cities and towns in the region. This has, in turn, spurred development in smaller surrounding • communities. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-23 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.26-5 shows land uses in the regional study area between 1950 and 2005. Acres of • land devoted to agricultural uses in the regional study area have decreased by 17 percent between 1950 and 2005. During the same time period, acres of land devoted to employment and residential uses have increased by 8 percent and 14 percent respectively. Table 3.26-5 Land Use Change in Acres 1950-2005 Approximate Acres Land Use Category 1950 1970 1990 20051 Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres Agriculture 570,580 75 504,064 66 451,874 59 446,400 58 Employment Area 12,788 2 30,939 4 44,800 6 75,100 10 Parks/Open Space 1,929 <1 6,040 <1 11,121 1 65,300 8 Residential 30,071 4 64,033 8 93,447 12 143,000 18 Transportation 7,557 1 12,447 2 13,225 2 --` --- Vacant-Unknown 124,195 16 123,120 16 123,515 16 6,400 1 Water 13,939 2 20,415 3 23,077 3 39,900 5 Total 761,059 100 761,059 100 761,058 100 776,1001 100 Source:U.S. Geological Survey, Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project, Land Characterization Program. Land use data from the USGS,Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project,and Land Characterization Program is not available for years after 1990. Land use acreages in 2005 are derived from Section 3.1 Land Use.As a result, minor differences in the data can be noted: 01 Total acres within the regional study area differ between data sets.The USGS did not collect data in the northernmost part of the regional study area,which may account for the discrepancy. (2)Land use classifications differ between data sets.As a result,there is no classification for Transportation recorded for 2005. As part of this DEIS, reasonably foreseeable future developments and land use plans were • reviewed to assess future growth patterns. Based on this review, it is expected that the general pattern of urbanization would continue. Development would continue outward from town centers and more agricultural land would be converted for employment and residential uses. This pattern of growth is expected to occur regardless of whether the improvements considered in this DEIS are implemented. DRCOG envisions future growth and development as relatively compact with high-density mixed-use urban centers along major transportation corridors. According to the Metro Vision 2030 Plan (DRCOG, 2005) many significant challenges must be addressed to fulfill this vision. Regional challenges include severe traffic congestion that can impede economic development and job creation; concerns about air quality, water quality and water supply; the burden of paying for new facilities and services required to serve growth; and preservation of open space for current and future generations. The North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (NFRMPO, 2004) also cites interregional commuting, jobs/housing imbalance, and sprawl as challenges presented by regional growth. Likely major impacts resulting from development are increased impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, driveways, rooftops, parking lots), loss of agricultural lands, loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat, degradation of air and water quality, loss of wetlands and aquatic resources, declining quality of life, and stress on infrastructure, water availability and water supply., Minimizing these impacts will require regional coordination. This is a particular challenge in southwest Weld County, where pressure to develop rural agricultural land has been increasing and local jurisdictions are in disagreement as to where, when, and how growth should occur. In the absence of intergovernmental cooperation and coordination, development could result in a fragmented urban landscape that is costly to service and maintain. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-24 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Under the No-Action Alternative, anticipated development along 1-25 would continue based on market forces and in accordance with city and county plans as described in Section 3.1 Land Use. In the absence of transit or capacity improvements, regional visions for compact development along major transportation corridors would not be realized. Implementation of Package A would support regional planning and municipal planning efforts (including transit oriented development) as described in Section 3.1 Land Use. Under Package B, anticipated development along 1-25 would continue in accordance with city and county plans. Bus rapid transit would support this development. In the absence of transit or capacity improvements in Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont, development would most likely continue to spread outward from city centers. Conversion of agricultural and open lands into urban uses will continue regardless of whether a build package is implemented or not. The construction of a build package would not contribute significantly to cumulative land use impacts in comparison to what is already anticipated through land development projects and other roadway improvements. Implementing Package A could minimize the conversion of agricultural land in the outlying areas of communities along the BNSF rail line as development shifts toward higher densities and urban centers in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont. 3.26.3.2 WATER QUALITY There are six watersheds in the regional study area: the South Platte River, Clear Creek, • Big Dry Creek, St. Vrain Creek/Boulder Creek, Big Thompson River, and Cache La Poudre River. Numerous streams, tributaries, canals, ditches, reservoirs, and lakes are either adjacent to or cross under 1-25, US 85, or the BNSF (see Figure 3.7-2 in Section 3.7 Water Resources). Before land cultivation for agriculture, the natural ecosystem was largely unaffected by human activity. Oil and gas development, agricultural activity, and urbanization have impacted water quality. Some surface waters in the regional study area do not currently meet water quality standards. These impaired streams were identified by CDPHE- Water Quality Control Division and are listed in the 303(d) List of Impaired Streams. Streams that do not meet established water quality standards are required to go through a remediation process (i.e., total maximum daily load analysis) to help improve water quality conditions. For streams identified as impaired within the regional study area, the impairment was not caused by pollutants associated with highway construction or maintenance operations. Agricultural practices have resulted in surface and groundwater contamination. Contaminants include nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), pesticides and herbicides, and volatile organic compounds. Nitrates have consistently exceeded drinking water standards. CDPHE regulations do not apply to irrigation canals and ditches that are present throughout the regional study area despite their important function of transporting drinking water (CDPHE, 2003). Cumulative impacts to water quality would primarily result from changes in hydrologic conditions, caused by development already planned in the regional study area. Development rapidly consumes and converts natural landscapes to impervious surfaces • such as parking lots, roads, and rooftops. Water runs off these impervious surfaces, often carrying pollutants directly into water bodies instead of allowing for the natural filtering of pollutants through the soil. Impacts that follow include species loss, oxygen depletion, lower Cumulative Impacts 3.26-25 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. groundwater levels, reduced water quantities, increased peak flows, and flooding. Impacts e associated with additional impervious surface area are typically mitigated through the implementation of best management practices. The analysis of cumulative effects to water quality is broader in scope that what is presented in Section 3.7, Water Resources. Comprehensive mapping of planned developments within the regional study area was not available. As a result, this analysis used area maps from DRCOG and NFRMPO. As part of the traffic analysis process, each traffic analysis zone (TAZ) is classified as one of five general land area types (central business district, central business district-fringe, urban areas, suburban areas, and rural areas). When considered on a very broad, regional scale, these data generally portray where future growth is envisioned. The percent imperviousness for each TAZ area type is derived from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Drainage Criteria Manual (2001). Table 3.26-6 contains estimates of the new impervious surface area that would result from future urbanization within the regional study area. Future urbanization would occur regardless of whether the improvements under consideration are constructed. Table 3.26-6 Estimated Impervious Surfaces within the Regional Study Area: 2005 and 2030 Impervious Surface Area (Acres) Percent (%)Watershed Watershed Converted to 2005 2030 Difference Impervious Surfaces Middle South Platte River 157,028 227,494 70,466 6 Clear Creek 27,346 33,605 6,259 2 • Big Dry Creek 12,367 28,993 16,626 21 St. Vrain/Boulder Creek 42,975 70,043 27,068 4 Big Thompson River 76,537 76,537 0 0 Cache La Poudre River 178,649 178,649 0 0 Total 494,902 615,321 120,419 33 Source:DRCOG and NFRMPO 2005 and 2030 Traffic Model. With the No-Action Alternative, the amount of impervious surface would continue to increase as planned development occurs. Impacts to water quality within the regional study area would result from an increase in surface runoff and pollutants being carried into receiving waters. The greatest change to water quality could occur in the Middle South Platte watershed, due to the large increase in impervious surface area that is anticipated between 2005 and 2030. Implementation of a build package would facilitate future development along existing transportation corridors, consistent with future land use planning efforts. This would facilitate denser development patterns (particularly for Package A) and help reduce the impervious surface area associated with development and its related water quality effects. Implementation of either build package would result in additional impervious surfaces as a result of highway widening, transit stations, and parking lots. Table 3.7-9 in Section 3.7 describes total impervious surface area for the existing, No-Action, Package A, and Package B condition. While Package A and Package B result in greater total impervious surface area (1,946 acres for Package A and 2,001 acres for Package B) the percentage of the area that will be treated with best management practices is also greater (90.7 percent under Package A and 125 percent under Package B). A percentage greater than 100 Cumulative Impacts 3.26.26 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • indicates that the volume provided is greater than the defined water quality capture volume, which is equal to one-half inch of rainfall times the impervious area. Capture volumes greater than 100 percent can sometimes be used to offset other locations on the highway system where 100 percent capture cannot be achieved. For comparative purposes, 5.1 percent of the 1,257 acres of total impervious surface associated with the No-Action Alternative would be treated. Future impacts to water quality could arise from maintenance activities, such as snow plowing, sanding, and deicing. The additional impervious surface area would contribute minimally to water quality impacts when compared to what is expected from planned development. These impacts to water quality would be reduced through implementation of maintenance programs and best management practices in both construction and design (see Section 3.7 Water Resources). 3.26.3.3 WILDLIFE Past actions affecting wildlife distribution and movement corridors in the regional study area include commercial and residential development, road construction, and gravel mining. These activities have directly displaced wildlife habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, and altered wildlife movements. Although gravel mining temporarily disrupts wildlife habitat, it may also create lakes, which benefit some species. In general, the amount and connectivity of wildlife habitat has declined in the regional study area since 1950. Impacts to wildlife from anticipated development were evaluated using wildlife data from CDOW, field survey data collected by ERO Resources in 2006, Colorado State Patrol vehicle-animal collision data from 1993 to 2004 for wildlife movement corridors, and land • use data collected in 2000 (see Section 3.1 Land Use). Geographic information System (GIS) maps depicting future land uses were reviewed to evaluate expected impacts on wildlife. Future land use maps were based on forecasts for 2030 from DRCOG and the NFRMPO, as described in Section 3.1. Land uses that provide habitat for wildlife include agriculture, open space, parks, surface water areas, and vacant lands. Residential and commercial land uses are less likely to provide habitat for wildlife because they are more developed. According to data provided in Section 3.1, approximately 206,900 acres of agricultural and vacant lands are expected to be converted to residential and commercial land uses between 2000 and 2030. Open spaces and parks are expected to increase by 46,000 acres during the same period. Lands protected or enhanced for wildlife would help to offset some of the effects of overall habitat loss. General wildlife habitat in the regional study area would be expected to decline with highway expansion, residential and commercial development, and the decrease of open lands used for agriculture. Residential and commercial development also will contribute to habitat fragmentation and further reduce open areas used as movement corridors by wildlife. Disruption of movement corridors, vehicle collisions with wildlife, and habitat fragmentation are concerns expressed during scoping meetings with CDOW, other agencies, and the public. The potential for cumulative impacts to wildlife corridors or crossing sites as a result of reasonably foreseeable projects is described below. If direct or indirect effects from the North 1-25 project would occur, this is noted. • ► 1-25 from SH 1 to SH 14. Substantial new residential and commercial development is expected to occur in this area by 2030. However, no major wildlife movement corridors or crossing sites were identified in this area. Cumulative Impacts 3.26.27 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. ► Fossil Creek Reservoir at SH 392. Windsor and Fort Collins slate this area for • development. However, no major wildlife movement corridors or crossing sites were identified in this area. ► Cache La Poudre River at 1-25. Future land use mapping shows limited growth in the area around 1-25 and the Poudre River. Mapping also shows a substantial increase in the area planned for designation as open space or parkland along the river. Future land uses are likely to support the continued use of the Cache la Poudre River at 1-25 as a wildlife movement corridor. ► Big Thompson River at 1-25. Future land use mapping shows planned residential and commercial development south of the Big Thompson River at 1-25.The land surrounding the river is largely located within the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area west of 1-25 and agricultural land east of 1-25 is likely to remain undeveloped. Future land uses are likely to support the continued use of the Big Thompson River at 1-25 as a wildlife movement corridor. ► Little Thompson River at 1-25. Some residential development is expected south of the Little Thompson River, but in general, the surrounding land use will remain agricultural. The Little Thompson will likely remain a wildlife crossing area. ► 1-25 between Little Thompson and St. Vrain Creek. This area is expected to remain agricultural. Future development would not prevent the area from being used as a wildlife crossing area. ► St. Vrain Creek at 1-25. Extensive new commercial and residential development is planned on both sides of SH 119, potentially fragmenting existing wildlife habitat along • St. Vrain Creek. This movement corridor will likely be heavily impacted by future development. ► 1-25 West of Firestone and Frederick. Extensive new development is planned along 1-25 in this area. Wildlife movements are likely to be heavily impacted by this new development. ► Little Dry Creek at I-25. New commercial and residential developments are planned west of 1-25 and near the 1-25/E-470 interchange. New development will likely affect wildlife movements in the area. ► Big Dry Creek at 1-25. Big Dry Creek at 1-25 is located in an area that is already developed. Impacts to wildlife movements from new development are expected to be low. ► Fossil Creek at the BNSF Rail Line. The area around Fossil Creek at the proposed commuter rail alignment is mostly built out and is not expected to have substantial new residential or commercial growth. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in moderate impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A. ► Big Thompson River at the BNSF Rail Line. Much of the land along this reach of the river is protected parks or open space. Changes in land use near this wildlife-crossing site are expected to be minimal. ► Little Thompson River at the BNSF Rail Line. Land use near the Little Thompson River at 1-25 is expected to remain agricultural with few changes planned. Retaining • walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife Cumulative Impacts 3.26.28 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • movement, resulting in moderate impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A. ► Ish Reservoir Area. Land use in the area around Ish Reservoir is expected to remain mostly agricultural, with few changes planned. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in high impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A. ► St. Vrain Creek at SH 119. Extensive new commercial and residential development is planned on both sides of SH 119, potentially fragmenting existing wildlife habitat along St. Vrain Creek. This movement corridor will likely be heavily impacted by future development. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in moderate impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A ► BNSF Rail Line west of Firestone and Frederick. Extensive new development is planned along 1-25 near this wildlife crossing area. Wildlife movements in this area are likely to be heavily impacted by the new development. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in high impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A. ► Little Dry Creek at the BNSF Rail Line. Land use in this area is expected to remain mostly agricultural. Impacts to wildlife from future growth would be minimal. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in high impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected • under Package A. To minimize impacts to wildlife at crossing sites, breaks in fencing would be provided where considerable wildlife conflicts are expected. The build packages would widen and extend culverts and bridges. While widening would facilitate wildlife movement, extending the length of a culvert or bridge would lengthen the distance wildlife would have to travel to cross 1-25 or the BNSF rail line. Prairie dog colonies are used as an index of prairie habitat because they provide habitat for a number of other wildlife species and are used as foraging areas by numerous predators including coyotes, badgers, bald eagles, and other raptors. Cumulative impacts to black- tailed prairie dogs were evaluated by quantifying the potential loss of existing prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of the improvements being evaluated for Package A and Package B. Currently, there are approximately 2,109 acres of prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of Package A. Planned development would impact 627 acres of these colonies (30 percent) and the construction of improvements included in Package A would impact approximately 51 acres (2 percent). There are approximately 1,624 acres of prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of Package B. Planned development would impact 289 acres of these colonies (18 percent) and the construction of improvements included in Package B would impact 104 acres (6 percent). Bald eagle populations in the regional study area have been increasing for the past ten to twenty years, and new nests have been identified in the regional study area every year for the past few years. At least 11 active bald eagle nests were known to occur in the regional study area in 2007, and four of these were within three miles of the 1-25 or commuter rail alignments. The future increase of bald eagle nesting in the regional study area may be limited from a lack of suitable nesting sites located in areas with large numbers of trees, near water, with a food source nearby, and isolated from human disturbance. Future land use projections show an Cumulative Impacts 3.26.29 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. increase in development in some areas used by bald eagles, such as along SH 119 near the • confluence of St. Vrain and Boulder creeks. Loss of foraging habitat, especially loss of prairie dog towns, and increased disturbance from new commercial and residential development, may lead to stabilizing or declining numbers of bald eagles in the regional study area in the future. The loss of foraging habitat and other impacts from future development would be much greater than impacts from either build package. Historically, populations of the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse within the regional study area have most likely declined. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse were no longer present at many sites where they had previously been trapped, including near Longmont within the regional study area (Ryon, 1996). Preble's habitat would likely be impacted by planned residential and commercial development along 1-25, south of the Big Thompson and Little Thompson Rivers. In both locations, impacts from either build package would be minimal (less than one acre). As described in Section 3.12, Package A would impact 9 raptor nests, 10 wildlife movement corridors, 2 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 1.8 acres of aquatic habitat. Package B would impact 11 raptor nests, 5 wildlife movement corridors, 2.4 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat, and 2.3 acres of aquatic habitat. Planned transportation and development actions will contribute to further loss and degradation of wildlife habitat within the regional study area. Approximately 206,900 acres of agricultural/vacant lands are expected to be converted to residential or commercial land uses. This would occur regardless of whether a build package is implemented, resulting in • cumulative impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other biological resources in the regional study area. The construction of a build package would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts to wildlife in comparison to what is already anticipated through land development projects and other roadway improvements. For example, there are approximately 2,109 acres of prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of Package A and 1,624 acres of prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of Package B. Impacts associated with Package A represent 2 percent (51 acres) of this habitat and impacts associated with Package B represent 6 percent (104 acres) of this habitat. In addition, less than 1,000 acres of agricultural/vacant lands would be converted to a transportation use. 3.26.3A WETLANDS Wetlands in the regional study area are primarily associated with natural drainages, seep areas, ponded sites, and irrigation and roadside ditches. Major drainages within the regional study area include Cache La Poudre River, Big Thompson River, South Platte River, Little Thompson River, Boxelder Creek, Fossil Creek, St. Vrain Creek, Boulder Creek, Little Dry Creek, Coal Creek, and Big Dry Creek. Early explorers and settlers to the Front Range found riparian areas and wetlands to be the most habitable environments. These areas were full of wildlife and game, trees that could be cultivated as timber and water. Wetlands themselves were viewed as waste areas, and the practice of dredging or filling wetlands to convert the land to other uses became standard practice. The rich, alluvial soils could be converted easily to agricultural land by • draining the water from the area or channelizing the water for use in irrigation. Although seasonal flooding hampered early development of these areas, settlers learned to adapt to Cumulative Impacts 3.26-30 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • flooding events in order to capitalize on the resources of floodplains. As the area was converted to agricultural land and development spread, wetland loss occurred widespread and at a rapid rate. Although there is no concise inventory of historical wetlands in Colorado, national estimates, taken from data collected by the National Wetlands Inventory in conjunction with status and trends reports, have shed some light on wetland loss and degradation. It is estimated that Colorado experienced a 50 percent loss of wetlands from the 1700s into the later part of the 20th century. Rapid urbanization, mining, and agriculture have impacted wetlands in the regional study area greatly since 1940. To study how urban growth has impacted wetlands in the regional study area, data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were used. This analysis involved use of GIS to analyze data that portray land cover over different time periods. The USGS included as wetlands those areas where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface for a significant part of most years and covers more than 25 percent of the land surface. Wetlands less than 2.5 acres in size were not included in the analysis. Thus, the data provide a very gross estimate of wetlands and under report the number and acreage of wetlands in the regional study area. Data collected in the 1970s show approximately 3,188 acres of wetlands present in the regional study area. Data collected in the 1990s shows 2,951 acres of wetlands in the regional study area, a decrease of 237 acres, or 7.4 percent of wetland acreage. This is in accordance with past trends of wetland loss for the area. • Wetland scientists conducted wetland delineations along the build packages. Wetland delineations identified 399 acres of wetlands and 39.5 acres of jurisdictional open waters adjacent to the improvements proposed under Package A. A total of 301.1 acres of wetlands and 43.7 acres of jurisdictional open waters were identified for Package B. Today, there are 67,227 acres of protected lands within the regional study area. These lands include parks, open space, conservation easements, and other types of land not available for development. Approximately 519 acres of wetlands fall within this protected land, accounting for 17.6 percent of the total 1990 wetland acreage estimates. Estimating direct impacts of reasonably foreseeable development to wetlands in the regional study area is difficult, as final design for many of the proposed projects have not yet been determined. As the Denver Metropolitan Corridor spreads northward, planned development is likely to result in further direct and indirect impacts to wetland communities. Under the No-Action Alternative, wetland degradation and loss is anticipated to continue as growth and development continue to occur in undeveloped areas. Impacts to any jurisdictional wetlands would be mitigated on a one-for-one basis, resulting in no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands. Because CDOT requires mitigation on a one-for-one basis for any wetland impact (regardless of jurisdictional status), there would be no net loss of wetlands as a result of CDOT actions. Package A would directly impact 17.48 acres of wetlands and 1.86 acres of jurisdictional open waters located within the proposed alignments, or 4.4 percent of the wetlands present along Package A. Package B would directly impact 18.11 acres of wetlands and 2.27 acres • of jurisdictional open waters located within the proposed alignments, or 5.9 percent of the wetlands present along Package B. When impacted acreage is compared to 1990 wetland estimates, it is shown that the wetland impacts associated with Package A (17.48 acres) or Cumulative Impacts 3.26.31 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Package B (18.11 acres) would account for 0.6 percent of wetlands present in the regional • study area, based on USGS mapping. Although historical urbanization has caused the greatest impact on wetlands, cumulative impacts to wetlands and riparian areas have occurred and will continue to occur in the regional study area due to construction, land conversion, and agricultural practices. Mitigation measures would mitigate for these losses and result in no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands. In addition, approximately 519 acres of remaining wetlands fall within lands that are currently protected. The incremental impact of either of the build packages represents 0.6 percent of wetlands present in the regional study area based on USGS mapping. Because CDOT requires mitigation on a one-for-one basis for any wetland impact (regardless of jurisdictional status), there would be no net loss of wetlands as a result of the impacts associated with Packages A or B. 3.26.3.5 AIR QUALITY Ambient air quality monitoring began along the Front Range in the 1960s. Data since that time show that pollution emissions controls and programs instituted as a result of the Clean Air Act and its amendments have been successful in reducing criteria pollutant levels. Ozone levels violated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 2007, causing the northern Front Range counties including the regional study area to be in nonattainment for 8-hour ozone. Ozone is not directly emitted into the atmosphere, but is created by a chemical reaction of various pollutants (nitrogen oxides [NOx] and hydrocarbons) with sunlight. The pollutants that contribute to the generation of ozone are • referred to as "precursors". Rigorous adherence to reduction programs and precursor emissions controls will prevent future air quality deterioration. Future mobile source pollutant emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, PM, and toxics are expected to continue to decline as a result of new low sulfur fuel requirements, stricter retrofit and engine exhaust emission controls, and engine efficiency improvements. Transportation projects that might exacerbate air quality problems must meet certain requirements before they can proceed. Particularly, a regional air quality conformity analysis is needed to show that projects are compatible with the State Implementation Plan. In addition, a local hot spot analysis for carbon monoxide is needed to show that an action will not cause violations of the NAAQS. Potential carbon monoxide and (PM10) hot spots were identified through preliminary evaluation of intersections in the regional study area (see Section 3.5 Air Quality). No CO or PM10 hot spots emissions in violation of the NAAQS are predicted to result from either build package under modeled 2030 traffic volumes. While the number of pollution sources is expected to grow, pollution emissions are not expected to increase proportionately due to implementation of stricter regulatory controls such as evaporative emissions controls applied to area oil and gas production facilities, development of wind and renewable energy sources for large scale electrical power generation, and continued conversion of fossil fuel burning to unconventional fuels and fuel hybrids. Within the Denver, Fort Collins, Greeley, and Longmont criteria pollutant attainment/maintenance areas, 2030 design year total CO emissions for Package A and Package B would be well below local attainment/maintenance plan emissions budgets. Any incremental emissions impacts to air quality from the proposed build packages would ID be small compared to current pollutant emissions levels. Additionally, transit facilities and service would not contribute significant direct air quality impacts and would act to reduce the Cumulative Impacts 3.26-32 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • growth of single occupancy vehicle use, lowering vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and traffic emissions for the region overall. The issue of global climate change is an important national and global concern that is being addressed in several ways by the Federal government. The transportation sector is the second largest source of total greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the U.S., and the greatest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions — the predominant GHG. In 2004, the transportation sector was responsible for 31 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. The principal anthropogenic (human-made) source of carbon emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels, which account for approximately 80 percent of anthropogenic emissions of carbon worldwide. Almost all (98 percent) of transportation-sector emissions result from the consumption of petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, and residual fuel. Recognizing this concern, FHWA is working with other modal administrations through the DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting to develop strategies to reduce transportation's contribution to greenhouse gases - particularly CO2 emissions - and to assess the risks to transportation systems and services from climate changes. There are also several programs underway in Colorado to address transportation GHGs. The Governor's Climate Action Plan, adopted in November 2007, includes measures to adopt vehicle CO2 emissions standards and to reduce vehicle travel through transit, flex time, telecommuting, ridesharing, and broadband communications. CDOT's proposed programmatic agreement includes several additional measures, including research into pavement durability and additives to reduce CO2 associated with construction, expansion of • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts, planning assistance to local agencies, and measures to address freight travel efficiency and idling. Because climate change is a global issue, and the emissions changes due to project alternatives are very small compared to global totals, FHWA did not calculate the GHG emissions associated with the alternatives. Because GHGs are directly related to energy use, the changes in GHG emissions would be similar to the changes in energy consumption presented in Section 3.21. The relationship of current and projected Colorado highway emissions to total global CO2 emissions is presented in the table below. Colorado highway emissions are expected to increase by 4.7% between now and 2035. The benefits of the fuel economy and renewable fuels programs in the 2007 Energy Bill are offset by growth in VMT; the draft 2035 statewide transportation plan predicts that Colorado VMT will double between 2000 and 2035. Table 3.26-7 also illustrates the size of the project corridor relative to total Colorado travel activity. Table 3.26-7 Annual CO2 Emissions Comparison Global CO2 Colorado Projected Colorado Project corridor emissions, highway CO2 Colorado 2035 highway CO2 VMT, % of 2005, MMT1 emissions, highway CO2 emissions, % statewide VMT 2005, MMT emissions, MMT of global total (2001) (2005) 27,700 29.9 31.3 0.108 22 EIA, International Energy Outlook 2007 MMT—Million metric tons • Cumulative Impacts 3.26.33 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.26.3.6 HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND DISTRICTS • In the early 20th century, most of the regional study area was used for agricultural purposes. Individual farmsteads were usually one or two quarter sections of land (160 or 320 acres). As the automobile and tractor started replacing the horse and carriage, roads were built. Road access facilitated additional development. Much of the new development was auto-related with service stations and restaurants built to serve the motoring public. Many small settlements were established throughout the region, many serving as supply and social centers as well as produce shipping points for dispersed farms. The late 1960s brought more residential development, with the development of large-scale subdivisions beginning in the 1980s. These residential developments have put pressure on many of the country roads that were never envisioned to carry the amount of traffic generated by large-scale development. The small downtowns of many of the historic settlements are now experiencing renewed activity as a result of development of nearby residential subdivisions. As land becomes more valuable for development, farmers are increasingly pressured to sell or develop their land. Under the No-Action Alternative, the conversion of the remaining historic farmsteads into urban development would continue in accordance with local development plans. Traffic and congestion within the regional study area would continue to increase and would result in an increase in noise, air emissions, and visual obstructions affecting historic properties and districts. Planned growth within the 1-25 corridor would result in more traffic through some historically smaller communities. Implementation of Package A would result in adverse impacts to Louden Ditch • (5LR.8930.1), the Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad - Denver& Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969/5BF.130), and three historic structures - Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245), the Colorado & Southern / BNSF Depot (5BL.1244), and the farmhouse on the Hingley Farm (5WL.5263). Construction of the commuter rail components (A-T1 and A-T2) would support municipal plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase overall density and footprint of urban centers along the BNSF rail line. While the conversion of historic properties and farmsteads would continue, it would likely occur more slowly in areas adjacent to the BNSF rail line. The commuter rail component also would result in additional trains within the BNSF corridor. This would alter the current character of the railroad from a freight line to a combination passenger/freight line service. Implementation of Package B would result in adverse impacts to Louden Ditch (5LR.8930.1). The conversion of the remaining farmsteads into urban and subdivision development would continue in accordance with local development plans. Increasing traffic and congestion within the regional study area would continue and would result in an increase in noise, air emissions, and visual obstructions for historic properties and districts. This impact would not affect the district's and property's eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-34 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. • In general, the increased traffic on 1-25 with Package A and Package B would reduce traffic on the roadways parallel to 1-25. The traffic analysis (Section 4.3.4) found that both build packages would reduce arterial volumes somewhat compared to the No-Action. Reduction on arterials would range from 4% to 12% for Package A and from 0% to 3 % for Package B. This data indicates that traffic within historic districts in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont would not increase as a result of either build package. Cumulative impacts to historic properties and districts have occurred and will continue to occur in the regional study area due to the conversion of agricultural lands and farmsteads to urban land uses and limited local historic preservation regulations. Planned transportation and development actions will, over time, result in the additional loss of historic properties and will alter the historic character of small farming communities. These impacts will occur regardless of whether a build package is implemented or not. The construction of a build package would not contribute to cumulative impacts to historic resources in comparison to what is already anticipated through land development projects and other roadway improvements. In addition, federal legislation protects historic resources (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act) and requires that adverse effects be mitigated. 3.26.4 Conclusion Environmental impacts from the build packages, when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative impacts to environmental resources of • concern. The majority of these impacts are a result of the growth and development already expected to occur in the regional study area, with or without any transportation improvements. The construction of a build package would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts. The exception is for Package A, where additional barriers at wildlife crossing sites would result in impacts to wildlife. However, these impacts can be minimized by limiting fencing in areas where substantial impacts would occur. In other areas, culverts and bridges could be used to facilitate wildlife movement (Section 3.12). To avoid additional impacts to the identified resources of concern, local authorities and planning entities must continue to review and scrutinize development proposals to ensure that new development is consistent with local area planning goals. One way local planning jurisdictions can reduce environmental impacts is through the implementation of smart growth initiatives. These initiatives can provide economic, social, and environmental benefits to a community. Nearly every community in the regional study area incorporates smart growth principles into their comprehensive/land use plans. Of 29 planning documents that were reviewed for smart growth principles, 65 percent included eight to ten of the smart growth principles. The next step is for local jurisdictions to strictly enforce these principles through their development review process. Local authorities and planning entities should also require appropriate avoidance or mitigation as part of any new development project. Resources most at risk that could be protected are riparian areas, floodplain areas, and wildlife habitat areas. For transportation projects, CDOT will ensure that all best management practices and mitigation measures specified in this Draft EIS are followed appropriately. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26.35 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N oRrx I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 27 Permits Required • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation.• 3.27 PERMITS REQUIRED Transportation projects must comply with a wide range of federal and state environmental laws and What's in Section 3.27? regulations, permits, reviews, notifications, 3.27 Permits Required consultations, and other approvals. This section 3.27.1 Water QualityMater Resources summarizes the permits that may be potentially 3.27.2 Air Quality applicable to regulated project activities. It is not 3.27.3 Biological Resources an all-inclusive list nor does it include reviews, 3.27.4 Access 3.27.5 Other Local Permits consultations, and other types of approval that do not involve granting or denial of a permit. The following permits and coordination activities may be required to support the construction of either of the proposed build packages. 3.27.1 Water Quality/Water Resources 3.27.1.1 COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) A Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) permit is required by State and Federal regulations for stormwater discharged from any construction activity that disturbs at least one acre of land. This discharge permit is required to ensure the quality of stormwater runoff from the construction site. Under CDPS permit stipulations, a site-specific stormwater • management plan would be prepared that outlines in detail specific best management practices (BMPs) for inclusion in project plans and implementation in the field. Included in the stormwater management plan are such aspects as BMP locations, turbidity and monitoring requirements, seed mix, concrete wash-out provisions, and other relevant information. Permits would be obtained from Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE's) Water Quality Control Division. 3.27.1.2 SECTION 404 PERMIT A Section 404 permit, which is issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), is required whenever construction projects or maintenance activities require filling that would occur below the ordinary high water line in any body of water considered a water of the U.S. (navigable waters of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands; all tributaries to navigable waters and adjacent wetlands; interstate waters and their tributaries and adjacent wetlands). An individual permit is required if an excess of 0.5 acre or 300 linear feet of waterway are to be filled; a nationwide permit is required where lesser amounts of waterway are to be filled. This project is being accomplished under a merger agreement with the USACE. The plan is that a Section 404 permit application would be made at the same time as the Final EIS is made available for public review. • Permits Required 3.27-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 3.27.1.3 SECTION 402 PERMIT • A Section 402 permit is required for dewatering of construction areas, if necessary. The following activities would likely require a 402 permit: ► Construction dewatering operations associated with utility excavation, bridge pier installation, foundation or trench digging, or other subsurface activities ► If discharge from a point source is expected to occur due to vehicle washing, or from industrial discharges. A 402 certification would be obtained from CDPHE's Water Quality Control Division. 3.27.1.4 SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required in conjunction with an Individual 404 Permit (dredge and fill permit) for any transportation construction project or maintenance activity where work occurs below the ordinary high-water line or adjacent to wetlands. As part of its 401 Certification, Regulation No. 82 states that CDOT is required to notify the CDPHE and the owners and operators of municipal and domestic water treatment intakes or diversions downstream if potential impacts to nearby receiving waters may occur during construction, e.g., when blasting occurs near receiving streams. Unless specified by the Water Quality Control Division of CDPHE, in-stream turbidity monitoring is not typically required. The 401 Certification must be obtained from the Water Quality Control Division of the CDPHE. If a 404 Nationwide or General Permit is issued for the project, a 401 Certification is not required. • 3.27.1.5 FLOODPLAIN PERMITS Floodplain permits, including a floodplain development permit, Conditional Letter of Map Revision, and Letter of Map Revision, is required for any floodplain encroachment. 3.27.2 Air Quality 3.27.2.1 STATIONARY SOURCE PERMITTING AND AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS NOTICE REQUIREMENTS A stationary source permit and Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN) requirements stipulate that a construction permit must be obtained from CDPHE for any and all emissions associated with construction activities, including operations of portable sources. An APEN will be submitted to CDPHE's Air Pollution Control Division if more than 25 acres of land would be impacted and/or project construction would last longer than six months. CDPHE will respond whether or not a permit would be required prior to commencing construction. 3.27.2.2 PORTABLE SOURCE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT A portable source construction permit would likely need to be obtained from CDPHE for the operation of portable sources (e.g. asphalt plants, generators, rock crushers). • Permits Required 3.27.2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.27.3 Biological Resources 3.27.3.1 SENATE BILL (SB) 40 CERTIFICATION Senate Bill (SB) 40 certification would be required by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) for the crossing of streams or adjacent stream banks to avoid adverse effects to waterways, stream banks, or associated tributaries. This legislation is designed to protect fishing waters and to recognize the importance of the entire stream ecosystem, including wetland and riparian areas. A SB 40 wildlife certification application would need to be submitted to CDOW 60 days before construction begins. Based on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by CDOW and CDOT in 2004, it was established that all future transportation, construction, and maintenance activities that satisfy the requirements for use of the Programmatic SB 40 Wildlife Certification as described in the Guidelines of the MOU may be taken without written certification from CDOW. 3.27.3.2 PRAIRIE DOG RELOCATION PERMIT A prairie dog relocation permit, issued by CDOW, will be required for the relocation, transportation, or donation of any prairie dog(s) or colonies that may be affected by project activities. Local permits may also be needed for this activity. • 3.27.4 Access 3.27.4.1 STATE ACCESS PERMIT A state Access Permit, issued by CDOT, would be required for all requests for new or modified access to all state highway roadways. Owners of any existing accesses adversely affected by the project would be notified of the proposed changes. 3.27.4.2 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS PERMIT Construction access permits would likely be required for temporary access needs outside the project limits. 3.27.5 Other Local Permits Other local permits would likely be required by cities and counties as needed, such as construction, grading, erosion control, utility, or survey permits either prior to the beginning or during construction phases. • Permits Required 3.27.3 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • NORTH I-25 Ng EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.28 SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS This section summarizes the social and environmental consequences that would result from the No-Action Alternative and the two build packages (Packages A and B). Measures to mitigate these consequences are summarized in Section 3.29 Mitigation Summary. This section focuses on impacts to the social and environmental resources discussed earlier in this chapter. Transportation improvements and impacts are presented in Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Land Use and Zoning Growth would continue to occur Under Package A, commuter rail BRT along 1-25 would provide largely on undeveloped agricultural would shift growth towards urban less incentive for transit-oriented land at the fringe of the regional centers, especially in Fort Collins development than commuter rail study area's urbanized areas Longmont would increase in Market-driven growth would Development would likely be density and size continue to be focused along 1-25 pushed towards outlying c to congestion, Feeder bus routes along east- Communities west of 1-25 would avoid I-25 which would west corridors designed to serve continue to expand towards the hasten the conversion of agricultural land commuter rail stations could also east stimulate increased levels of The more dispersed development development Some concentration of growth • pattern would result in greater land could occur near BRT stations consumption and a broader along 1-25 potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources Continuation of leap-frog type growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands Social Conditions Potential direct and indirect impacts Adverse impacts associated with Adverse impacts associated with on communities caused by traffic Package A would include: Package B would include: congestion and impaired mobility Relocation of 59 residences Relocation of 24 residences would include: • Increased air emissions Increased noise and vibration, Increased noise, air emissions, and noise out-of-direction travel, and travel and visual impacts to residents • Longer travel times time delays associated with near frontage roads, parking lots, • Traffic queues at key commuter rail bus routes, transit stations, and interchanges maintenance facilities • Neighborhood traffic intrusion • Deteriorating safety conditions • Lengthened emergency • response times Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Cori t.) • No-Action Alternative I Package A Package B Social Conditions (Continued) Environmental Justice Air emissions and visual impacts Temporary construction-related out- Adverse effects noise) to residents near carpool lots, impacts such as noise, dust,t fectse(highway ye commuter rail, transit stations, of-direction travel, travel-time to minority Range Shadows of the bus stations, and maintenance delays, and access revisions Mfacilities subdivision would exceed those Beneficial impacts associated experienced by the general Exacerbated "barrier effect" with Package B would include: population. in Fort Collins, Loveland, Regional connections between Berthoud, and Longmont communities Temporary construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, out- Overall improvements in safety, of-direction travel, and travel-time mobility, and emergency delays response, but no improvements in emergency response where toll Potential re-distribution of lanes are barrier-separated population in response to highway capacity or transit improvements Moderate improvements in mobility for transportation- Beneficial impacts associated disadvantaged populations with Package A would include: Environmental Justice • Regional connections between Beneficial impacts associated communities with Package B would include: • Improvements in mobility, • safety, and emergency • Short-term and long-term response employment opportunities would occur during the • Improved mobility for construction of the facilities as transportation-disadvantaged well as their ongoing operation populations and maintenance. Environmental Justice • Transit components would result in moderate Adverse effects to minority and improvements in mobility and low-income residents in would improve regional Longmont would exceed those connectivity. experienced by the general population. These impacts would • Minority and low-income arise from the implementation of populations are concentrated Component A-T1 (commuter rail around transit improvements between Fort Collins and and would benefit from the Longmont)and would include 16 transit-related components. residential relocations, noise above impact levels at one • Impacts to minority and low- receiver(after mitigation), visual income populations associated impacts, and the potential for with all other components of community disruption. Package B would not exceed those experienced by the Impacts to minority and low- general population. income populations associated with all other components of Package A would not exceed those experienced by the general • population. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28.2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. • Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Cori t.) No-Action Alternative I Package A Package B Social Conditions (Continued) Beneficial impacts associated with Package A would include: Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance. Transit components would improve access to community facilities, provide broader opportunities for employment, facilitate participation in regional social and cultural events, promote interaction between communities, and stimulate business activity Adverse effects to minority and low-income residents in Longmont from the implementation of commuter rail • would exceed those experienced by the general population. Although the commuter rail would improve regional connections and access to some community facilities, the benefits of transit would not be commensurate with the impacts experienced by minority and low-income populations. For these reasons, impacts associated with the commuter rail between Fort Collins and Longmont would be predominantly borne by minority and low-income populations in Longmont. Impacts to minority and low- income populations associated with all other components of Package A would not exceed those experienced by the general population. • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28.3 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Con't.) • No-Action Alternative I Package A Package B Economic Conditions Would not require relocation of Adverse impacts associated with Adverse impacts associated with any existing businesses Package A would include: Package B would include: Would be no loss to property tax Relocation of 33 businesses Relocation of 16 businesses base and revenues $5,079,960 loss in the tax base $2,814,220 loss in the tax base Would be increasingly difficult to and $150,290 loss of tax and $88,720 loss of tax revenues access businesses revenues Temporary construction-related Future economic growth would Temporary construction-related detours, delays, and out-of- most likely concentrate along the detours, delays, and out-of- direction travel 1-25 corridor and in the southern direction travel end of the regional study area Beneficial impacts associated Temporary impacts to existing with Package B would include: freight operations during construction Limited potential for long-term growth of property tax base and Beneficial impacts associated revenues as a result of transit- with Package A would include: oriented development Potential for long-term growth of Creation of 9,135 temporary jobs property tax base and revenues over the six-year construction as a result of transit-oriented period; permanent employment development created by transit operation and maintenance Some access revisions; transit would improve access to Some access revisions; transit • businesses and expand would improve access to employment opportunities businesses and expand employment opportunities Creation of 10,822 temporary jobs over the six-year construction period; permanent employment created by transit operation and maintenance Right-of-Way Would not require acquisition of Highway components would Highway components would property or any relocations require 23 residential relocations require 24 residential relocations and 12 business relocations and 15 business relocations Transit components would require Transit components would require 36 residential relocations and 21 one additional business relocation business relocations and no residential relocations All property impacts, including All property impacts, including displacements and partial displacements and partial acquisitions, would total 1,068 acquisitions, would require a total acres, 719 acres for highway of 877 acres, 859 acres for components and 349 acres for highway components and 18 transit components acres for transit components • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Con't.) No-Action Alternative I Package A Package B Air Quality No substantive impacts No substantive impacts No substantive impacts Growth and development No exceedances of standards or No exceedances of standards or changes would affect traffic thresholds due to mobile sources thresholds due to mobile sources patterns and air quality Growth and development Growth and development changes Benefits include: (1)emissions changes would affect traffic would affect traffic patterns and air for all pollutants from mobile patterns and air quality. In areas quality. In areas of transit oriented sources would be reduced from of transit oriented development, development, air quality could existing levels; and (2)continued air quality could improve due to improve due to more efficient conversion of agricultural land more efficient travel patterns. This travel patterns. uses would lessen nitrogen improvement would be more deposition effects to Rocky noticeable with Package A than Benefits include: (1) emissions for Mountain National Park. Package B. all pollutants from mobile sources would be reduced from existing Benefits include: (1)emissions levels; and (2) continued for all pollutants from mobile conversion of agricultural land sources would be reduced from uses would lessen nitrogen existing levels; and (2) continued deposition effects to Rocky conversion of agricultural land Mountain National Park. uses would lessen nitrogen deposition effects to Rocky Mountain National Park. • Noise &Vibration An estima ted estimated 505 Category B 450 Category B An estimated 491 Category B receivers and 121 Category C receivers and 120 Category C receivers and 133 Category C receivers would be impacted by receivers would be impacted by receivers would be impacted by traffic noise traffic noise after recommended traffic noise after recommended mitigation measures mitigation measures Noise levels at 85 Category B locations would be at or above 75 Traffic noise levels at Traffic noise levels at dBA 18 Category B locations would be 17 Category B locations would be at or above 75 dBA, 67 fewer at or above 75 dBA, 68 fewer locations than the No-Action locations than the No-Action Alternative Alternative With the recommended mitigation Construction noise impacts would actions, an estimated be somewhat limited because the one receiver would be impacted majority of the corridors do not by rail noise, and no receivers abut residential areas. would be impacted by rail Construction noise would be vibration subject to relevant local regulations and ordinances to Construction noise impacts would be somewhat limited because the minimize impacts. majority of the corridors do not abut residential areas. Construction noise would be subject to relevant local regulations and ordinances to minimize impacts. • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28.5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Cori t.) • No-Action Alternative Package A I Package B Water Resources Highway Impacts: Highway Impacts: Highway Impacts: Would result in 1,257 acres of Would result in 1,946 acres of Would result in 2,001 acres of impervious surface area impervious surface area, with the impervious surface area, with the Direct effects on surface water greatest impacts expected greatest increase between SH 14 between SH 14 and SH 60 and SH 60 quality from increases in stormwater runoff velocity and Would require relocation of as Would require relocation of as volume would be negligible. The many as 105 wells within the many as 111 wells within the majority of stormwater runoff from right-of-way. right-of-way I-25 would continue not to be treated prior to discharging to Modifications to the existing Modifications to the existing water bodies. drainage system or a new system drainage system or a new system could improve drainage compared could improve drainage to the No-Action Alternative compared to the No-Action Alternative Groundwater impacts are not expected as a result of major and minor structure maintenance activities associated with this alternative. Drainage improvements may occur in areas where roadway improvements are currently • planned. Wetlands Would generally not affect Would result in total direct Would result in total direct existing wetland resources, impacts of: impacts of: except those associated with 17 48 acres for wetlands development activities and 18.11 acres for wetlands rehabilitation of major and minor 1.86 acres of jurisdictional open structures. water 2.27 acres of jurisdictional open water With continuing development in Indirect wetland effects would the project area, some affects to include increased roadway runoff, Indirect wetland effects would wetlands would be expected surface flows in adjacent streams, include increased roadway runoff, sediment from winter sanding surface flows in adjacent streams, operations, erosion, creation of sediment from winter sanding channels in wetlands that were operations, erosion, creation of previously free of channelization, channels in wetlands that were and decrease or elimination of previously free of channelization, upland tree and/or shrub buffers. and decrease or elimination of De-icers, petroleum products, and upland tree and/or shrub buffers. other chemicals would also likely De-icers, petroleum products, and reduce water quality. other chemicals would also likely reduce water quality. • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28.6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Cori t.) No-Action Alternative Package A I Package B Floodplains Existing conditions would Would impact a total of 12.8 acres of Would impact a total of 13.5 continue. Floodplain impacts floodplains, 10.8 acres from highway acres of floodplains, all would be addressed during the components and 2.0 acres from transit from highway components final design phases of each components CDOT project along 1-25 within Would result in twelve 1-25 the regional study area, such as Would result in seven 1-25 crossings of crossings of floodplains and rehabilitation of various drainage floodplains and ten drainage structure 16 drainage structure structures. replacements replacements Would result in 11 commuter rail Would not have any crossings of floodplains floodplain impacts beyond those for the highway Would result in two floodplains components impacted by queue jumps for commuter buses None of the bus facilities would impact a floodplain Vegetation Would only have a minimal effect Safety improvements between SH 1 Safety improvements on existing vegetation resources. and SH 14 would result in impacts not impacts would be the same Effects from increasing to extend beyond the existing 1-25 right- as those associated with development on vegetation could of-way. Package A. include population fragmentation, reductions in riparian zones, and General purpose and auxiliary lanes Express lanes would • ground and soil disturbance which would include the removal of remove 774 acres of could promote increased approximately 860 acres of riparian riparian woodland, germination of noxious weed woodland, agricultural, urban agricultural, urban populations. landscape, and various wetland landscape, and various vegetation communities. Impacts would wetland communities be expected from fill placement and damage by construction equipment. Soil Bus rapid transit would not disturbance from construction result in direct or indirect equipment could allow weedy species impacts on existing to establish. Other indirect impacts vegetation communities. would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers. Upgrading structures could have minor impacts on existing vegetation located adjacent to and beneath existing structures. Commuter rail would result in the removal of 107 acres of vegetation in fragmented parcels of native prairie. Addition of a highway lane on either side of the roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Other indirect impacts would include the • reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Con't.) • No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Noxious Weeds Would not contribute to the Safety improvements might increase Safety improvements spread of noxious weeds. the spread of Canada thistle and Leafy impacts would be the same spurge into open or disturbed areas. as those associated with Package A. Construction of general purpose and auxiliary lanes would cause soil Construction of general disturbance (approximately 287 acres) purpose and tolled lanes that could increase the spread of would cause soil noxious weeds on roadsides, possibly disturbance (approximately introduce new noxious weed species, 258 acres)that could and prevent the establishment of native increase the spread of vegetation. noxious weeds on roadsides, possibly Soil disturbance along the banks of introduce new noxious streams could increase the invasion weed species, and prevent and establishment of Tamarisk, which the establishment of native threatens native riparian trees and vegetation. Soil disturbance shrubs. along the banks of streams Construction of commuter rail would could increase the invasion cause soil disturbance (approximately and establishment of 36 acres)that could increase the Tamarisk. spread of Leafy spurge and Canada Construction of bus rapid thistle into open and residential areas, transit stations and park- as well as patches of native prairie that and-ride facilities could • lie within the rail alignment. cause minor impacts that Proposed bus routes would not would increase the spread contribute to the spread of noxious of Leafy spurge and weeds. Canada thistle into open and residential areas. Both temporary roads and work areas would be susceptible to potential new Both temporary roads and weed population invasions. work areas would be susceptible to potential new weed population invasions. Wildlife Existing conditions would Would impact 2.01 acres of sensitive Would impact 2.35 acres of continue. Increased traffic on wildlife habitat sensitive wildlife habitat secondary roads would increase mortality of wildlife from collisions. Would impact 1.82 acres of aquatic Would impact 2.25 acres of habitat aquatic habitat Would impact 10 wildlife movement Would impact 5 wildlife corridors and 9 raptor nests movement corridors and 11 raptor nests • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Cori t.) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Threatened & Endangered Species Would not affect threatened and Direct impact to 0.8 acres of potential Direct impact to 0.8 acres endangered species. Existing Preble's habitat of potential Preble's habitat conditions would continue. Direct impact to 204 acres of bald eagle Direct impact to 231 acres foraging habitat of bald eagle foraging habitat Direct impact to 51 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies Direct impact to 104 acres of nck-tailed prairie dog Direct impact to 20 acres of habitat for colonies northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes Direct impact to 21 acres ofDirect impact to 0.4 acres of habitat for leopard hab frogs fgrand northern and common state threatened, endangered, or gartersnakes sensitive aquatic species Direct impact to 0.4 acres Direct impact to 7 acres of habitat foro bald eagle roost sites threatened, state for n endangered, or Direct impact to a total of 283 acres of sensitive aquatic species sensitive habitat Direct impact to 2 acres of habitat for bald eagle roost sites • Direct impact to a total of 359 acres of sensitive habitat Visual Quality Would generally have minimal Most of the proposed improvements Most of the proposed effect on visual resources. Growth would not have a substantial effect to improvements would not would continue to occur on the visual quality of the corridors. have a substantial effect to undeveloped agricultural land. the visual quality of the This would change the landscape Long-term impacts would include corridors. character along the I-25, BNSF, relocation of businesses and and US 287 corridors, and alter residences, rebuilt interchanges, Package B would have the views and perception of visual increased right-of-way, additions of same basic visual impacts character. station amenities, and changes to the as described for surrounding landscape through the use Package A, except that of overpasses, bridges, retaining walls, BRT elements would occur medians, as well as alterations to the along 1-25 instead of the existing roadway grade. commuter rail and bus elements along other rights- Indirect impacts of the proposed improvements could encourage of-way. development that is more compact and denser, especially within walking distance of a commuter rail station. • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Con't.) • No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Visual Quality(Continued) The addition of stations and a maintenance facility would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. Short-term impacts would include detours, increased roadway congestion in and around the area, the presence of large equipment, and dust from construction. Historic Preservation Would generally not affect Direct Impacts: Direct Impacts: significant(NRHP-eligible) historic resources. The present Five adverse effects from direct One adverse effect from direct trend of conversion of much of impacts, including: impacts: the remaining farmsteads (many of which are historic) Total takes of two NRHP-eligible One NRHP-eligible ditch/canal into residential, industrial and buildings, and removal of requiring extensive burial in commercial development contributing farmhouse on NRHP- culverts. would continue. eligible farm; • Section 4(f) Use: No significant (NRHP-eligible) One NRHP-eligible ditch requiring ve burial in culvert(s); and One individual 4(f) use and 22 de extensive archaeological resources would minimis uses be affected within the Area of One NRHP-eligible railroad with Potential Effect. g No NRHP-eligible archaeological extensive alterations and removal resources would be affected of two contributing historic within the Area of Potential Effect railroad bridges Section 4(f) Use: Five individual 4(f) uses and 32 de minimis uses No NRHP-eligible archaeological resources would be affected within the Area of Potential Effect • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-10 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Con't.) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Paleontological Resources No impacts Construction along the existing Construction along 1-25 between BNSF rail-line between Fort US 36 and SH 7, especially Collins and Longmont, and along where cuts are necessary to 1-25 between US 36 and SH 7, expand highways and especially where cuts are interchanges, has the highest necessary to expand rail likelihood of adversely impacting alignments, highways, and paleontological resources. interchanges, has the highest likelihood of adversely impacting Because Package B would paleontological resources. generally require less ground disturbance than Package A, Ground disturbance associated Package B has a lower potential with the construction of commuter for impacts on paleontological rail lines and facilities is resources. anticipated to be significantly greater than that required for bus rapid transit facilities. Hazardous Materials No direct impacts 38 parcels with potential 41 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 environmental conditions and 16 Indirect impacts include the parcels with recognized parcels with recognized • potential to encounter environmental conditions are environmental conditions are contaminated soil and/or associated with the highway associated with the highway groundwater during structure components. components. maintenance activities or during safety improvements that require 58 parcels with potential ramp terminal widening. environmental conditions and 2 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with the transit components. Parks and Recreation Portions of three parks, a wildlife Direct use of seven properties, six Direct use of eight properties, area, and one golf course would having minor impacts. seven having minor impacts. receive noise impacts. McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park would likely have to be acquired. would have a trail impacted. Indirect effects would include Indirect effects would include visual impacts at the sculpture visual impacts at the sculpture park, change in access at one park, change in access at one location, and noise impacts at five location, and noise impacts at properties. four properties. Benefits would include improved Benefits would include improved access and mobility to and from access and mobility to and from these recreational resources. these recreational resources. • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Con't.) • No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Section 6(f) Would have no impacts on any of Would have no impacts on any of Total impacted area in Grant Park the 6(f) properties the 6(f) properties for two water quality ponds would be 0.17 acres Conversion of that area would not impact the remaining park Farmlands Would not directly impact prime Package A would result in the Package B would result in the farmland, farmland of statewide direct conversion of 982.3 total direct conversion of 926.8 total importance, or farmland of local acres, if certain farming acres, if certain farming importance. conditions are present. This conditions are present. This would include: would include: The more dispersed development • 1.8 acres of farmland of local • 1.7 acres of farmland of local pattern would further fragment importance importance remaining agricultural lands, • 44.4 acres of farmland of • 35.7 acres of farmland of reducing their long-term viability. statewide importance statewide importance • 936.1 acres of farmland that • 889.4 acres of farmland that would be considered prime if would be considered prime if four certain conditions are four certain conditions are present present No farms would be severed or No farms would be severed or lose access. lose access. • As a result of commuter rail, the Most of the farmland impact is rate at which environmental associated with the widening of resources (including farmlands) 1-25 to accommodate additional would be affected in undeveloped buffer or barrier separated and suburban areas within the express lanes in each direction. regional study area would likely be slowed, especially near 1-25. Energy Annual energy consumption from Would use approximately Would use approximately operations would be 403,220 1.0 percent more energy than the 0.9 percent more energy than the million BTUs No-Action Alternative, as a result No-Action Alternative, as a result Energy demand would be directly of increase in annual vehicle of increase in annual vehicle miles of travel within the project miles of travel within the project proportionate to the increase in area area population as land development occurs Population is anticipated to increase at the same rate for all three alternative • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-12 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.28-1 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts (Con't.) No-Action Alternative Package A Package B Energy (cont'd) Public Safety and Security As congestion increases, there A 70 percent reduction in An increased security presence would be a greater likelihood of accidents associated with trains would be needed on both highway and railway and other vehicles is predicted trains, buses, and at existing and crashes; and emergency proposed stations response times would be An increased security presence negatively affected would be needed on trains, There is a potential for modest buses, and at existing and increases to police services in The likely higher number of proposed stations response to increases in crime crashes also could affect the There is a potential for modest There is a potential for increased likelihood of a crash involving a transporter of hazardous increases to police services in theft during the construction materials response to increases in crime phase(a temporary impact) There is a potential for increased theft during the construction phase (a temporary impact) Construction Would result in no construction or Would have the greatest Would have fewer impacts than utility impacts aside from those construction impacts (noise, air Package A because there is no associated with the currently quality, transportation) rail component, and I-25 consists programmed projects to residential areas since primarily of commercial, industrial, construction of the double-track and agricultural development • commuter rail would extend through residential areas. The Construction of either build double-track commuter rail would package would cause varying use the existing BNSF railroad temporary impacts to traffic track plus one new track from Fort patterns and congestion, noise Collins to downtown Longmont, and vibration, air quality, and and a new double-track commuter visual presence rail line would connect Longmont Construction impacts would be to the FasTracks North Metro short-term and isolated in extent end-of-line station in Thornton. depending upon the types and Construction of either build location of construction package would cause varying temporary impacts to traffic patterns and congestion, noise and vibration, air quality, and visual presence Construction impacts would be short-term and isolated in extent depending upon the types and location of construction • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-13 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28.14 • N oRrx I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3 . 29 Mitigation Summary • • Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS inlormalian.cooperation.Iransportalion. • 3.29 MITIGATION SUMMARY This section summarizes the recommended mitigation measures to be implemented by CDOT and FHWA to eliminate or minimize social and environmental impacts from each of the build packages. The impacts are summarized in Section 3.28. Impacts to social and environmental resources are discussed earlier in this chapter. Transportation improvements and impacts are presented in Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Resource Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures will be required for the build packages. Once the Preferred Land Use Alternative is identified and decision documents finalized, CDOT/FHWA will encourage and Zoning the local governments to address incompatibilities between the proposed transportation improvements and land use/zoning through their existing land use processes. If either of the build packages are implemented, a traffic maintenance plan will be developed to minimize interference to traffic flow from construction equipment and activities. CDOT/FHWA will provide advance notice to emergency service providers, local schools, home owners associations, and the public of upcoming activities that are likely to result in traffic disruption. Such notifications will be accomplished through radio and public announcements, newspaper notices, on-site signage, and CDOT's website. Where feasible, retaining walls will be constructed along I-25 and the BNSF rail corridor to minimize impacts to residential development. If toll lanes are constructed, ways to make tolling more equitable will be sought. • Social Also see mitigation measures associated with NoiseNibration, and Right-of-Way for Conditions property acquisition, provided later in this table. Mitigation for construction related impacts to minority and low-income populations could include the provision of reduced price bus passes during construction, acceptable access modifications, and translated information on construction processes and alternate modes available during construction and pre-opening day. Efforts will continue to be made to ensure meaningful opportunities for public participation during the development and review process. Additional meetings with the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision and El Comite de Longmont will be held to invite participants to comment on the analysis, identify additional concerns, and propose additional mitigation measures. If possible, businesses that need to be acquired will be relocated near their current location. New access will be provided for properties where existing accesses are removed. To avoid disruption of business activities during construction, the new access will be provided before the existing access is removed. A traffic control plan will be developed to minimize interference to traffic flow from Economic construction equipment and activities. CDOT/FHWA will provide advance notice to Conditions emergency service providers, local businesses, rail operators, and residents with regard to road delays, access, and special construction activities. To minimize disruption to traffic and local businesses, construction activities will be staged and work hours varied. Throughout the construction stage, access will be preserved for each affected business. Where feasible, retaining walls will be constructed along I-25 and the BNSF rail corridor • to minimize impacts to commercial development. Mitigation Summary 3.29-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS informalion.moperalion.Iransporlalio,. Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Cori t.) • Resource Mitigation Measures Acquisition of those property interests required for the project will comply fully with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Right-of- as amended(the Uniform Act). Way The Uniform Act also provides for numerous benefits to individuals who occupy improvements that must be acquired, to assist them both financially and with advisory services related to relocating their residence or business operation to a replacement site. Items related to commuter rail: New commuter rail, BRT, and feeder bus vehicles will be required to meet Tier III and Tier IV standards. Alternative bus fleet vehicle selections will be investigated for more energy and emissions efficient vehicles, such as hybrids, electric buses, etc. Items related to temporary construction activities associated with either of the build packages: Project sponsors must prepare an air quality mitigation plan that describes all feasible measures to reduce air quality impacts from their project. CDOT/FHWA staff must review and endorse construction mitigation plans prior to work on a project site. Acceptable options for reducing emissions could include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, and after-treatment products. The contractor will ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and Air Quality maintained. • Idling time will be minimized to 10 minutes—to save fuel and reduce emissions. An operational water truck should be on site at all times. Water will be applied to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts off site. There will be no open burning of removed vegetation. Vegetation should be chipped or delivered to waste energy facilities. Existing power sources or clean fuel generators will be used rather than temporary power generators. A traffic plan will be developed to minimize traffic flow interference from construction equipment movement and activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Operations will be scheduled for off-peak hours whenever reasonable. Obstructions of through-traffic lanes will be minimized. A flag person will be provided to guide traffic properly minimizing congestion and to ensure safety at construction sites. i Mitigation Summary 3.29-2 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 us information.cooperation.transportation. • Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Cori t.) Resource Mitigation Measures There are several existing traffic noise barriers in the project area. If any of these barriers must be removed for construction, the old barrier will be replaced with an equivalent or better barrier as part of either Package A or Package B. From the feasibility and reasonableness evaluations for the barriers, new traffic noise barriers are recommended for the following locations along the two build alternatives: Wellington East(10-foot to 12-foot barrier)— Packages A and B Mountain Range Shadows (12-foot barrier)—Packages A and B Thorncreek Village (14-foot barrier)— Package B only P Stone Mountain Apartments (14 foot barrier)— Package B only Greens of Northglenn (10-foot to-12-foot barrier)—Package B only Badding Reservoir extension (12-foot barrier)—Package B only Brittany Ridge extension (12-foot barrier)— Package B only The preferred mitigation measures for Package A transit rail impacts are quiet zones at the rail crossings for noise and 8,400 lineal feet of tire-derived aggregate (shredded tires)at six locations for vibration. Tire-derived aggregate could eliminate all of the projected vibration impacts, and so it is the preferred mitigation action. As an alternative, Noise& under-tie pads could eliminate all but 13 of the vibration impacts. These measures will be further investigated during final design to evaluate their true feasibility. Vibration CONSTRUCTION NOISE Construction noise would be subject to relevant local regulations and ordinances, and • any construction activities would be expected to comply with them. To address the temporary elevated noise levels that may be experienced during construction, standard mitigation measures would be incorporated into construction contracts, where it is feasible to do so. These would include: Exhaust systems on equipment would be in good working order. Equipment would be maintained on a regular basis, and equipment may be subject to inspection by the project manager to ensure maintenance. Properly designed engine enclosures and intake silencers would be used where appropriate. i• New equipment would be subject to new product noise emission standards. Stationary equipment would be located as far from sensitive receivers as possible. Most construction activities in noise-sensitive areas would be conducted during hours that are least disturbing to adjacent and nearby residents. A combination of mitigation measures consisting of permanent structural, nonstructural, and temporary construction BMPs will be implemented in the project area, in compliance with the Clean Water Act and CDOT's MS4 permit requirements. BMPs will include water collection and passive treatment of stormwater, which is currently being directly discharged into existing water systems. Water Extended detention/retention ponds have been identified as the primary structural BMP Resources for this project. With Package A, water quality ponds will treat approximately 1,765 (90.7%)of the impervious surfaces within the project area. With Package B, about 2,509 acres(125%)will be treated. Locations of water quality ponds have been identified . throughout the project area. Placement of the BMPs is provided in the Water Quality and Floodplain Technical Report(FHU, 2008b). Mitigation Summary 3.29-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information.cooperation.tranopertation, Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) • Resource Mitigation Measures Stormwater management plans (silt fence, inlet protection, containerization of wastes, etc.) will be developed during design, implemented during construction, and updated as needed. Riprap will be placed at bridge abutments, piers, and at critical portions of channels or floodplains. When possible, passive BMPs (e.g., grass swales or natural infiltration)will be used for ephemeral streams. A Spill Prevention Plan will be prepared. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION BMPs In-stream activities will be minimized. CDOT's specifications for managing stormwater at a construction site (currently specifications 107.25, 212, 213, and 216)will be followed. Construction BMPs will be implemented and maintained in compliance with the CDPHE general construction permit. Construction plans must adhere to a stormwater management plan (Section 402, Clean Water Act CDPHE Regulation 61). A Senate Bill 40 (SB40) permit from the CDOW will be obtained. It will include measures to protect existing riparian areas, such as mitigating stormwater runoff or replacing riparian vegetation (on a 1:1 basis for trees and a square footage basis for shrubs). Vegetation or other erosion control techniques (as indicated by CDOT erosion control Water practices)will be established to prevent sediment loading in compliance with the general • Resources stormwater construction permit. (Con't.) Construction activities will be phased to minimize effects associated with large areas of exposed ground and with soil compaction from heavy machinery use. GROUNDWATER QUALITY If groundwater is encountered during activities associated with excavations for caisson/retaining walls, the discharge of groundwater is authorized when the following conditions are met: the source is groundwater and/or groundwater combined with stormwater that does not contain pollutants in concentrations exceeding the State groundwater standards in Regulations 5 CCR 1002-41 and 42; i• the source is identified in the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP); dewatering BMPs are included in the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and these discharges do not leave the site as surface runoff or to surface waters. If these conditions are not met, then a separate Clean Water Act Section 402 Construction Dewatering Permit or Individual Construction Dewatering Permit will be required to be obtained from the CDPHE -WQCD. If dewatering is necessary, groundwater brought to the surface will be managed according to Section 107.25 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005). If active wells are present prior to construction, status of groundwater well use will have to be determined. Active wells within the right-of-way will be relocated, replaced, or supplemented if a reduction in the water table is anticipated. • Mitigation Summary 3.29-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EiS information.cooperation,transportation. • Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Cori t.) Resource Mitigation Measures Impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open water will be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible during preliminary and final design. Impacted wetlands will be replaced with in-kind wetland plant communities with same wetland functions on site or on nearby public lands within the same drainage basin, if practicable. The following mitigation goals are appropriate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands within the build packages project areas: Three wetland mitigation banks in the regional study area offer wetland mitigation credit for purchase to cover unavoidable impacts from construction of the Preferred Alternative. Once a replacement site is selected and final impacts are known, a detailed mitigation plan will be developed. Wetlands For CDOT/FHWA mitigation, final site selection will be based on the installation of groundwater monitoring wells for the purpose of assessing groundwater flow in the area. The water levels in the wells will be monitored for a minimum of one year. During construction, BMPs will be used to avoid indirect construction impacts to wetlands. Materials and equipments will be stored a minimum of 50 feet from wetlands, drainages, and ditches that could carry toxics materials into wetlands. Construction fencing and appropriate sediment control BMPs will be used to mark wetland boundaries and sensitive habitats during construction. Sediment and erosion control will be required to be placed during all phases of construction and will remain in place until all disturbed areas have reached 70% of preconstruction • vegetative cover. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: Designs will comply with federal, state, and local agency requirements. Design will consider the maximum allowable backwater as allowed by FEMA. 100-year FEMA design flows will be used for freeboard determinations, scour design, and to ensure that flow velocities are acceptable. 500-year design flows will be used for the scour design and to determine the depths of piles or caissons. Impacts to downstream areas must be assessed during preliminary and final design by using the guidelines described in Section 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework. Design flows will be based on the current level of development, and it will not be assumed that any inadvertent detention facilities will lower them. Floodplains A bridge deck drainage system that controls seepage at joints should be considered. If possible, bridge deck drains will be piped to a water quality feature before being discharged into a floodplain. CDOT policy, to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. • SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Mitigation Summary 3.29.5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information,cooperation.transportation. Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) • Resource Mitigation Measures Specific BMPs will be determined during final design. Mitigation measures are anticipated to include: An acceptable revegetation plan will be developed with the CDOT landscape architect and with county personnel in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties. A Senate Bill 40 certification for stream crossings or adjacent stream banks will be obtained. In these areas, trees and shrubs must be replaced on a 1:1 basis (trees) and square-foot basis (shrubs). CDOT standard specifications for the amount of time that disturbed areas are Vegetation allowed to be non-vegetated will be followed. Existing trees, shrubs, and vegetation will be avoided to the maximum extent possible, especially wetlands and riparian plant communities. The project team will coordinate with the CDOT landscape architect before construction to determine the types of vegetation that will be protected during construction. Weed-free topsoil will be salvaged for use in seeding. Erosion control blankets will be used on steep, newly seeded slopes. Slopes should be roughened at all times. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native grass and forb species. Seed, mulch, and mulch tackifier will be applied in phases throughout construction. An integrated weed management plan will be incorporated into the project design and implemented during construction. Specific BMPs will be required during construction to reduce the potential for introduction and spread of noxious weed species. These will • include: Noxious weed mapping will be included in the construction documents along with appropriate weed control methods. Highway right-of-way areas will be inspected periodically by the associated city or its consultants during construction and during post-construction weed monitoring for invasion of noxious weeds. Weed management measures will include removal of heavily infested topsoil, herbicide treatment of lightly infested topsoil as well as other herbicide and/or mechanical treatments, limiting disturbance areas, phased seeding with native species throughout the project, and monitoring during and after construction. Use of herbicides will include selection of appropriate herbicides and timing of Noxious herbicide spraying and use of a backpack sprayer in and adjacent to sensitive areas, Weeds such as wetlands and riparian areas. Certified weed-free hay and/or mulch will be used in all revegetated areas. No fertilizers will be allowed on the project site. Preventative control measures for project design and construction may include: Only native species will be used to revegetate sites. Materials used for revegetating will be inspected and regulated in accordance with provisions of the Weed Free Forage Act, Title 35, Article 27.5, CRS. When salvaging topsoil from on-site construction locations, the potential for spread of noxious weeds will be considered. Importing topsoil onto the project site will not be allowed. Equipment will remain on designated roadways and stay out of weed-infested areas • until the areas are treated.All equipment will be cleaned of all soil and plant parts before its arrival at a project site. Mitigation Summary 3.29.6 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information.cooperation trans p slat ion. • Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Cori t.) Resource Mitigation Measures CDOT/FHWA mitigation measures associated with wildlife impacts will include: An application for Senate Bill 40 Certification will be submitted to CDOW. CDOT/FHWA will implement three mitigation measures for projects that will have an impact to migratory birds: (1)tree trimming and/or removal activities, (2) bridge or box culvert work that may disturb nesting birds, and (3) clearing and grubbing of vegetation that may disturb ground nesting birds will all be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. 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 and a minimum "openness ratio" of 0.75. Shrubs and vegetative cover will be placed at bridge underpass openings to attract wildlife and provide a "funnel effect". For structures that periodically convey water, ledges or shelves will provide passage alternatives during high water. To avoid human disturbance to wildlife, trails should not be placed near wildlife crossing structures. Other recommended design elements include: The placement of lighting should be avoided near the crossing structures. Wildlife Roadside vegetation height should be kept to a minimum. Along the commuter rail corridor, CDOT/FHWA will seek permission from the • regional transit authority to minimize the use of chain-link fencing in areas that are heavily used by wildlife. The following design measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish: Riffle and pool complexes should be maintained and/or created. Natural stream bottoms will be maintained. Culverts should be partially buried and the bottom should be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient. Culverts to be replaced should be replaced with one of equal or greater size. Culverts will not have grates, impact dissipators, or any other features that would impede fish movement. 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. • Mitigation Summary 3.29.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information,cooperation.transportation. Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) • Resource Mitigation Measures With the No-Action Alternative, routine maintenance and upgrades to I-25 would fall under the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative Biological Opinion, and mitigation measures described in the opinion could apply. Mitigation measures for occupied Preble's habitat may be required as part of Section 7 consultation with USFWS. Avoidance and minimization measures will 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 are replaced or upgraded, the new culverts will incorporate ledges to facilitate small mammal passage. Where impacts are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation will be provided through replacement with suitable habitat for Preble's. Mitigation measures for Preble's could be combined with wetlands mitigation. A raptor nest survey will be conducted prior to construction to identify bald eagle nests in the project area. If an active bald eagle nest is found within 0.5 mile of the project area, the buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by CDOW will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. No construction will occur within 0.25 mile of active nocturnal roosts between November 15 and March 15. If perch or roost trees are removed during construction, they will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with native cottonwood trees. In areas where avoidance of prairie dogs is not possible, CDOT will follow its Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy. Any prairie dog relocation or removal activities will be carried out in accordance with CRS 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or Threatened regulations, and with close coordination with CDOW. • & Burrowing owl surveys will be conducted prior to any work in prairie dog colonies Endangered between March 15 and October 31. If burrowing owls are present, prairie dog removal Species will be scheduled to occur outside 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. Direct impacts to burrowing owls will be avoided by covering or destroying prairie dog burrows prior to construction (prior to March 15). Direct impacts to nesting great blue herons will be avoided by prohibiting work within the 500-meter(0.31-mile) buffer from nest sites recommended by CDOW. Impacts within this buffer will be limited during the nesting season, which occurs from mid-March through July. Mitigation measures for wetlands and Preble's, including wetlands replacement and riparian enhancement, will also mitigate impacts to northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. Replacement of culverts with larger culverts or free-spanning bridges will also mitigate potential impacts to northern leopard frog and common gartersnake. The following design measures will mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish: Riffle and pool complexes should be maintained and/or created; Natural stream bottoms will be maintained; Culverts should be partially buried and the bottom should 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, energy dissapators, or any other features that would impede fish movement. Mitigation Summary 3.29.8 Draft EIS NORM 1-25 October 2008 EIS information.cooperation.Iransportatan. • Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) Resource Mitigation Measures To avoid erosion-induced siltation and sedimentation, erosion control measures will be applied, such as the immediate reseeding of disturbed areas after construction and, if necessary, the application of mulch and mulch tackifier to stabilize slopes. Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. Threatened & No new fish passage barriers will be created. Endangered Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or Species redesigned where practicable. (Con't.) CDOT's water quality BMPs will be applied, and will include installation of mechanisms to collect, contain, and/or treat roadway runoff. Potential Colorado butterfly plant and Ute ladies'-tresses orchid habitat within the project area, along the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers, and along St.Vrain Creek will be surveyed during the flowering season just prior to construction. Mitigation measures to address visual effects of highway widening will include incorporating landscaping at interchanges and along the highway. Mitigation measures to address visual effects of structural elements will include providing architectural interest or color into retaining walls and sound walls, and reducing the effect of overpasses by providing architectural detailing of the railings and other features. Mitigation measures to soften and enhance visual effects of additional track for transit will include incorporating landscaping, considering vinyl-coated chain-link fencing, providing architectural interest or color in retaining wall and bridge design, and limiting lighting to • Visual only what is required for safety and security. Quality Mitigation measures to address visual effects of stations will include providing distinctive treatments at platform station locations to designate station locations. Local communities, business districts, or other entities should be involved in upgrading or enhancing the currently proposed features. The effects of overpasses will be reduced with architectural detailing of the railing and other features. Station effects will be reduced with the use of trees in combination with shrubs to filter views to the station and parking lots, provide a human scale, and present a positive image to attract ridership. Landscape islands with shade trees will be placed in parking lots to break up the expanse of pavement and parked vehicles. Mitigation measures to address adverse effects to historic properties will be determined by consultation between FHWA, FTA, CDOT and the Colorado SHPO, and may include: Creation of a detailed narrative and photographic record prepared in accordance with the SHPO's standards for Level II Documentation: Preparation of permanent documentation in accordance with the National Park Historic Service standards for the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Preservation Engineering Record (HABS/HAER); I. Development of public interpretation of the historic properties to be lost or substantially changed by the project, by signage, museum exhibits, other interpretive displays, brochures or publications, etc.; Development of other creative approaches to mitigation to be determined through consultation. • Mitigation Summary 3.29.9 Draft EIS Nom 1-25 - October 2008 Es information.cooperation.transportation, Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) • Resource Mitigation Measures All paleontological monitoring work will be performed by a qualified and State of Colorado-permitted paleontologist. Paleontological monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units and microscopic examination of matrix to determine if fossils are present. This work would take place during surface disturbing activities, such as excavations for the construction of roads, railways, bridges, underpasses, and buildings. Monitoring will be scheduled to take place continuously or to consist of spot-checks of construction excavations, depending upon the paleontological sensitivity of the project Paleonto- area based on its geology and the types and significance of potential fossils that could logical be present in subsurface sedimentary deposits. Paleontological monitors will follow Resources earth-moving equipment and examine excavated sediments and excavation sidewalls for evidence of significant paleontological resources. At the request of the monitors, the project engineer will order temporary diversion of grading away from exposed fossils in order to permit the monitors to efficiently and professionally recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. All efforts to avoid delays to project schedules will be made. If any subsurface bones or other potential fossils are found by construction personnel during construction, work in the immediate area will cease immediately, and the CDOT paleontologist will be contacted to evaluate the significance of the find. The MESA(FHU, 2007)contains a complete listing of sites with potential and recognized environmental conditions that were identified for the project and should be referenced to verify recommended mitigation actions. A Materials Management Plan (MMP), as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a), will be prepared for areas with known soil and groundwater contamination. Construction specifications will be written to include review of the MMP by the CDOT Regional • Environmental Manager. If dewatering is necessary, groundwater brought to the surface will be managed according to Section 107.25 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a)and permitted by the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division. Relocation of overhead electrical utility lines and pole-mounted transformers will be conducted in accordance with any easement agreement between CDOT and/or private landowners. Hazardous All wells within the proposed construction area will be abandoned and plugged according Materials to CDOT Section 202.02 in Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a) and in conformance with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources State Engineer Water Well Construction Rules, specifically Rule 16. If petroleum-contaminated soil is identified with a concentration less than 1,000 ppm but higher than 500 ppm, CDOT will be responsible for clean-up. A MMP and a Health and Safety plan, as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005), also is recommended for use when oil and gas facilities are encountered. Prior to demolition of any structures, an asbestos, lead-based paint, and miscellaneous hazardous materials survey will be conducted at each parcel, where applicable. Regulated materials abatement will be conducted in accordance with Section 250, Environmental, Health, and Safety Management, of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a)and relevant Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) regulatory details. • Prior to demolition, regulated materials must be removed from any structures and appropriately recycled or disposed. Mitigation Summary 3.29.10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information.cooperation.Iransportalion • Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) Resource Mitigation Measures Coordination with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety (OPS)will be required prior to parcel acquisition of any sites that are identified as having active leaking tanks. If site characterization and/or remediation have not been completed, the OPS may require CDOT to complete these activities after acquisition. During the right-of-way acquisition process, additional properties may require other actions depending on the results of the Initial Site Assessments (ISAs). By law, all friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) must be removed from structures, including bridges, prior to demolition, and soils if encountered in excavated landfill or building debris, buried utilities, or other ACM. The contractor performing the asbestos abatement is required to be licensed to perform such work and obtain permits from the CDPHE. Hazardous Lead-based paint may need to be removed prior to demolition if the lead is leachable at Materials concentrations greater than regulatory levels. Where lead-based painted surfaces will be (Con't.) removed via torching, additional health and safety monitoring requirements are applicable. Prior to construction activities, a Health and Safety Plan, as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005a), will be developed. Construction specifications shall be written to include review of the Health and Safety Plan by the CDOT Regional Environmental Manager. If abandoned landfills or coal mines are present below and/or within 1,000 feet of construction activities, the Health and Safety Plan will need to include provisions for assessing and monitoring air quality at all utility trenches, drainage structures, and similar • underground construction (i.e., caissons)areas prior to and during intrusive activities to ensure worker safety. All ground disturbing and debris generating construction processes will be contained by erosion and sediment control BMPs designed as part of approved stabilization and stormwater management plans. All disturbed areas will be returned to their original contour, vegetation and landscape appearance in cooperation with and direction from the resource jurisdictional authorities. Some techniques that may be used to mitigate impacts will include, but not be limited to: coordinating with the local jurisdiction to prepare for construction at the site, including Parks and public safety and security measures and providing signed detour and alternate Recreation access information; replacing vegetation will be with native grass and shrubs; (mitigation ratios and plant selection and placement will be determined through coordination with local jurisdictional agencies); using BMPs to limit erosion during construction; compensating for acquisition of the resource (location of any lost access will be negotiated with park representatives during final design); and rebuilding park features, such as trails, elsewhere on the park site. For Package B, coordination will need to occur with the City of Northglenn and the Colorado State Parks Department. CDOT/FHWA will work with Northglenn to determine Section 6(f) the design, construction details, and a maintenance agreement for the two water quality ponds north and south of Grange Hall Creek in Grant Park. • Mitigation Summary 3.29.11 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information.cooperation Iranspo'alion. Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Cori t.) • Resource Mitigation Measures If any important agricultural features are affected as design is further defined, mitigation measures, such as replacement of irrigation ditches and pipes, will be considered as Farmland appropriate. Loss or damage to crops resulting from construction activities will be compensated. Mitigation of energy consumption during operations will focus on a reduction in daily vehicle miles of travel. This reduction can be achieved through successful transit-oriented Energy development, congestion management, and effective improvements to the roadways. These measures all work to increase travel efficiency and save energy. The design of bus stations will incorporate life-safety standards, similar to RTD's Comprehensive Safety Certification Program. To ensure consistency of service across the transit corridor, the commuter rail operating authority will be expected to adhere to these same standards. These include measures such as fencing to protect patrons from the track area; well-designed pedestrian underpasses; lighting as a deterrent to crime and to ensure good visibility in stations and parking areas; and, where walls and elevator shafts are constructed, the use of transparent materials to provide better sight lines and reduce concealment areas for criminals. Public Safety Prior to operation of commuter rail with Package A, the operational authority will host and Security training sessions for all affected police, fire, emergency response teams, schools, and employers who either are responsible for police or emergency response or are located in the immediate project corridor. These training sessions will cover the details of commuter train and bus operations, potential security issues, and agency responsibilities. Potential losses at construction sites will be mitigated through fencing and on-site • security provided by contractors. All construction contractors will be responsible for safety at their respective sites and will be required to follow all OSHA requirements applicable to construction site safety. The appropriate agencies will provide a site safety officer to monitor site safety. CDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005) and CDOT's Construction Manual(2002a) outline basic mitigation measures that contractors are required to take on any construction project. Appropriate application of these mitigation strategies will be defined during the final engineering phase of this project. Noise Implement construction best management practices. Use noise blankets on equipment and quiet-use generators. Construction Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period. Use alternative construction methods, such as sonic or vibratory pile-driving in sensitive areas, when possible. In residential areas, construction activities will be minimized during the evening, nighttime, weekends, and holidays when receptors are usually in these areas. Nighttime construction will be desirable (e.g., commercial areas where businesses may be disrupted during daytime hours)or necessary to avoid major traffic disruption. • Mitigation Summary 3.29.12 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information.cooperation transportation. • Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) Resource Mitigation Measures The major noise source on construction sites is typically diesel motors; therefore, all engines will use commercially available effective mufflers and enclosures, as possible. Modern equipment will be used with improved noise muffling and all equipment items will be evaluated to ensure that they have the manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measure, such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. Generally, newer equipment would create less operational noise than older equipment. All construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise-control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding). The use of impact pile driving will be avoided near noise-sensitive areas, where possible. Alternative foundation preparation technologies will be used, such as vibratory pile driving or cast in drilled hole. Temporary barriers will be used and relocated, as required, to protect sensitive receptors from excessive construction noise. Noise barriers should be made of heavy plywood or moveable insulated sound blankets. Plans will be made to conduct truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations so that noise will be kept to a minimum. Frequent updates of all construction activities will be provided to the public. A community noise and vibration monitoring plan and a noise and vibration control plan will be prepared before initiating any construction. • Access Construction Use enhanced signing. (Con't.) iw Use alternate access enhancements. Use advertising/public relations. Do not close multiple interchanges concurrently. Highway Limit detours. Place detours on major arterial streets and ensure no local street detours are implemented. Schedule construction during periods of least traffic. Use geometric enhancements including wider lanes and better visibility. De Limit construction vehicles to major arterials. Enforce speed restrictions; provide adequate space for enforcement; make prime contractor accountable. Use courtesy patrol. Use enhanced signing. Phase construction to limit traffic in neighborhoods. Comply with AASHTO guidance and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Coordinate work activities to ensure they do not coincide with sporting, school, or special events. • I Implement advanced traffic diversion. Mitigation Summary 3.29-13 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information.cooperation.transportation. Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) • Resource Mitigation Measures Use intelligent management systems and variable message signs to advise/redirect traffic. Work with RTD to offer enhanced operations during peak construction. Develop traffic management plans. Maintain access to local businesses/residents. Coordinate with emergency service providers to minimize delay and ensure access to properties. Pedestrian/bicycle mobility t• Provide well-defined detours for pedestrians/bicyclists. Enhance safety through the use of adequate signing, fencing, and lighting. Implement a public relations program. Comply with American Disability Act requirements. Construct new bike/pedestrian overpass as a detour before old is demolished. Environmental Impacts k Use wetting/chemical inhibitors for dust control. Provide early investigation of subsurface conditions. Prepare a well-defined materials handling plan. Employ educated contractor with trained personnel. Require prompt and safe disposal of waste products. Construction Implement water quality best management practices. • (Con't.) Prepare well-defined stormwater management plan. Conduct monitoring. Institute resource reuse and allocation. Ensure regulatory compliance. Cover trucks hauling soil and other materials. Stabilize and cover stockpile areas. Minimize offsite tracking of mud, debris, hazardous material, and noxious weeds by washing construction equipment in contained areas. Avoid impacts to wetlands or other areas of important habitat value in addition to those impacted by the project itself. Control and prevent concrete washout and construction wastewater. As projects are designed, ensure that proper specifications are adhered to and reviewed to ensure adequacy in the prevention of water pollution by concrete washout. Store equipment and materials in designated areas only. Promptly remove any unused detour pavement or signs. Follow CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005), including sections regarding water quality control, erosion control, and environmental health and safety. • Mitigation Summary 3.29-14 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information.cooperation transportation. • Table 3.29-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring (Con't.) Resource Mitigation Measures Prepare or revegetate exposed areas as soon as possible after construction. Remove soil and other materials from paved streets. Incorporate recommendations as appropriate from the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) report, Reducing Diesel Emissions in the Denver Area (RAQC, 2002). Operate equipment mainly during off-peak hours. Limit equipment idling time. Use recycled materials for project activities to the extent allowed by good practice Construction and CDOT construction specifications. (Con't.) r Use construction equipment that use ultra-low sulfur fuels to the extent practicable. Floodplains and Water Resources Best management practices used will be consistent with the MS4 permitting requirements, requirements of Northern Front Range flood control districts, as well as practices mentioned in CDOT's Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide (CDOT, 2002b). Section 107.25 of CDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction(2005) deals with contractor's requirements for water quality control. • • Mitigation Summary 3.29.15 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. III 1 CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS 2 This chapter compares the impacts of the 3 No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B What's in Chapter 4? 4 on each mode of the transportation system. 5 Impacts are presented by package, but, in Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts 4.1 6 some cases, are also presented by component and Policies Compatibility with Transportation Plans and Ps 7 for more detailed information (see Chapter 2 4.2 Travel Demand 8 Alternatives for more information about 4.3 Travel Time 9 package components). Reporting by 4.4 Level of Service 10 component was most effective for impacts that 4.5 Transit Operations 11 could be defined within finite limits, such as 4.6 Safety 12 transit ridership, station boardings, or highway 4.7 Freight Traffic System-wide impacts, such as 4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems 13 volumes. S Y P 4.9 Construction 14 vehicle miles of travel (VMT), were more 4.10 Summary of Transportation Findings 15 appropriately reported by alternative because 16 VMT is affected by all the interrelated parts of a transportation system. 17 4.1 COMPATIBILITY WITH TRANSPORTATION 18 PLANS AND POLICIES 19 Several planning agencies have published plans and policies outlining their future • 20 transportation investment goals. This section describes the compatibility of the No-Action 21 Alternative and the North 1-25 build packages (Packages A and B) with existing local and 22 regional transportation plans and policies. 23 4.1.1 No-Action Alternative 24 The No-Action Alternative generally would not be compatible with regional transportation 25 plans and policies because it does not accommodate planned upgrades along 1-25. It also 26 would not provide regional multi-modal connections to the Denver Metro Area or to 27 communities in northern Colorado. 28 4.1.2 Package Compatibility 29 Packages A and B would be compatible with most local and regional transportation plans. 30 These plans describe various roadway and transit improvements. In most cases, neither 31 Package A nor Package B would preclude these improvements. 32 Packages A and B are specifically compatible with the following plans for the reasons 33 stated: 34 ► The Denver Regional Council of Governments' (DRCOG, 2005) 2030 Metro Vision 35 Regional Transportation Plan (Metro Vision) because the design in each package 36 accommodates lane expansion and interchange improvements up to SH 7. • Transportation Impacts 4-1 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 ► The North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (NFRMPO and others, 2004) • 2 because the 1-25 interchange design in each package accommodates lane expansion on 3 Prospect Road, Harmony Road, and US 34. The NFRMPO's 2030 fiscally constrained 4 plan identifies some funding for 1-25 improvements and commuter rail right-of-way 5 preservation. 6 ► The Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (FHU, 2004) because the 1-25 7 interchange design in each package accommodates the expansion of SH 52. 8 ► The Draft Larimer County Transportation Plan (FHU and others, 2006) because the 1-25 9 interchange design in each package accommodates expansion of SH 392. 10 ► The City of Loveland 2030 Transportation Plan (LSA Associates, 2007) because the 1-25 11 interchange design in each package accommodates expansion of Crossroads Boulevard. 12 ► The City of Fort Collins 2004 Transportation Master Plan (PBS&J and others, 2004) 13 because the 1-25 interchange design in each package accommodates expansion of 14 Harmony Road. 15 ► The FasTracks Plan because Package A would extend planned FasTracks rail service to 16 the northern communities. The RTD transit expansion project includes two commuter rail 17 lines extending north toward the project area, terminating in Thornton and in Longmont. In 18 addition, neither Package A nor B would preclude other planned FasTracks 19 improvements. 20 Both packages are generally compatible with the following plans because they would not 21 preclude the investment types being considered: • 22 ► Weld County Roadway Classification Plan (FHU, 2002a) 23 ► Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan Mobility 2020 (FHU, 2002b) 24 Improvements included in Packages A and B are not included in the fiscally constrained 25 plans for the Upper Front Range or DRCOG. 26 4.1.2.3 PACKAGE A 27 General Purpose Lanes 28 The additional general purpose lanes (GPLs) and upgraded interchanges on 1-25 included 29 in Package A would be compatible with the North Front Range 2030 Regional 30 Transportation Plan, which includes widening 1-25 to six lanes and improving deficient 31 interchanges on 1-25. The planned improvements would further be compatible with the 32 mission of the Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan to meet the needs of 33 all travelers in the Upper Front Range. The improvements also would be compatible with 34 the 2030 Statewide Transportation Plan's goal to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and 35 accommodate growth in freight transportation. 36 Commuter Rail 37 The Package A commuter rail component generally would be compatible with NFRMPO 38 and UFRRPC goals to provide a multi-modal transportation system that includes passenger 39 rail. However, both of these plans identified commuter rail as being needed along the 1-25 • 40 corridor rather than the BNSF corridor based on the results of a transportation alternatives 41 feasibility study previously conducted in the area. Transportation Impacts 4-2 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Though generally compatible with the Fort Collins 2004 Master Transportation Plan, 2 Package A's commuter rail line component would use some of the same right-of-way as the 3 proposed Mason Transportation corridor bus rapid transit (BRT). The City of Fort Collins 4 has received approval from FTA to proceed into project development for design and 5 construction of the Mason Corridor. The North 1-25 EIS process will evaluate options to 6 address the potential rail and BRT right-of-way conflict. These options include but are not 7 limited to: modifying the location of the rail alignment; modifying the amount of double-track 8 rail and any associated rail operations; or ending the Package A rail alignment at the 9 southern Mason Corridor BRT terminus and requiring a direct transfer of transit passengers. 10 Package A commuter rail would connect to and be compatible with the rail lines planned 11 by RTD in the DRCOG area. These two lines are the Northwest Rail Corridor and North 12 Metro Corridor. 13 Commuter Bus 14 The Package A commuter bus component would be compatible with the mission of the 15 City of Greeley's Comprehensive Transportation Plan to implement a convenient 16 multi-modal transportation system and to provide service to and from Denver. 17 4.1.2.4 PACKAGE B 18 Tolled Express Lanes 19 The addition of capacity and improved interchanges along 1-25 under Package B would be • 20 compatible with DRCOG's Metro Vision, North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation 21 Plan and Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. The tolled express lanes 22 (TELs) also would be compatible with the Statewide 2030 Transportation Plan goals to 23 increase mobility, reduce congestion, and accommodate future travel modes. All of these 24 plans' goals are to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and accommodate future travel 25 modes. However, DRCOG's Metro Vision is the only plan that specifically cites the need for 26 a "managed" lane type such as the TELs in Package B. 27 Bus Rapid Transit 28 BRT in Package B generally would be compatible with NFRMPO and UFRRPC goals to 29 provide a multi-modal system with regional transit service along 1-25. However, both plans 30 identified commuter rail along I-25 as the preferred mode, not BRT. 31 4.2 TRAVEL DEMAND 32 This section describes the regional travel demand forecasting model and measures used to 33 compare the two build packages to the No-Action Alternative. Travel demand includes 34 measures such as highway volumes, transit ridership, miles of travel, and hours of travel. 35 4.2.1 Overview of Travel Forecasting 36 Travel demand forecasts were prepared using a multi-modal regional TransCAD travel 37 demand model. Travel models are standard planning tools that produce estimates of future • 38 roadway traffic volumes and transit ridership based on the existing and proposed 39 transportation network and future population and employment projections. Transportation Impacts 4-3 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Due to the large regional study area, the NFRMPO and DRCOG regional models were • 2 merged into a combined multi-modal model for the North 1-25 Draft EIS forecasting effort. A 3 Travel Forecasting Working Group met periodically to review the technical process of 4 combining the two models. The technical group included modeling staff from NFRMPO, 5 DRCOG, RTD, CDOT, the City of Fort Collins, and the consultant team. Complete 6 documentation of the development, validation, and application of the North 1-25 EIS 7 Combined Travel Model is available in the 2008 technical reports Development and 8 Validation of the North 1-25 Draft EIS Combined Travel Model (Jacobs, 2008e) and North 1- 9 25 Draft EIS Travel Demand Model Application and Results (Jacobs, 2008f). 10 Travel forecasts are for the year 2030. The combined travel model is based on the North 11 Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (adopted by NFRMPO September 2, 2004) 12 and the DRCOG 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (adopted by DRCOG January 19, 13 2005). These plans include forecasts of 2030 population and employment, a major input to 14 the travel model. Projects included in the 2030 travel demand forecasting model include 15 planned local roadway capacity improvements that are considered very likely to occur. 16 Information on the specific projects included in the background travel demand forecasting 17 network is included in the North 1-25 Draft EIS Travel Demand Model Application and 18 Results (Jacobs, 2008f). 19 The North 1-25 Draft EIS combined travel model is limited in its capability for forecasting toll 20 volumes. For this reason, the traffic forecasts for the express lanes of Package B were 21 prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, a firm that has expertise in toll and revenue forecasting. 22 The estimates were developed, based on 2030 travel demand, from the North 1-25 EIS • 23 combined travel model (Wilbur Smith Associates, 2008). 24 4.2.2 Hours and Miles of Travel 25 Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is a common measurement of the amount of vehicle travel in a 26 specified area. VMT, along with vehicle hours of travel (VHT), result in the calculation of 27 average vehicular speed. Table 4-1 provides a comparison of these measures under 28 existing conditions, the No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B. In the entire regional 29 study area, the total VMT for any of the packages approaches 50 million VMT per day in 30 2030. The amount of total VMT would be somewhat higher for Packages A and B compared 31 to the No-Action Alternative, indicating an increased overall mobility in the regional study 32 area due to the capacity improvements on 1-25. For Package B, VHT would increase along 33 with increased VMT, but average freeway speed indicates that the increased travel would 34 occur at a slightly higher speed than under the No-Action Alternative. For Package A, VHT 35 would slightly decrease, resulting in a somewhat higher average freeway speed. 36 In other words, under Package A and Package B, travelers would be able to make longer 37 trips at a faster average speed than compared to the No-Action Alternative. Since 38 Package A includes 1-25 capacity improvements for all travelers while Package B offers 39 capacity improvements only for high-occupancy and single-occupancy vehicle travelers 40 willing to pay a toll, the mobility benefits of Package B would be slightly less than those of 41 Package A. • Transportation Impacts 4-4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 4-1 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 2001 Existing 2030 No-Action 2030 Package A 2030 Package B Freeway 9,709,000 15,712,000 16,559,000 16,071,000 Other Facilities 17,462,000 32,972,000 32,588,000 33,053,000 Total 27,171,000 48,684,000 49,147,000 49,124,000 Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) 2001 Existing 2030 No-Action 2030 Package A 2030 Package B Freeway 168,000 325,500 330,400 327,300 Other Facilities 584,000 1,206,100 1,196,700 1,205,100 Total 752,000 1,531,600 1,527,100 1,532,300 Average Speed (MPH) 2001 Existing 2030 No-Action 2030 Package A 2030 Package B Freeway 58 48 50 49 Other Facilities 30 27 27 27 Total 36 32 32 32 Note:Area of analysis is the Regional Study Area 2 4.2.3 Highway Volumes 3 Figure 4-1 provides a relative comparison of total daily traffic volumes in the 1-25 corridor 4 under existing conditions, the No-Action Alternative, and Packages A and B. As shown, 5 projected traffic volumes for the No-Action Alternative and both Packages A and B generally 6 follow the same patterns as existing traffic volumes. For instance, existing traffic volumes on 7 1-25 are lowest at the north end and steadily increase south to about SH 402. South of • 8 SH 402, daily traffic volumes remain relatively the same to SH 119 and then begin to 9 steadily increase south of SH 119, with the highest volumes recorded at the southern end of 10 the corridor, which is just north of US 36 in the Denver Metro Area. Package A would have 11 higher daily traffic volumes than Package B along 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 7, while 12 Package B would have the higher daily traffic volumes south of SH 7. 13 Table 4-2 provides more detailed daily traffic volumes for existing conditions, the No-Action 14 Alternative, and Packages A and B. Existing traffic volumes range from a combined north- 15 south volume of 19,100 vehicles-per-day just south of SH 1 to over 180,000 vehicles-per- 16 day south of 84th Avenue. Projected 2030 traffic volumes are much higher than existing 17 conditions between SH 1 and SH 7. As shown in Table 4-2, under both the No-Action 18 Alternative and Package A, projected daily traffic volumes would range from about 19 35,000 vehicles-per-day south of SH 1 to about 235,000 vehicles-per-day south of 20 84th Avenue. However, between Harmony Road and SH 7, Package A would have daily 21 traffic projections from 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles-per-day higher than No-Action Alternative 22 daily traffic projections. 23 Package B daily volume projections in the GPLs generally would be less than No-Action 24 Alternative daily volumes. However, Package B would carry additional traffic volumes in the 25 TELs, which would create higher overall volume in the corridor than under No-Action 26 Alternative conditions. TELs would have projected daily traffic volumes ranging from a low 27 of 9,000 vehicles-per-day near the Prospect Road interchange to a high of over 28 47,000 vehicles-per-day in the southern section of the corridor. Traffic assignments for the 29 TELs were performed with toll rates ranging from $0.05 to $3.00 per mile. Optimal tolls • 30 would manage the demand in the TELs while maximizing revenue. Transportation Impacts 4-5 d \\\ J 0 w i 4F6 -a „5, a:, \1/4.,.... , / . / 1 a . ,,, • .• C O , . ...., ,„ th ......... ,,etr , l l„' c 73 cc ` ;j C C C , /< �� o y N‘ 2 U O C .C C !� \ \ / 1 -�_ 1 .- _ ,S� U J \ . 00)c, s- E E \ / ye fo I, 4 .c_ .ci R5 > > ) % / , > l< o p m Q r -.� N a , \ tt 1.- C Q) a) , �� A UI ,� X10 �� 1 c' 'v'RR. o o o ir y \ W N N N Vii __T �, Q \ 4 / 1\ \ i *., lc t,A s ', , , \ Vi itv \I\ 4,A, \ A N.,• . t \ , ,,,,,. \irk, . '41 Al ' 15\ ,, T -; .. / / 1 cz N. O 0 r .4 _- .7 1/4,. , . _ • . .__,.._ ;-4 4\ V " : \ \ \ -t rt / A . Pilo •(aApCL ru o v \' 100 ry ' _ kr ..fj,\ t -----N-"------__________fi ,,,, f / \v- ,. (31 0 \ \ ‘ 0 •~ \ y \\ 4' ,e 4C ;•El 11041f il) KS\ ›.1 0 sty\'' \ref rIN 14 it %1'\ \\A P\ / N et A -OJ 1 - ^! , t li c r / d o o ° N I i,..41\A _ci CO L, '11W 0 O W-i Z _ N NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 4-2 Mainline I-25 Daily Traffic Volume Comparison Daily Traffic Volumes South of Interchange Existing No- Package A Package B Package Package B General Action General General B Total Purpose General Purpose Purpose Tolled Volume Lanes Purpose Lanes Lanes Express Lanes Lanes SH 1 19,100 34,500 35,400 35,800 0 35,800 Mountain Vista 24,700 56,400 59,300 59,500 0 59,500 SH 14 40,800 80,700 82,700 75,800 9,700 85,500 Prospect 46,300 86,300 93,600 72,300 17,900 90,200 Harmony 61,200 96,000 109,600 72,300 26,400 98,700 SH 392 57,700 88,000 103,600 68,100 18,900 87,000 Crossroads Blvd. 63,900 96,300 116,500 74,700 23,800 98,500 US 34 64,400 103,100 130,100 87,900 23,100 111,000 SH 402 62,500 106,500 132,500 86,500 28,000 114,500 CR 16 63,800 105,500 126,700 83,000 26,300 109,300 SH 60 65,100 108,400 127,600 88,300 21,900 110,200 SH 56 65,000 104,400 119,600 86,600 19,000 105,600 CR 34 65,100 104,500 118,100 90,200 17,000 107,200 SH 66 68,600 110,700 119,800 95,300 15,700 111,000 SH 119 77,000 129,300 138,400 113,300 20,100 133,400 SH 52 86,800 151,100 163,600 127,200 30,300 157,500 • CR 8 89,000 163,000 177,600 147,800 23,400 171,200 SH 7 96,700 174,200 187,300 161,800 23,400 185,200 E-470 87,200 167,200 172,700 143,200 36,600 179,800 144th Avenue 87,200 153,400 157,400 128,700 36,600 165,300 136th Avenue 104,600 170,100 173,400 160,000 27,300 187,300 120th Avenue 132,500 184,500 187,500 172,200 27,300 199,500 104th Avenue 154,800 203,000 205,700 169,600 47,400 217,000 Thornton Pkwy. 164,100 214,500 217,100 200,700 27,800 228,500 84th Avenue 180,700 232,100 234,500 236,400 9,200 245,600 2 Capacity improvements, whether they are additional GPLs or TELs, typically would attract more 3 travel to the improved highway corridor. The increased travel demand would consist of travel 4 that would occur on arterial roads such as US 287 and US 85 under the No-Action Alternative. 5 Figure 4-2 compares the percent increase in 2030 total daily traffic volumes (travel demand) on 6 1-25 generated by Packages A and B in relation to the No-Action Alternative. Between SH 1 and 7 E-470, Package A capacity improvements would generate more new travel demand along 1-25 8 than Package B. Likewise, Package B would attract more travel to 1-25 from the alternate routes 9 between E-470 and 84th Avenue because the TELs increase corridor capacity along this stretch 10 of 1-25. 11 12 Transit ridership projections indicate that transit would attract less than 6,000 riders per day. 13 Because this volume is an order of magnitude smaller than vehicle volumes anticipated on 1-25 14 and because these transit trips would have been made on 1-25 as well as other parallel facilities, 15 the presence of transit would not noticeably affect highway volumes in either Package A or 16 Package B. • 17 Transportation Impacts 4-7 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. 1 Figure 4-2 Percent Increase in I-25 2030 Total Daily Traffic Volumes over4 2 No-Action Alternative 20 — d LEGEND E 18 - _ Package A Package B O 16 - O 14 = M O N 12 - 10 - d - O) C $ O V = = = 4 - =_ - CD L 2 - - a o _ SH 1 to SH 14 SH 14 to SH 60 SH 60 to E-470 E-470 to US 36 (H1 ) (H2) (H3) (H4) 1 -25 Highway Components 4 4.2.4 Effects on Arterials 5 In general , the increased traffic on 1-25 with Packages A and B would reduce traffic on the 6 roadways parallel to 1-25. A screenline analysis was conducted to assess the magnitude of 7 this effect. Traffic on all roads crossing each screenline was tabulated and compared for each 8 package. Figure 4-3 presents the results in terms of daily volumes in 2030 . In the northern 9 area , Package A generally would reduce arterial volumes compared to the No-Action 10 Alternative; the total screenline reduction on arterials would range from 0 percent to 12 11 percent. Package B would be about the same as the No-Action Alternative, with reductions 12 ranging from 0 percent to 3 percent. This difference is due to Package A attracting more 13 traffic to 1-25 than Package B . On the southernmost screenline in the Denver Metro Area , 14 Package B would reduce arterial volumes due to its capacity addition of the TELs, while 15 Package A would result in no net change on arterial traffic. 16 Overall , the magnitude of the effect on arterials would be relatively small , as can be seen on 17 the daily changes on individual roads . The effect on peak-hour arterial conditions would not 18 be noticeable . Transportation Impacts 4-8 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. ID 1 Figure 4-3 Parallel Arterial Effects for Packages A and B (2030 Daily Volumes) 2 LEGEND /s,/ Highways /\/ Arterial Roads •..��'•_- c �• tnetttrpton jRegional Study Area /.......- ' � •..N\----6k/ i City Boundaries ;i J �•, fa Cities & Towns in Project Area P,ercet, • / I Fort Collins , Ih.." , 1 Ault ,• 14 H ss "'. ■ II , e/ai 257 PACKAGER O c 0 CHANGE ON PERCENT MINUSlila OO N O N o. - 0 . .. PARALLEL ROADS NO-ACTION o o :• ~ i N ��.. ` O O j -1% OOOO ' - OiO••"O 'O '111 ; e'�' rrO - O PACKAGER 'n o O O O o ^ rn o '-�-tic?) _5% MINUS O ° rn it 9 cfl PERCENT r v- N m - CHANGE ON NO-ACTION r 0 r N - ' :`,:, PARALLEL ROADS N. Garden City -F- . - , Loveland 34 y PACKAGE B o ._. _ ' . ,E.1,45.- PERCENT MINUS op O C° . O O O -_ p P CARLLELER�S NO-ACTION in ,n F r o 5 O in O Lasalle + ),. wr. . a. � `° _ _ + + -1% PACKAGER o 0 O 0 0 0 00 - o o A 1% ,n rn • •, o o O IS a?? 'n ' PERCENT MINUS iN ink() N Cp In O> N ' w NO.ACTION N '7 2 c°+° � ' .`" CHANGE ON • + . ar . - PARALLEL ROADS • C>tlues • I W • / PACKAGER — j PERCENT CHANGE ON MINUS — O - - PARALLEL ROADS NO ACTION N - 0till p u-3 /0PACKAGE A ,�® o -12% MINUSN " ' PERCENT NO-ACTION CHANGE ON -- . — I.nr>s 0 PARALLEL ROADS _, Volltnar 0 f / I?--fife ' .— � 7---- � I Nixrot 1. Q;ktlrdt• � I it v Datbno Fort lepton i� PACKAGE - PERCENT MINUS c o k CHANGE ON / l 0 NO-ACTION 1-1 - „It o o o ,cc; PARALLEL ROADS �. - +- 'ran:�� a; pojb • Boulder o cn o -4% PACKAMINUGE A r, .� ao N oo PERCENT �' •� NO-ACTION PARALLEL CI CHANGE ., far S4.1porlor A / ......--; ADS Eastlake • �• ' Broomfield 0 Henderson g. itlIfill Nor d: lean ad,/ tab:/ PACKAGE B f r PERCENT MINUS CHANGE ON ,—_✓"' 1NO.ATION k O o in o vi PARAL LEL ROADS ______-/-: • MJ M N O -1% - ° in in -,:t Lr PACKAGE A N + N N MINUS PERCENT - NO-ACTION + CHANGE ON Some link values ere not• . yea `'.1 PARALLEL ROADS jiiiil . ...--1-------- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Z\ •--�Siii 1. i i/ r r r ' I Miles North i r • 1, Map o.«unea•Can ,E rwrews arts Mend! Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast model Runs, September 2006 z.;s.2ao; Transportation Impacts 4-9 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation, transportation. 1 4.2.5 wa Hi h Users Ig y 2 Daily highway users (people) were determined by component for existing conditions, the No- 3 Action Alternative , and Packages A and B . Users were calculated by adding the daily vehicle 4 volume on 1-25 to the entering on-ramp volumes at each interchange and multiplying by the 5 average vehicle occupancy. Figure 4-4 gives a comparison of daily users by component for 6 existing conditions , the No-Action Alternative, and Packages A and B . 7 Package A, between SH 14 and E-470, would generate the highest corridor vehicular 8 volumes and as expected would serve the highest level of highway users . Between E-470 9 and 84th Avenue, Package B would serve the most users due to the increased corridor 10 capacity associated with extending the TELs to the existing express lanes south of 11 84th Avenue . Since Package B would serve fewer users than Package A between SH 14 and 12 E-470, the TELs likely would attract very few new high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs) and 13 essentially would be used by HOV users who would already be using the GPLs in Package A. 14 Figure 4-4 Daily Highway Users (People) on I-25 LEGEND Existing No-Action Alternative Package A I 450,000 — - Package B General Purpose Lanes N 400,000 — - Package B Tolled Express Lanes - L 350,000 - - 300,000 - >i 250,000 — N 200,000 — I O 150,000 — . O M O 100,000 —01 50,000 — 0 I I I I SH 1 to SH 14 SH 14 to SH 60 SH 60 to E-470 E-470 to US 36 (H1 ) (H2) (H3) (H4) 1 -25 Highway Component Transportation Impacts 4-10 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. . 1 Package B users shown in Figure 4-4 depict the situation when the TELs south of 120th 2 Avenue are one lane in each direction . An alternative scenario would be to extend the 3 existing reversible TEL north from 84th Avenue to 120th Avenue and then continue it as a 4 one-lane TEL in each direction north of 120th Avenue . In terms of total system users, both 5 alternatives would generate about an equal number of users from SH 1 to US 36 . Figure 4-5 6 shows that, between the two TEL options, total system users south of E-470 are about the 7 same. However, TEL users on reversible lanes to 120th Avenue would be about 30 percent 8 lower than TEL users on one-lane in each direction . 9 Figure 4-5 Users from E-470 to US 36 (One Tolled Express Lane in Each Direction 10 versus Two Reversible Tolled Express Lanes) 450,000 - Cl) 400,000 — 0 co M 350,000 - Cl)E 300,000 — so O N mid O 250,000 - N. >IT' LEGEND • = W 200,000 — Tolled Express Lane Users E O 150,000 — M General Purpose Lane Users N 100,000 - 50,000 - 0 I With One TEL Lane With Two Reversible Lanes Each Direction to 120th and One Lane in Each Direction from 120th to E-470 11 12 4.2.6 Transit Ridership 13 Table 4-3 displays the transit ridership forecasts for each of the package components. Since 14 the No-Action Alternative does not include any regional transit, this alternative is not included 15 in the table . The daily ridership (the total number of daily route boardings) results are for trips 16 in both directions on an average weekday in 2030. 17 Package A commuter rail would attract 4, 300 average weekday trips . Commuter bus to/from 18 downtown Denver would attract 1 ,200 trips per day. Commuter bus service to/from DIA would 19 attract another 350 daily trips. • 20 Package B BRT service to/from downtown Denver would attract over 5,650 trips per day. The g P 21 BRT service to/from DIA would attract another 200 daily trips . Transportation Impacts 4-11 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Feeder buses would serve passengers who transfer to commuter rail in Package A and BRT . 2 in Package B, as well as passengers who travel community-to-community without boarding 3 the commuter rail or BRT. Package A would generate more feeder bus ridership than 4 Package B because Package B BRT would serve Fort Collins and Greeley directly; therefore, 5 less feeder bus service would be required. 6 Table 4-3 2030 Weekday Transit Ridership Package A Daily Riders Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to/from Thornton' 4,300 Commuter Bus to/from Downtown Denver 1,200 Commuter Bus to/from DIA 350 Feeder Bus (sum for all routes) 5,100 Total Regional Riders** 5,850 Package B Daily Riders BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to/from Downtown Denver 5,650 BRT: Fort Collins to/from DIA 200 Feeder Bus (sum for all routes) 1,600 Total Regional Riders** 5,850 Ridership totals the amount of passenger activity on the extended service to the north of RTD FasTracks system(does not include ridership on the FasTracks portion of the route). **Total Regional Riders does not include feeder bus riders. 7 4.2.6.3 PACKAGE A 8 Figure 4-6 displays the ridership results for station-to-station volumes, station activity, mode • 9 of access for the main Package A components, and feeder bus ridership by route. Some key 10 findings are described below: 11 ► Daily rail ridership would increase from north to south, as activity grows towards the 12 metropolitan area and the Denver Central Business District (CBD), regardless of the 13 component. 14 ► The Erie rail station in southwest Weld County would generate the most ridership activity, 15 followed by the 4th Street station in downtown Loveland and the South Transit Center in 16 Fort Collins. 17 ► For the commuter bus route, the stops along US 85 generally would attract equal amounts 18 of riders. The exception would be the south Greeley park-and-ride which would attract 19 more riders than the other stops. 20 ► Overall, the mode split of passengers accessing a rail station in Package A would be 21 about 45 percent driving, 30 percent walking, and 25 percent taking the bus. This would 22 vary by station depending on the amount of bus service, the surrounding land use 23 development pattern, and whether a park-and-ride is provided. 24 Table 4-4 displays ridership activity for the Package A commuter rail stations. • Transportation Impacts 4-12 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. • 1 Figure 4-6 Package A 2030 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership LEGEND L Station Activity by Access/Egress Type �- --_,- • v�w,oton ' • IISize indicates relative i 85 amount of station activity / / Pierce, l Walk / ''h . •\ Drive • Inc. Ft.Collins North T Transit Center \ /S Bus 4001 Ault `; 14 Rail 700 CSU 1.900 Daily Ridership ,, Various 1 Ft. Collins South limnath Transit Alignments Transit Center a Sever 'Eaton s 6 Commuter Rail Alignment I Commuter Bus Alignment I aff s Windsor j it "� g-12741 Thickness and value shown indicate 1.400 i DrStreet 1 relative amount of activity on transit line ' Loveland-29th Street Greeley ~ t i RTD FasTracks Stations ' 1 263 lam)^ RTD FasTracks Corridors f• ,veland _ Ganiz 'L'ttio 525 _ 34 _ North 1-25 Feeder Bus Routes Loveland-US 34 2,500 Daily Ridership - Evans- so Greeley- 37th Street 19th Street ^/ Highways • La Salle •. • I Campion Johnstown "./ Arterial Roads - ' Q 1 2,125 : Berthou: - -rthoud■ I - Milliken in . Regional Study Area " i ' 56 ? j 200 Daily Ridership • 6rcresi • City Boundaries ! h ; 25 O Cities & Towns in Project Area j • es; ii mow- 1 Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Longmont-SH 66• Model Run Package A, September 2006 - _ • �lanerine -%\,. 2.27 5. , = . 1' " t, ont SH 66 t 1- lone t a. tir�,1 u') •Longmont- __. volimar O ti Sugar Mill o co 447. - . Firestone . } t 4iwot `` N - Frederidt .i I ;..-..,• t . i . 500 Daily Ridership • Dacono wntwton- _- �— l 1/4., Erie-CR 8� , Ft. Lupton- Erie ti SH 52 ilia Valmont 1 / -- ••1 p' Wanenbeig 'Boulder ( s _ I _______ 1 Lows.ilk 1.\\,, � ' 7 , � r �d' . Brighton �� ' 1..‘-1 ke Th pI \-.�.-\ . I / £O 1:- Eastlake Her�leaun / ) �1 : .JBroomfield - U e h • / 3 ''�, 36 u u Q� / _•� \,I . (287, o Irti,, 7 i DIA -- .t ` t.\ , 2fill ! t 1 A Conlnteral I ®i s ;dr - ) City 1.. 1 5`ti� ` t ' Denver 14-. o a'' � .l I "'1 Denver / 7e� VNUnion Station 0 .44; , , 0 2 4 6 8 10 �,, l• i• • t' -- il Miles North � ' [ Mlp.„„,..fr.CIB .Pnnge_A .1,T.4. 127.2007 2 Transportation Impacts 4-13 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 4-4 Package A Commuter Rail Station Activity (2030 Riders) • Station Package A Commuter Rail Fort Collins—North Transit Center 400 Fort Collins—CSU 300 Fort Collins—South Transit Center 750 Loveland—29th Street 600 Loveland—4th Street Downtown 800 Berthoud—SH 56 350 Longmont—SH 66 200 Longmont—Sugar Mill 650 Erie—WCR 8 1,150 Note: Sugar Mill and WCR 8 stations are only included if a commuter rail line is built between Longmont and the FasTracks North Metro Corridor rail line. 2 The forecasted 2030 daily commuter rail ridership of 4,300 riders is comparable to current ridership 3 at several newer commuter rail systems across the U.S., including Sounder (Seattle), Altamont 4 Commuter Express (San Jose), and Coaster (San Diego) . However, these other rail systems 5 typically operate at lower service frequencies and, thus, have lower operating costs than would be 6 associated with the commuter rail system proposed for Package A. Also, Package A ridership is 7 low when compared to more established systems such as Tri-Rail (Florida) and Trinity Railway 8 Express (Dallas-Fort Worth). 9 A separate analysis was conducted to investigate the potential ridership under the scenario of . 10 commuter rail as an extension of the FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor to Longmont, instead of 11 an extension of FasTracks North Metro Corridor line to Thornton. This option would eliminate the 12 construction of new track between Thornton and Longmont, and the Sugar Mill and Erie stations. 13 Similar service frequencies were assumed for this scenario as in Package A. The commuter rail 14 weekday ridership in 2030 under this scenario would be 3,300 riders per day. The station activity 15 was the same or higher than in Package A for the stations between Fort Collins and Longmont. As 16 a result, the station-to-station ridership between Fort Collins and Longmont was slightly higher than 17 in Package A. 18 The Package A overall ridership of 4,300 is higher due to additional riders attracted to the rail line 19 between Longmont and the North Metro Corridor end-of-line in Thornton. 20 4.2.6.4 PACKAGE B 21 Figure 4-7 displays the ridership results for station-to-station volumes, station activity, mode of 22 access for the main Package B components, and feeder bus ridership by route. Some key findings 23 are described below. 24 I. BRT ridership would grow steadily from both Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver . 25 ► The SH 119 and SH 7 BRT stations along 1-25 would generate higher-than-average ridership. 26 ► Overall, the mode split of passengers accessing a BRT station would be about 65 percent 27 drive, 20 percent walk, and 15 percent bus. This would be somewhat different than the access 28 mode split observed in Package A because the BRT would be located in the 1-25 corridor 29 farther away from population and employment centers, thereby increasing the number of riders , 30 who would arrive by automobile. Transportation Impacts 4-14 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. • 1 Table 4-5 summarizes station activity for Package B BRT. As shown , the highest station 2 activity in northern Colorado would occur at SH 119, SH 7, SH 52 , Fort Collins' South Transit 3 Center, and the SH 56/SH 60 station . 4 Table 4-5 Package B Bus Rapid Transit Station Activity (2030 Riders) Station Boardings in 2030 Fort Collins — South Transit Center 600 Fort Collins — Harmony and Timberline 400 Fort Collins — 1-25 and Harmony 200 1-25 and SH 392 150 1-25 and Crossroads 200 Greeley 8th and 8th 300 Greeley US 34 and 83rd Avenue 350 Greeley US 34 and SH 257 100 1-25 and SH 56/60 600 I-25 and SH 119 1 ,550 1-25 and SH 52 700 1-25 and SH 7 1 ,200 Wagon Road 450 Downtown Denver 4,800 Denver International Airport 200 • 4.2.7 Transit Market Share 6 Packages A and B would provide long-haul transit service from the northern communities to downtown Denver. The transit share of the travel market of commuters who reside in the 8 northern area (north of SH 66) and work in the Denver CBD is presented in Table 4-6 . Each 9 package would capture a large share of the downtown Denver commuter market, but the total 10 number of these commuters is expected to be relatively small — about 2 , 100 per weekday. 11 4.2.8 Transit Ridership for Special Events 12 While the transit planning industry standard is weekday ridership forecasts, it is recognized 13 that regional transit service from the northern communities to Denver would attract substantial 14 interest from riders for special events, as well as weekend travel . For the North 1-25 study, a 15 household travel survey was conducted to gain an understanding of special event travel . The 16 estimated additional daily riders, averaged over a year, are tabulated in Table 4-7 . As shown , 17 Package A could generate nearly 500 additional weekday and over 1 ,000 additional weekend 18 trips for special events such as sporting events and theater visits . Package B also would see 19 an increase in ridership but somewhat less than under Package A. • Transportation Impacts 4-15 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 4-7 Package B 2030 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership411 LEGEND Station Activity by Access/Egress Type ...-------.___% tl Size indicates relative ! 1 J .... amount of station activity )Ak, ./, j to . 1 , 1 j Walk j P:c,.:'e., Drive Fort Collins _ Bus oh-. . 7 ! '. 1; Ault a 14 f / Rail Harmony and • 1 ! I I . ' 1 ily 'i' •rshi Various Timberline Harmony. a1 Transit Alignments j rmnatn all j Bus Rapid Transit Alignment vc. Eaton' - Thickness and value shown indicate South Transit 287 - , o Center anchor relative amount of activity on transit line ; 1 , Lucerne SH•392 :75 -- 1 RTD FasTracks Stations j ,51 ' t ! '— '75 ',8th and Rh i Crossroads I Greeley RTD FasTracks Corridors -. 1 US-34 �• North 1-25 Feeder Bus Routes �, Gardericity- LoVele - us-257 C d h 34 "/ Highways t Avenue' , 1 Evans j 500 o':.,,, . :,, , :hip L- '�; / /�' Arterial Roads i I r I ! rasalle . / Campion Johnstown L___; Regional Study Area i ' - ' ' `— 85 %/ Beithoud f •_$ _ , O Milliken / I—I SH-60/SH-58! ' City Boundaries / • t Gilcres o Cities & Towns in Project Area Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast in ' I Model Run Package B. September 2006 I a N a ti Plane��lle ok�r ' i SH-119] C i O r longmontt I - :- 3,575 1 '°ne _ 'mat 4i, I i. 500 Daily Ridership I I . Frastene Niwot 287 SH•52 I j Frederick I _ j- . ._ - 7 N. %/� -- - Dacono Fon Lupton I / i- j %% 500 Daily Ridership o Erie No 0 We Wattenberg 1 Boulder ' .. all' SH•7_ JrJ_1 t _r 1. '-' O Lafayette „. i �0 —.' Louisville - \ @+superior / 1\l'N Wagon j Road • .` N.`�\` O ' ,�` .Eastlake Henderson I'1 2 a _.... ..:%...„....---.VI i %\ Ok \ ED a mathglenn / �� 287 isI , _____J . � Thar- __ i , ) r•-..I. 1 i i , . I3/4..• A T -,- \ / - / X .s:\ ' a 'V_Br� 70-CI De ar . 7-1 7-N_ . ,iJntiO2 _J ✓ MilesNorth .!ap Docunem•Ge IPaduOe_ten mall !-27.2007 Transportation Impacts 4-16 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. • 1 2 Table 4-6 Transit Market Share of Northern Commuters to Downtown Denver Market Share No-Action Package A Package B Percent that use transit < 1 % 55% 50% Note: Northern commuters refers to commuters north of SH 66. 3 Table 4-7 Additional Average Ridership Generated by Special Event Travel Time Period Package A Package B Weekday 250 - 475 200 — 400 Weekend 650 -1 , 175 500 — 1 ,000 4 4.2.9 Effect of Price of Fuel 5 Travel forecasts assume the relative price of fuel would remain constant into the future. 6 This is standard transportation planning practice because of the uncertainty of predicting the 7 price of fuel . Observed transit ridership commonly rises upon large increases in fuel costs. 8 For example, transit ridership rose an average of 9 percent on U . S . transit systems following 9 the increase in the price of fuel during the fall of 2005 (American Public Transportation 10 Association [APTA] , 2005). In the circumstances of significantly higher fuel costs, future 11 ridership could be substantially higher than standard forecasts indicate . The testing of 12 increased fuel price scenarios with the travel model indicated that riders making longer trips 13 are more likely to switch to transit than those making shorter trips, and that a doubling of fuel 14 costs could increase Package A or Package B transit ridership up to 90 percent. The transit 15 systems included in both Package A and B would have adequate capacity for expansion to 16 accommodate these higher demands, if necessary. 17 4.3 TRAVEL TIME 18 4.3.1 Existing Travel Time 19 In September and October 2004, travel time was recorded along 1-25 between SH 1 and 20 downtown Denver during AM and PM peak hours . Five runs were recorded in each direction 21 during each peak period with the average of these summarized in Table 4-8 . As shown , the 22 AM southbound and PM northbound peak hours experienced the longest travel times in the 23 corridor at just over an hour each . Table 4-8 Existing Peak-Hour Travel Time 1-25 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound SH 1 to 20th Street 58 minutes 66 minutes 68 minutes 66 minutes Source: Travel Time Surveys, September and October 2004. • Transportation Impacts 4-17 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS PP October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 4.3.2 2030 Travel Time II 2 Estimated travel times for the package components are presented for the AM peak 3 southbound direction for the year 2030. Figure 4-8 shows comparative travel times by 4 segment for components of the No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B . 5 Figure 4-8 2030 Travel Time Comparison 6 LEGEND 7 Travel Times in Minutes - AM Peak Hour Southbound _ _ „NtLa)rec.. Cl No-Action Auto (General Purpose) ��'� V �,` S86 J ED Package AAuto (General Purpose) i • ��, El No-Action Auto (General Purpose) r'2 ° No-Action Auto (Tolled Express Lane) ! h. elki\ I -,_, &ll rn 2 Package AAuto (General Purpose) I r \--IF / 2 Package AAuto (Tolled Express Lane) j ; - .ur, \Ft. Collins 7 2 Package B Auto (General Purpose) South ! 6 ,, Transit 2 Package BAuto (Tolled Express Lane) Center -:—� C ''.```°:` t``°' 1 � I L I US-85 Commuter Bus - 1 1 * Greeley : Bus Rapid Transit go17�4 Downtown 0Commuter Rail --, j ; q 263 ,34, I ._, a - Fj I): +I1:1 " ': -..-, - X34 ^/ Highways v i 1 ya • /��' Arterial Roads s ,S,,: , irl I10 r '.1 Regional Study Area I r J , I ''"°` • • City Boundaries Lj • M a II58 ` IF 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area I • '9: o Highway Travel Time Segment i i Endpoints I 10 a• rrti� 32 2.22 • /7), L.,_ • rf f :tire-,� o Mir/ 4 tn.:t e r • / ,am hn it.,D t L52 I // artarta • l • O 1 ail: • Ella- - TiF'.l.....nr„...jii 'qui. . B :1� m,r,.y i �; •4 b • 0 1 -r .l� I A V met r /iRTa 4,ryh • 1rnro'r.1 �. S s�Co P • t al '4, kt13 tor ! �]jFr r/ ,` r DU1C• • 721 N. I I� �, T. MI - 1 ,, t tip Denver Union non " @-- FN � Station (20th Street) ` y 0 2 4 6 8 10 / 1,....._/. I , ......7--...1/4----N—L._ ______, . II Miles North 1 I •.\y J:::,W. C15k l_Mn•,•t]M.w•U.•.-d Source- North I-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Runs September 2006 .t1,= Transportation Impacts 4-18 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 4.3.2.3 HIGHWAY TRAVEL TIME 2 Figure 4-9 summarizes the 2030 travel time for 1-25 for the entire length of the corridor from 3 SH 1 to 20th Street, including the travel time to E-470 in the GPLs . The two packages are 4 compared to the No-Action Alternative travel time . As shown , Package A would result in a 10- 5 minute travel-time savings between SH 1 and 20th Street; Package B would result in a 6 15-minute travel-time savings over the same section . 7 Overall , Package A would improve travel time in the GPLs by 8 percent while Package B 8 would improve the travel time by 12 percent. This reflects the improvement realized between 9 E-470 and 20th Street with the addition of a TEL in Package B . 10 Figure 4-9 SH 1 to 20th Street - General Purpose Lane Travel Time 11 8% travel time savings 12% travel time savings 12 SH 1 over No-Action over No-Action 128 SH 1 min . 1181 SH1 min . 113 66 min . min . 54 min . 61 • min . E-470 E-470 64 62 E-470 min . in . 52 min . 20th St. No-Action Package A Package B Note: Travel times shown are for the southbound direction in the AM peak hour in 2030 and do not include any highway access or egress time. Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Runs, September 2006. 13 Figure 4-10 summarizes the 2030 travel time for 1-25 from SH 1 to 20th Street using TELs 14 whenever they are available (south of 84th Avenue under the No-Action Alternative and 15 Package A and south of SH 14 in Package B). Because Package A and the No-Action 16 Alternative would still use the GPLs between SH 1 and E-470, travel time savings would be 17 the same as that shown above . Package B would experience a larger travel time savings in 18 this section and the largest savings overall at 42 percent. When compared to No-Action 19 Alternative general purpose travel ( 128 minutes), the TEL (65 minutes) would experience an 20 even greater travel time savings of 49 percent between SH 1 and 20th Street. • Transportation Impacts 4-19 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 4-10 SH 1 to 20th Street - Tolled Express Lane Travel Time 10% travel time savings 42% travel time savings over No-Action over No-Action SH 1 112 min . SH 1 101 min . 66 min . 54 min . SH 1 65 min . E-470 E-470 46 47 44 min . min . min . E-470 21 min . 20th St. No-Action Package A Package B Note: Travel times shown are for the southbound direction in the AM peak hour in 2030 and do not include any highway access or egress time. Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Runs, September 2006. 3 4.3.2.4 TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME 4 Figure 4-11 compares transit travel time from the Fort Collins South Transit Center to 5 downtown Denver via commuter rail connecting to the North Metro Corridor alignment, 6 BRT, and private automobiles traveling along Harmony Road and 1-25 . As shown , under 7 the No-Action Alternative, it would take 130 minutes to make this trip via private 8 automobile . Commuter rail would improve this travel time by 29 percent to 93 minutes. 9 Commuter rail without a connection to North Metro Corridor would travel to Boulder via the 10 FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor line to reach Denver Union Station . This route would 11 have a travel time of 97 minutes, 4 minutes longer than the Package A rail option that 12 would connect to the North Metro Corridor. Package B BRT would have a travel time 13 savings of 45 percent (72 minutes) over No-Action GPLs; this travel time savings would 14 result in transit, carpools, and vanpools competing favorably with the private single- 15 occupant automobile in the 1-25 GPLs . Transportation Impacts 4-20 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 4-11 Proposed Fort Collins South Transit Center (STC) to Downtown 2 Denver - Transit Travel Time 3 29% travel 25% travel 45% travel time savings time savings time savings over No-Action over No-Action over No-Action South Transit Center 130 jmin . STC - STC 97 I 93 min . min . STC 72 min . • Downtown Denver " No-Action Package A Commuter Package B General Commuter Rail without Bus Rapid Purpose Lanes Rail Connection Transit Note: No-Action travel times shown are for the southbound direction in the AM peak hour in 2030. Travel times include travel on Harmony Road from the proposed site of the South Transit Center to 1-25 and from the 20th Street exit to downtown Denver. Transit times are in-vehicle times only with no access/egress, transfer, or wait times. Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Runs, September 2006. 4 5 6 Figure 4-12 compares transit travel time from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver via 7 commuter bus, BRT, and via private automobile traveling along US 85 . As shown , under the 8 No-Action Alternative, it would take 135 minutes to make this trip via private automobile in 9 general purpose lanes in 2030 . Commuter bus would improve this travel time by 10 percent 10 and BRT would improve travel time by 34 percent, reducing the overall time to 89 minutes . Transportation Impacts 4-21 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. 1 Figure 4-12 Downtown Greeley to Downtown Denver - Transit Travel TimeII 10% travel 34% travel time savings time savings over No-Action over No-Action Downtown Greeley 135AIL min . DG 121 min . I min DG i 89 min . is IDowntown Denver _ No-Action Package A Package B Private Auto in Commuter Bus Rapid General Purpose Lanes Bus Transit Note: No-Action and Package B travel times shown are for the southbound direction in the AM peak hour in 2030. Travel times include travel on US 34 from the proposed site of the downtown Greeley transit center to 1-25 and from the 20th Street exit to downtown Denver. Transit times are in-vehicle times only with no access/egress, transfer, or wait times. Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Runs. September 2006. I ___ Transportation Impacts 4-22 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 4.3.3 Travel Time Reliability 2 As northern Colorado population and employment grow beyond 2030, the demand on the 3 transportation network also would grow. The No-Action Alternative would experience 4 congestion , long travel times and uncertain travel time reliability on 1-25 . Package A would 5 address most of this congestion in 2030 but as growth occurs, highway travel times would 6 continue to increase and reliability would decrease . Travel times for commuter rail , however, 7 would remain relatively constant and reliable. Similar to Package Al demand for Package B 8 GPLs would continue to increase with area growth . Package B TELs however, would be 9 managed to maintain a reliable and efficient travel time in 2030 and beyond for bus, for 10 carpools and vanpools, and for single-occupancy vehicles who pay a toll . 11 4.3.4 Travel Rate Index 12 The travel rate index (TRI ) is a measure of congestion developed by the Texas 13 Transportation Institute to measure the amount of extra time it takes to travel during a peak 14 period . It compares the peak hour travel rate to the free-flow (or uncongested ) travel rate . A 15 TRI of 1 . 50, for example , indicates that it would take 50 percent longer to travel on a roadway 16 during the peak hour than it would take to travel during uncongested conditions (on days 17 without crashes or other incidents). 18 The TRI for North 1-25 was calculated by component for the No-Action Alternative and 19 Packages A and B scenarios for the year 2030 . As shown in Figure 4-13, both packages 20 would provide an improvement in the TRI over the No-Action Alternative. Packages A and B 21 have approximately the same TRI north of E-470 . Package B has a lower TRI south of E-470 22 due to the capacity improvements on 1-25 in the Denver metro area . 23 Figure 4-13 Travel Rate Index Comparison 24 Travel Rate Index Summary by Component 25 26 27 28 SH-1 to SH-14 TRI of 1.00 - Peak-hour Travel Rate is the (H1 ) same as free-flow. 29 30 31 32 SH-14 to SH-60 (H2) 33 d ■2030 No-Action 34 a ■2030 Package A E 35 O O2030 Package B 36 SH-60 to E470 37 (H3) 38 39 40 E470 to US-36 _ _ 41 (H4) 42 43 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1 .00 1 .20 1 .40 1.60 1 .80 2.00 44 Travel Rate Index 45 Transportation Impacts 4-23 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 1 4.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 This section compares 2030 level of service (LOS) calculations for mainline 1-25 from 3 SH 1 to 84th Avenue, existing 1-25 interchange locations from SH 1 to 84th Avenue, and 4 transit station areas. Synchro version 6 was used to calculate signalized and unsignalized 5 LOS based on the methodology documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 6 (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Highway Capacity Software 5.2 was used to 7 calculate mainline, merge, diverge, and weave LOS. When possible, results were 8 calibrated and adjusted to reflect existing conditions. Detailed level of service evaluation 9 data are available in separate reports developed for each interchange area, station area, 10 and mainline 1-25, these reports are compiled in the Transportation Analysis Technical 11 Reports (FHU, 2008c). 12 Figure 4-14 illustrates the differences in the level of services categories for highway 13 segments and intersections. As shown, there are few vehicles and conflicts at LOS A. This 14 yields little delay and higher travel speeds. At the opposite end of the spectrum is LOS F. At 15 LOS F, the number of vehicles exceeds the capacity of the road, creating long delays, 16 queuing, and slow travel speeds. 17 4.4.1 Existing I-25 Mainline 18 Figure 4-15 graphically depicts existing 1-25 mainline level of service. Figure 4-16 illustrates 19 existing ramp merge/diverge levels of service. Generally, from SH 1 to E-470, mainline levels 20 of service are LOS C or better and ramp merge/diverge levels of service are LOS D or better 21 during peak hours. 22 South of E-470, existing traffic volumes increase as 1-25 enters the Denver Metro Area 23 and, with that, come poor levels of service. In the southbound direction during the 24 AM peak hour, mainline level of service drops to LOS E and F between 120th Avenue and 25 84th Avenue. In the northbound direction, 1-25 during the PM peak hour experiences LOS 26 E and F conditions from north of the 84th Avenue interchange to 104th Avenue 27 interchange. 28 29 S Transportation Impacts 4-24 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. coopera:ion. transportation. 0 Figure 4-14 Level-of-Service Category Definitions Level of Service - Level of Service - H i g h w a y Intersections �-- A aco Am -� ® O _, \._ Z -a,- 0 1 Free flow, low traffic density. No vehicle waits longer than one signal indication. ® <- n fIJ J Ili E- - Fri I" m -3P• m am C — ci, 6� Minimum delay, stable traffic flow. On rare occasions vehicles wait through more than one signal indication. 0o F © CCD col 44- CC CO C CZ, m-i► 0m C co r ®® m o -_). ICE ii3 61 1• Stable condition, movements somewhat restricted due to higher volumes, but not objectionable for motorists. Intermittently vehicles wait through more than one signal indication, occasionally backups may develop, traffic flow still stable and acceptable. g rn 0 rni ten in ® nn m0 � - an ® a. JU \ JD) En c in O � O:;Ocnco - - © 0 -, n Cn 9i Movements more restricted, queues and delays Fi may occur during short peaks, but lower demands O occur often enough to permit clearing, preventing Delays at intersections may become extensive, but enough excessive backups. cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance, preventing excessive backups. LOS D has historically been regarded as a desirable design objective in urban areas. 8 r CC7 m F Q1 oc7 COQ ,_ E ® 1O�- ® ® ® .-y© am CO CO� Cs CD pa a'ITM CC t0 m a. mo Oa) 6 i Actual capacity of the roadway involves delay 6 to all motorists due to congestion. Very long queues may create lengthy delays. g g art O O ��m ® .� Jo T�j . 0 ®cc [ncmm©mEC rY ® CC ® Q ® C 0 n3 z7:s, 0 0 co) 0�.'"D cc Ji mommm �C3 CD MD `` 1 67. a, 0310=I CII Oa = C ni S Forced flow with demand volumes greater than 0 capacity resulting in complete congestion. Backups from locations downstream restrict II or prevent movement of vehicles out of approach creating "gridlock" condition. Transportation Impacts 4-25 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 4-15 Existing Peak Hour I-25 Mainline Level of ServiceIII I I Sill CR 34 A A C B A A C C Mountain S Vista H 66 A A C i B A A C C SH 14 SH 119 B B C C B B C C Prospect SH 52 B B B B C B B B Harmony CR 8 B C C B C C C B SH392 ------ SH7 -- B B C B B C C B B 4 Crossroads E-470 B C B B C C C B US 34 136th Ave. C C C C C C C C SH 402 120th Ave. 1 C B E C LEGEND C C + C D CR 16 - NoRniasUND 104th Ave. AM X Y AM C B PM X Y PM C C C SOUTHBOUND D SH 60 + Thornton Parkway C B LOS A, B, 7 C C C ■ LOS E, F D SH 56 84th Ave. C B D C 2 C C D 3 Note: 144th Avenue interchange was not yet complete when existing conditions data were collected and is therefore not included in 411 4 this evaluation. Transportation Impacts 4-26 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Figure 4-16 Existing Peak Hour I-25 Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service LI LI C C SH 1 lIL11 N CR 34 LI Iii C IN LI Iii La IA B I3 Mountain L� Li] Vista iitiCSH 66 B B LI Li BJ C Li L] LI B B , C SH14 Li LI SH119 B B Li Li B i B LI. LI Ll 1 [3 I-3 I -I Ll B Prospect ---� C SH 52 C C [S C C C iii c iii III3I is Li Li Harmony C CR 8 C C C C C ii, C PI c xi SH 392 SH7 C C • C C LA . C C!3 C Crossroads E-470 C C LI Li C C Li Li C _ � C 136th Ave. Ls fl US 34 C C C C C C C C C C C B C C SH 402 C C 120th Ave. C C C C D D I C . E ' C CR 16 - T _— 104th Ave. 0 ' C L] r C JCl LEGEND F 0 . Thornton U E SH 60 C C NORTHBOUND Parkway F IN C D AM X IVAAM LOS Al B, ES i F PM X IAPM C, D C C AM X V/AM LOS E, F F , [5 C C PM X IKAPM [5 F SH 56 SOUTHBOUND 84th Ave. C LI + CIN 4 3 Note: 144th Avenue interchange was not yet complete when existing conditions data were collected and is therefore not included in 4 this evaluation. 5 Transportation Impacts 4-27 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 4.4.2 2030 I-25 Mainline . 2 Both Packages A and B would address congestion north of E-470, providing significant level 3 of service and travel time improvements over No-Action Alternative conditions. Although 4 1-25 carries slightly higher volumes under Package A than Package B, both would offer 5 generally similar levels of service on that section. The Package B TEL generally would 6 operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. A few TEL sections from E-470 south to 7 84th Avenue would operate at LOS D. 8 4.4.2.3 GENERAL PURPOSE LANE OPERATION 9 Table 4-9 shows the number of mainline 1-25 miles operating at LOS E or F for AM and PM 10 peak hours. Between existing and No-Action Alternative conditions, the number of mainline 11 miles at LOS E or F would increase, such that during at least one peak hour all sections of I- 12 25 between SH 14 and US 36 would experience congestion. Package A would eliminate LOS 13 E and F conditions between SH 14 and E-470. Package B would nearly eliminate LOSE and 14 F conditions between SH 14 and E-470 except for two miles between SH 14 and SH 60. This 15 is a result of the TEL slip ramp located between SH 14 and Prospect. Adding a slip ramp 16 between these two closely spaced interchanges would create a weaving section that would 17 operate below capacity. If chosen as the Preferred Alternative, the slip ramp location would 18 be reviewed during the FEIS to identify a location that would result in acceptable operation. 19 Package B would provide some reduction in miles operating at LOS E or F for the E-470 to 20 US 36 section, while Package A would not. 21 Table 4-9 Miles of I-25 Operating at LOS E or F (General Purpose Lanes) • Component AM Peak Hour Existing No-Action Package A Package B SH1toSH14 (H1) 0 0 0 0 SH 14 to SH 60 (H2) 0 0 0 2 SH 60 to E-470 (H3) 0 12 0 0 E-470 to US 36 (H4) 4 11 11 8 Total 4 23 11 10 Component PM Peak Hour Existing No-Action Package A Package B SH1toSH14 (H1) 0 0 0 0 SH 14 to SH 60 (H2) 0 19 0 3 SH 60 to E-470 (H3) 0 12 0 0 E-470 to US 36 (H4) 4 22 22 19 Total 4 53 22 22 22 S Transportation Impacts 4-28 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Figures 4-17 and 4-18 graphically depict 1-25 mainline level of service for the No-Action 2 Alternative and Packages A and B in 2030. As shown, under No-Action Alternative conditions, 3 capacity issues would extend north from 84th Avenue past E-470, and include the 4 southbound direction in the morning and both directions in the afternoon. In addition, 5 No-Action Alternative conditions also would show capacity issues developing between SH 60 6 and SH 66 in the southbound direction in the morning and between SH 66 and Harmony 7 Road in the northbound direction in the afternoon. In Package B, the weave created by the 8 short interchange spacing and the addition of a TEL slip ramp between SH 14 and Prospect 9 Road would result in LOS E and F operation during both peak hours. This could be improved 10 by moving the TEL slip ramps north of SH 14. 11 4.4.2.4 TOLLED EXPRESS LANE OPERATION 12 To maintain reliable speeds and LOS C in the TELs, the toll rates were varied to keep hourly 13 demand at or below 1,600 vehicles per lane and manage slip-ramp volumes. This is referred 14 to as the maximum service volume. However, because HOV travel in the lanes would be free 15 of charge, demand would not be impacted by the toll rate. Demand for HOV travel in the 16 metro area would exceed the maximum service volume in select locations south of E-470 17 during both peak hours. However, with more refinement to the toll rates and rate structure, it 18 may be possible to reduce volumes in the managed lanes below the maximum service 19 volume. This could be accomplished through slightly higher per-mile toll rates on select 20 segments or by providing two lanes of capacity (Option B2). 21 As shown in the previous figures, TEL levels of service were consistently better than the GPL • 22 levels of service, which would help to maintain their attractiveness. 23 4.4.2.5 OPTION B2- REVERSIBLE LANE OPERATION 24 In this scenario, the existing two-lane reversible high-occupancy toll lanes would be extended 25 north to 120th Avenue. With two lanes of capacity, the maximum service rate would increase 26 to 3,200 vehicles per hour. In this configuration, the maximum service volume would only be 27 exceeded north of 120th Avenue where the two reversible lanes transition back to a single 28 lane in each direction. Increasing the toll rate would reduce the demand in this location but 29 would also reduce demand in the reversible section. This would have the tradeoff of reducing 30 potential revenue generated. A further refinement in this scenario would be to charge higher 31 tolls for trips made in total or in part between E-470 and 120th Avenue, with lower toll rates 32 for trips made along the reversible segment. This was not tested as part of this analysis. i Transportation Impacts 4-29 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 4-17 2030 Peak Hour I-25 Mainline LOS SH 1 to SH 56 II NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) SH1 SH1 SH1 A A A A A A A B B B B B Mountain Mountain Mountain Vista Vista — Vista B B B B C B B C C C C C SH 14 SH 14 SH 14 - C C D C [fE A B C C D D F F B B Prospect Prospect Prospect 4-- C C B B B C A B , C C B C B C B Harmony - Harmony Harmony C D B C B C A A F C C C C A A SH 392 SH 392 SH 392 C C B C B C A A C F B C B C A A , Crossroads Crossroads Crossroads C D B B B C A A D F B C C C A A US 34 US 34 - US 34 C D B B C C A A D F B C C C A A SH 402 SH 402 SH 402 D C C C C C A A D F C D C E' A A CR 16 CR 16 -- CR16 - C C B B C B A A C irl B C C C A A SH 60 - SH 60 SH 60 C C C D C A A D C D C D A A SH 56 - SH 56 SH 56 I C C B C B A A CL-- CD CC AB LEGEND T NORTHBOUND AAM X Y AM II LOS C, D C, D PM X Y PM ■ LOS E, F I SOUTHBOUND 4' Transportation Impacts 4-30 NORTH 1-25 III Draft EIS EIS i. October 2008 information. cooperation transportation. lb 1 Figure 4-18 2030 Peak Hour I-25 Mainline LOS from CR 34 to 84th Avenue 2 NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) CR34 CR34 1 = _ - _ CR34 1-- F) CB D B A A C F CC DC AB SH 66 SH 66 SH 66 C B C . B CB AA B C C C C C A A SH 119 SH 119 SH 119 C B C C I-6 B B A C C C C C C A A SH 52 SH 52 SH 52 --I- C C cc CC CA D D C C C_C B B CR8 -4 CR8 CR8 C C C c C B_A D CC DC AC SH7 - SH7 - SH7 F I D C C_B C C B A S D C C_C C C A B E-470 E-470 E-470 [jc FC CC CA 1111 F F F D B C 144th Ave. — 144th Ave. 144th Ave. alC F C C C C A 77 L.F F F' D B C 136th Ave. — 136th Ave. 136th Ave. -I— NI C FC F C BA Lg. (P F F F F A B 120th Ave. I -= 120th Ave. 120th Ave. —T iiiii C F C F C B F F F F F;, F A B 104th Ave. •- - - 104th Ave. -dir 104th Ave. PC 7D SC DA H H H 1 F C C Thornton Thornton Thornton Parkway Parkway Parkway 1: C 7 D EF C B A L7 1,J r' F F C C 84th Ave. 1 84th Ave. 8 84th Ave. 0 Is D FD F D CA I ( F. - F F C C LEGEND• wan AM X Y AM ■ LOS A, B D, PM X Y PM ■ LOS E, F SOUTHBOUND IF Transportation Impacts 4-31 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 4.4.2.6 GENERAL PURPOSE MERGE/DIVERGE RAMP OPERATION 2 Figures 4-19 and 4-20 illustrates the 1-25 ramp merge/diverge levels of service for the 3 No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B in 2030. TEL slip ramps were typically located 4 where 1,000 feet per lane change could be provided between interchange ramp terminals and 5 the slip ramp to avoid creating a weave section. This typically required two-mile spacing 6 between interchanges. Table 4-10 provides a summary comparison of interchange ramp 7 merge/diverge operations along GPLs. In the No-Action Alternative, several ramp junctions 8 are expected to operate at LOS E or F between SH 14 and US 36, with the majority of poor 9 operations occurring south of E-470. As shown, both Packages A and B would improve ramp 10 merge/diverge operations between SH 14 and E-470 but provide little improvement south of 11 E-470. LOS E and F conditions continue south of E-470, even with Package A and B 12 improvements, because 2030 mainline traffic projections exceed the mainline capacity and 13 ramp merge/diverge operations would be dependent on mainline operations. 14 Table 4-10 2030 Interchange Ramp Merge/Diverge Locations Operating at LOS 15 EorF Component Existing No-Action Package A Package B* AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SH1toSH14 (H1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SH 14 to SH 60 (H2) 0 0 8 21 0 0 0 0 SH 60 to E-470 (H3) 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 2 E-470 to US 36 (H4) 5 4 11 24 11 24 13 28 • Total 5 4 25 54 11 24 13 30 Includes both interchange and slip ramp merge/diverge locations with GPLs. 16 4.4.2.7 TOLLED EXPRESS MERGE/DIVERGE RAMP OPERATION 17 Between SH 14 and E-470, TEL ramp junctions would operate at LOS D or better. However, 18 south of E-470, many ramp junctions would operate at LOS E or F. This lower operation 19 primarily would be due to high volumes present in the GPLs. Table 4-12 shows where ramp 20 junctions operate at LOS E or F. As shown in the table, there are 34 TEL ramp junctions with 21 the GPLs. During the AM peak hour, four would operate at LOS E or F, and during the PM 22 peak hour, nine would operate at LOS E or F. 23 Table 4-11 Summary of Managed Lane Ramp Level of Service and Impact to General 24 Purpose Lane Level of Service Component Managed Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junctions with Managed Lane Ramps Managed Lane Ramps GP Lanes Operating at LOS E/F Operating at LOS E/F SH 14 to SH 60 12 0 0 SH 60 to E-470 12 0 1 E-470 to US 36 10 4 8 Total 34 4 9 II Transportation Impacts 4-32 NORTH 1-25 IIIIIIIII Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Figure 4-19 2030 Peak Hour I-25 Ramp Merge / Diverge LOS from SH 1 to SH 56 NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) SH1 ® SH1-41IT ® ® SH1 II 41 � A Mountain IEEE Mountain ® ® Mountain Vista _� Vista ® Vista 111- L� II SH14 SH14 --- SH14 [Si C E Fat I61 Prospect Prospect Prospect a V ® M ® ® I 0 jItia ] ® ® IF n Harmony Harmony --Harmony ® ® ® B C EL if g FBI SH 392 GI ® SH 392 Eli C EE- - SH 392 III 11181 II C C B C B EE ICI (] B B B B Crossroads ® ® Crossroads - - - Crossroads 1111 [Elf ® B B cc ® US 34leeil US 34 B B US 34 laili ® Et C D [g] Si% SH 402 SH 402 ® igi SH 402 CR 16 ® CR 16 CR 16 iiii El IN ,, . g III I] SH 60 SH 60 _ SH 60 II IN Eli LcJ III la II SH 56 kt-iii SH 56 EE IF Ell i SH 56 E [1] I [Ha] W F LEGEND NORTHBOUND AM X y AM LOS A, B, PM X YPM C, D S AM X JAM LOS E, F PM X TAM SOUTHBOUND 4 Transportation Impacts 4-33 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 2 Figure 4-20 2030 Peak Hour I-25 Ramp Merge / Diverge LOS from CR 34 to III 3 84th Avenue NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) C CR 34 ® ® CR 34 ® ® 0 E CR34 ® B ® ® C8 c � fDl SH 66 - SH 66 ® ® ® fyi SH T 66 CC E fe l ® ® E C It E ® ® i C SH 119 SH 118SH 119 ,71.4 ® ® E C C 'Zr it Egi lol C CI SH 52 ® ® SH 52 SH 52 C ® E -c- CR 8 ® ® CR8 �FEci � ® C ® B E C CR 8 ® E 1s] C SH 7 B ® SH 7 ID] C ® ® SH 7 BB E-470 I E-470 E-470 BB BB ® B 144th Ave. ® 144th An. U ® ® ® 144th Ave. In In BB 11. ill In 136th An. 136th An. B ® 136th Ave. ■,i IN BB H B 120th Ave. BIn I ® IN El ® 120th Ave.Aw ®®®-.-® 120th Aw. Ill B 104th Ave. 8 5 104th Ave. In LI ® 104th Ave. In in In Thornton ® B Thornton WO ® a Thornton Parkway f ®6 Parkway a ® a Parkway ® B 84th Ave. & 84th Ave. \In e 84th Ave. ., ,% LEGEND MO&HDOIW AM AM n LOS A, B, PM ®PM I I C, D AM YAM III LOS E, F PM® Y PM SOOT MOD II Transportation Impacts 4-34 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 1 4.4.3 US 85 Operation 2 Under Package A, commuter buses would make six trips per hour (three trips each direction) 3 along US 85 in the peak periods and four trips per hour in the off-peak periods. These trips 4 would have a negligible impact on traffic operation along US 85. Queue jump locations and 5 traffic signal priority were designed along US 85 for the benefit of commuter bus service. 6 Commuter bus operation would only trigger the priority signal system four times during peak 7 hours. Because of the lengths of the cycles and the green time within each cycle, only 3 8 percent to 11 percent of signal cycles would receive priority request. The request itself would 9 equal only a 3 percent to 6 percent change in timing. These few green extensions would have 10 a nominal effect on signal operations, and no adverse transportation impact along US 85 11 would be expected to result from signal priority or queue jumps. 12 4.4.4 US 34 Operation 13 The BRT leg from Greeley would make four trips per hour along US 34 during the peak 14 periods and two trips per hour during off-peak periods. These trips would have a negligible 15 impact on traffic operation along US 34. Traffic signal priority and queue jumps along US 34 16 from Greeley to 1-25 would trigger signal priority a maximum of six times during the peak 17 hour. Because of the lengths of the cycles and the green time within each cycle, only 5 to 10 18 percent of signal cycles would receive priority request. The request itself would equal only a 4 19 percent to 6 percent change in timing. These few green extensions would have a nominal 20 effect on signal operations. No adverse transportation impacts along US 34 would be 21 expected to result from signal priority or queue jumps. 22 4.4.5 Harmony Road Operation 23 BRT would make six trips per hour (three trips each direction) along Harmony Road during 24 peak periods and four trips per hour in the off-peak periods. These trips would have a 25 negligible impact on traffic operation along Harmony Road. 26 4.4.6 Downtown Denver Operation 27 Under Package A, commuter buses would make two trips per hour into downtown Denver 28 and two trips per hour exiting downtown Denver during peak periods. During off-peak hours, 29 only a single trip would enter and exit downtown. These trips also would have a negligible 30 impact to traffic operation in downtown Denver. 31 Package B BRT would make four trips per hour into downtown Denver and four trips out of 32 downtown Denver during peak periods. These trips would have a negligible impact to traffic 33 operation in downtown Denver. 34 4.4.7 Interchange Operation 35 Queuing and LOS analyses were conducted at each interchange for the No-Action Alternative 36 and Packages A and B. If the level of service of critical movements would be LOS E or F 37 and/or queuing would exceed available storage, then mitigation measures were 38 recommended and included in the design. At interchanges, mitigation measures typically 39 involved signalization, increased ramp spacing, increased distance between ramps and 40 frontage road intersections, auxiliary lanes, and/or additional through lanes. Transportation Impacts 4-35 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 In the No-Action Alternative analysis, it was assumed that existing unsignalized ramp terminal 2 intersections (where the on and off ramps meet the intersecting roads) would be signalized in 3 the future. In general, poor levels of service in the No-Action Alternative would occur at most 4 interchanges between SH 14 and SH 402 and south of 120th Avenue. Both Packages A and 5 B would provide improvements to interchanges between SH 1 and SH 7 and would include 6 upgrades such as wider bridges and ramps to accommodate multiple turn lanes and through 7 lanes. These improvements would provide LOS D or better operations at most ramp 8 terminals. South of E-470, both packages would provide minor interchange improvements, 9 such as longer ramps and storage bays to accommodate queuing. These types of 10 improvements would not address capacity issues seen in the No-Action Alternative and, as 11 such, LOS E and F operations would be expected to continue for interchanges south of 12 120th Avenue. 13 Table 4-12 provides a summary comparison of interchange ramp terminal intersection operations 14 by package component. This table shows that both Package A and B interchange designs would 15 improve operations to LOS D or better in 2030 for nearly all interchanges from SH 1 to E-470. 16 However, most of the poorly operating ramp terminal intersections south of 17 E-470 would remain congested in both Packages A and B. 18 19 Figures 4-21 and 4-22 provide the level of service for ramp terminal intersection at each 20 interchange for the No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B. As shown, the Harmony Road 21 northbound off ramp would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour under Package A. 22 Measures to improve operation such as a northbound to westbound flyover were considered. A 23 flyover would impact right-of-way and access along Harmony Road and would have a significantly 24 higher cost. Based on a review of the interchange operation, other facilities with similar volumes, • 25 public input and review with the local agencies, it was determined that LOS E operation during the 26 limited period would be preferred to the additional impacts associated with a flyover. 27 28 Table 4-12 2030 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersections Operating at LOS E or F Component No-Action Package A Package B AM PM AM PM AM PM SH1toSH14 (H1) 0 2 0 0 0 0 SH 14 to SH 60 (H2) 10 13 0 1 0 0 SH 60 to E-470 (H3) 7 6 0 0 0 0 E-470 to US 36 (H4) 3 5 3 5 2 6 Total 20 26 3 6 2 6 S Transportation Impacts 4-36 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 0 1 Figure 4-21 2030 Peak Hour I-25 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersection LOS 2 SH 1 to SH 56 3 NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B B C sH1 sH1 A C A C SH B F A C A C Mountain A C Mountain A C Mountain B C Vista B E Vista A C Vista A C SH 14* i SH14 A C SH 14 A C - ( AC AC I BC BC Prospect = Prospect Prospect H B C B C I C P A C A C Harmony =' ill Harmony Harmony B E A D • w _ SH 392 ammo a F SH 392 B B B B SH 392 [Intl B C C C p JF B B B B Crossroads = Crossroads Crossroads F B B A C b D D B B B B US 34 US 34 - US 34 E E B B B B SH 402 F F il SH 402 B B ' B B SH 402 C C C C A A CR16 CR16 B B B B CR16 A A B B B B LEGEND SH 60 E: F SH 60 B A B A SH 60 NORTHBOUND CC B B B B AMXYAM PMXYPM SOUTHBOUND SH 56 B A SH56 B B , SH56 B B D E B B B _ B LOS A, B, i C, D * The No-Action Alternative ramp configuration does not include southbound ramp terminals. r- LOS E, F Northbound level of service represents eastbound to northbound left turn. Transportation Impacts 4-37 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 II 2 Figure 4-22 2030 Peak Hour I-25 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersection LOS 3 CR 34 to 84th Avenue NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B B B B B B B CR 34 CR 34 CR 34 k DR A B A B B B C B B , B SH66 SH66 SH66 B C B B B B SH119 -- C SH119 B D SH119 B D BC B D B D B D B D SH 52 a- SH52 SH52 Lila C C B C A C B C B C CR8 CR8 CR8 A B A B A B SH7 F I F SH7 B C SH7 D B 1 E F B C C B D 144th Ave. • D 144th Ave. D D D D 144th Ave. D D D D D D 136th Ave. 136th Ave. 136th Ave. C C C C C C C C C C C B C B C B C 120th Ave. 120th Ave. 120th Ave. C D C D C D 104th Ave. C C 104th Ave. C C 104th Ave. C C D E D E E E LEGEND Thornton B Thornton B II _ _ Thornton C F NDprH*DDUND Parkway Parkway I _ Parkway C F F AM X Y AM IPM X Y PM p p 7 . Fr D SOUTHBOUND 84th Ave. H: 84th Ave. 84th Ave. - 4 : r ' f H r _ H_ ■ LOS A, B, C, D ■ LOS E, F ill 4 Note: E-470 is a freeway-to-freeway direct connect with 1-25 and therefore does not have an LOS for a ramp terminal interchange. Transportation Impacts 4-38 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 4.4.8 Transit Stations and Car Pool Lots 2 At intersections providing access to transit stations, queuing and delay were evaluated. If 3 operation was found to be LOS E or F, and queuing would exceed available storage, 4 signalization and/or auxiliary lanes were recommended. All new station access points include 5 left and right turn deceleration lanes to reduce impacts to through traffic and comply with the 6 State Highway Access Code. 7 4.4.8.3 I-25 CORRIDOR 8 A traffic impact analysis was conducted for all commuter rail, bus and BRT stations, and for 9 all carpool lots along the 1-25 corridor. Each traffic impact analysis included trip generation 10 estimates for the station or carpool lot, 2030 traffic volume projections for the No-Action 11 Alternative and for either Package A or B, and levels of service at station accesses and at 12 nearby intersections that would be impacted by station or carpool lot activity (where 13 appropriate). For commuter rail and commuter bus stations, a separate traffic impact report 14 was prepared for each station. For most BRT stations and for all carpool lots, traffic impact 15 analyses were included as part of an interchange report since these facilities were typically 16 adjacent to the interchange. Each of the following sections provides a summary of the trip 17 generation impact and an intersection level of service impact for each station. 18 Figure 4-23 summarizes carpool lot analyses for the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action 19 Alternative would consist of existing carpool lots only. Analyses at these locations show that 20 three access points would operate at LOS F. • 21 Package A would expand most existing carpool parking lots to accommodate future demand. 22 Package A also would add new carpool lots at SH 1, SH 14 and Prospect Road. Figure 4-24 23 summarizes the results of the transit station and carpool parking lot analyses. At each lot, the 24 driveway access would operate at LOS D or better and the trip generation impact to the major 25 cross street generally would be less than 10 percent. 26 Package B would consist of the same carpool lots as Package A but some lots would be 27 expanded or new lots added to accommodate parking demands generated by BRT. As shown 28 in Figure 4-25, most parking access points would operate at good levels of service and have 29 a relatively small impact to major cross-street traffic volumes. The BRT station at SH 119 30 would have a traffic impact three times greater than Package A, but a better level of service at 31 the lot access. This is because the traffic impact analysis showed that the station would 32 generate sufficient traffic to warrant signalizing the access point under Package B but not 33 under Package A. Traffic impact analyses at the SH 257/US 34 station show access points 34 operating at LOS F; but indicated that the station would not generate sufficient trips to warrant 35 signalization of the access point. S Transportation Impacts 4-39 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 4-23 No-Action Alternative Carpool Parking Lot LOS I NO-ACTION Carpool Lots SH 1 je Mountain Vista SH 14 Prospect 320 235 Harmony i F 4% w SH 392- 50 35 B 2% Crossroads US 34 - 140 105 F 3% I SH 402- 90 70 F 4% CR 16 SH e0 40 30 B 2% 60SH 56 B 125�,I CR 34 LEGEND c ne _2 oli Act li SH66 — 70 50 18 eis C 4% � _ ~ 1 xX xX 130 95 X X% SH119 0g 04 D 5% Ne gm mel ai � C) m m — d 2 w ea SH 52 120 90 3 z _ m p B 3% ) ii 3 25 CR8 ■ LOS A, B, C, D 0 LOS E, F North 135 100 a SH 7 - B 3% Transportation Impacts 4-40 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Figure 4-24 Package A Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS 1-25 US 85 Commuter Rail Stations Carpool Lots Commuter Bus Stations 1287; (1-1 1 SH 1 - 05 75 B 6% SITE A SITE C _ 65 45 130 85 85 A 09' A . 1° Mountain Vista g Downtown Fort Collins 0 r 0 195 145 40 30 D St. na na CSU SH 14 C 4% A 2% Fort C = lins ---� Greeley 60 40 Skuth 34 A 8% Gre ey P 75 50 South Fort Collins rospect 170 125 iw� - F 2% C 3% Garden Clt .. ) Evans 55 40 J� ` Harmony— 385 285 (5 A 30% a D 6% La Salle £ 287 SH392 115 85 60 5% B 4%° Milliken Loveland 100 65 GI crest NI % 29th St. Crossroads 1/4 30 20 B 8% US 34 • US 34 60 SH 402 440 325 Platteville Cam on A 167 T 45 35 A 11% 6 l 50 35 CR 16 A 496 56 Berthoud 105 75 E SH60 B 6% 85 I ,287S 1 SH 56 40 30 B 80 55 LEGEND 20 15 66 CR 34 52 B 1 ° Fort '' 52 E 1% Lupton a� a , Longmont JSiteA a 100 70 Sugar Mill SHE 66- 90 65 C 5% XX XX A 0°/ 119 X X% Site E 115 85 p vI 29) — 119) 100 70 SH 119 D 4% €`~ F 2% " R C7) OU 0 C N Site G F ederick 105 75 Bri on Uo 76 A�60� SH52 B 2% visi/\ air s North ■ LOS A, B, C, D 150 100 CR 8 na na Daconoeg ■ LOS E, F 410 VN a. %y,+, SH 7 230 170 B % NOTE: North North na = Data not available at this location 5 Transportation Impacts 4-41 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 4-25 Package B Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS PACKAGE B BRT Stations / Carpool Lots SH 1 —. 105 75 B 6% Mountain 25 Vista SH 14 220 160 C 4% _ � a 180 135 Prospe 5y C 4% o e NX j= 50 30 35 25 Harmony 440 325 F 2% F 1% D 8% SH 392-- 160 120 B 4% Crossroads 65 45 na na in . a C t N c US 34 35 25 70 50 0 0 1% B 2% na na SH 402 -465 3 4 5 B 16 CR 16 LEGEND C C o0 % 1. 0 SH 60 105 75 fili B 6% XX XX 110 75 X X% SH 56 B 10 0 � CR 34 gy U a � Q SH 66 — 90 65 C 6% ■ Carpool Lots ■ LOS A, B, C, D SH 119 380 265 B 12° ■ LOS E, F SH 52 260 185 B 6% NOTE: na = Data not available at this location CR 8 v\I SH 7 430 305 1 North D 8% 2 Transportation Impacts 4-42 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 4.4.9 Maintenance Facilities 2 4.4.9.3 COMMUTER RAIL MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3 An estimated total of 200 daily trips (both in and out)would be generated by approximately 90 4 employees at the facility. 5 At Vine Drive and Timberline in Fort Collins, traffic generated by the proposed maintenance 6 facility would amount to less than 1 percent of the total traffic in the area throughout the day. 7 It is anticipated that both Vine and Timberline would be widened in 2030 under the No-Action 8 Alternative, and signal warrants would likely be met well before 2030 at this location. Access 9 to the site would be accommodated by a single-lane approach, stop-controlled intersection. A 10 traffic signal would not be warranted at the access location, and the anticipated signalized 11 intersection at Vine and Timberline would accommodate traffic from the site without 12 improvements. Similarly, roads adjacent to the site located at CR 46 and US 287 in Berthoud 13 would accommodate anticipated traffic volumes generated by the maintenance facility. 14 Access to Bunyan Avenue (CR 46) would be accommodated by a single-lane approach, 15 unsignalized intersection. 16 4.4.9.4 COMMUTER Bus MAINTENANCE FACILITY 17 An estimated total of 190 daily trips would be generated by approximately 85 employees at 18 the facility. The facility would accommodate the maintenance of both commuter buses and 19 feeder buses. An additional 130 bus trips also would be generated by commuter buses and 20 feeder buses each day. 21 Trips generated by the commuter bus maintenance facility would amount to less than 22 2 percent of the traffic on Trilby Road in Fort Collins. Because trips to the facility would be 23 spread throughout the day without significant peak hour activity, signalization would not be 24 warranted at either the access from Portner Road or at the existing Trilby Road/Portner Road 25 intersection in Fort Collins. Also, the nearest major intersections, at Lemay Avenue and at 26 College Avenue, are currently signalized and would be able to accommodate this additional 27 traffic. Similarly, an access off 31st Street in Greeley would not require signalization and the 28 intersection of US 85 and 31st Street in Greeley, about 0.4 miles to the west, is currently 29 signalized. The current signal would be able to accommodate this additional traffic. 30 4.4.9.5 BRT MAINTENANCE FACILITY 31 An estimated total of 200 daily trips would be generated by approximately 90 employees at 32 the facility. The facility would accommodate the maintenance of both BRT vehicles and feeder 33 buses. An additional 150 bus trips also would be generated by commuter buses and feeder 34 buses each day. 35 The proposed maintenance facility at Portner Road in Fort Collins would generate about 200 36 employee and 150 bus trips per day. This would amount to less than 2 percent of the total 37 traffic on Trilby Road. Because these trips would be spread throughout the day, signal 38 warrants would not be met at the access intersection. Also, the nearest major intersections, at 39 Lemay Avenue and at College Avenue, are currently signalized and would be able to • 40 accommodate this additional traffic. Similarly, an access off 31st Street in Greeley would not 41 require signalization and the intersection of US 85 and 31st Street in Greeley, about 0.4 miles 42 to the west, is currently signalized; the current signal would be able to accommodate this 43 additional traffic. Transportation Impacts 4-43 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 4.5 TRANSIT OPERATIONS 2 The addition of transit services in either Package A or B would have some impact to existing 3 transit services in northern Colorado and Denver. Table 4-13 compares the number of annual 4 revenue hours of transit service currently operated in northern Colorado with the hours of 5 service in Packages A and B. Package A would result in a 150 percent increase in service 6 hours over the No-Action Alternative. Package B would result in a 140 percent increase in 7 service hours over the No-Action Alternative. 8 Table 4-13 Annual Revenue Hours of Service Component Revenue Hours of Service Existing No-Action Package A Package B Bus 101,719 101,719 231,739 243,529 Rail 0 0 23,370 0 Total 101,719 101,719 255,109 243,529 9 4.5.1 Existing Conditions 10 Currently, bus service in the regional study area north of SH 52 is offered from Longmont to 11 Denver on RTD's "L" route and between Longmont and Boulder on the "J" route and the 12 "BOLT" route. RTD also provides local service in the City of Longmont. Bus service also is 13 available in the City of Fort Collins on the local system (TransFort), and in the City of Greeley . 14 on the local system (Greeley Evans Transit). Loveland's service (CoLT) consists of the 15 FoxTrot, which connects it to Fort Collins, and two local routes. With the exception of the 16 FoxTrot, there are no inter-city bus services available in the regional study area. 17 South of SH 52, RTD bus service is available to member cities with major access and transfer 18 points at the Wagon Road park-n-Ride at 1-25 and 120th Avenue and downtown Denver. 19 4.5.2 Package A 20 4.5.2.3 COMMUTER RAIL 21 Package A commuter rail service would be operated as a seamless extension of RTD's 22 FasTracks North Metro Corridor service, with few noticeable impacts to RTD passengers. 23 Because the service would be operated as an extension, there would be no additional trains 24 at Denver Union Station. However, passengers to/from the north would use Denver Union 25 Station and other stations within the FasTracks service district; therefore, there would be 26 more passenger activity at these FasTracks stations. North Metro Corridor trains continuing to 27 Fort Collins could be more crowded, and there could be less seating available for RTD area 28 patrons. 29 In Package A some riders would shift from the FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor and North 30 Metro Corridor rail lines to the Package A commuter rail. Ridership on the Northwest Rail 31 Corridor would drop approximately 10 percent, mostly at the Longmont station. Boardings at 32 the North Metro Corridor end-of-line station at SH 7 would be similarly affected, dropping 33 corridor ridership by 2 percent. These riders would instead board the rail extension at one of • 34 the Package A stations. The decrease to the Northwest Rail Corridor line would be greater 35 than the impact to the North Metro Corridor rail line because the rail connection between Transportation Impacts 4-44 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Longmont and the North Metro Corridor rail line would provide a slightly faster travel time to 2 Denver Union Station from Longmont. 3 The addition of a second track for commuter rail in Atwood Street in Longmont will result in 4 the removal of on-street parking on both sides of the street between 3rd Street and 8th Street. 5 Northbound roadway traffic will be shifted from west of the train tracks to east of the train 6 tracks. In addition, driveway access to parcels along the east side of Atwood Street will be 7 shifted to alley access or cross-street access where necessary. 8 4.5.2.4 COMMUTER Bus AND FEEDER Bus 9 The new commuter bus service also would connect to existing and future feeder and local 10 bus routes on the east side of the project area. In downtown Denver, commuter bus service 11 would circulate through downtown with a layover location similar to existing FREX service. 12 Because it remains on street, it would not impact operations or capacity at Denver Union 13 Station. 14 As a result of the new feeder routes, Fort Collins Route 5, 6, and 7 would be extended to the 15 Harmony Road park-n-ride. 16 4.5.3 Package B 17 4.5.3.3 Bus RAPID TRANSIT 18 BRT service would terminate at the South Transit Center in Fort Collins, fostering connectivity 19 to/from local routes. Some of the South Transit Center's bus bay capacity (three vehicles per 20 hour)would be utilized for Package B BRT vehicles. In downtown Denver, BRT vehicles 21 would connect with FasTracks and other RTD services at, but would remain on-street and 22 circulate through downtown. This would add ten vehicles to the downtown street system 23 during the peak hours, on streets that currently serve FREX routes. This is considered to be a 24 nominal impact by both the City and County of Denver and by RTD; therefore, no mitigation 25 measures are required. 26 Package B BRT would decrease ridership on FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor and 27 North Metro Corridor rail lines by providing an entirely new mode of travel. Ridership at the 28 Northwest Rail Corridor stations would drop approximately 12 percent while the North Metro 29 Corridor stations would decrease approximately 3 percent. The decrease to the Northwest 30 Rail Corridor line reflects faster travel times on BRT for some residents of Longmont, 31 Broomfield, Westminster, and Thornton to downtown Denver. 32 4.5.3.4 FEEDER BUS 33 As a result of the new feeder bus routes in Loveland, the COLT crosstown route would be 34 extended to the Crossroads station. Future local service also would connect to BRT service 35 as applicable. 36 4.5.4 Transit User Experience 37 The user experience while waiting for transit services would be quite different between 38 Packages A and B. Package A commuter rail users would wait on a station platform located 39 along the existing BNSF freight rail line and an arterial street. Package A commuter bus users 40 would wait at a station located off of US 85. Package B BRT users would wait on a platform Transportation Impacts 4-45 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 located in the median of 1-25. Under Package B, the high traffic volumes and speeds along 2 1-25 would create a loud and relatively less pleasant experience when waiting for transit than 3 under Package A commuter rail or commuter bus. 4 4.6 SAFETY 5 Both build packages would improve safety conditions for the traveling public, when compared 6 to the No-Action Alternative. Safety improvements would come in the form of: 7 ► Replacing functionally obsolete 1-25 infrastructure 8 ► Upgrading existing treatments at at-grade crossings for commuter rail 9 ► Providing an alternative transportation mode that is safer than highway travel 10 ► Improving highway geometry 11 4.6.1 Functionally Obsolete I-25 Infrastructure 12 Without upgrades, many interchanges north of SH 66 and south of E-470 would be 13 considered functionally obsolete in 2030. Functionally obsolete structures would create safety 14 concerns because they generally do not provide adequate spacing between intersections to 15 accommodate the necessary queuing. In addition, they would operate over capacity, creating 16 long delays and frustrating drivers. Both packages would replace all interchanges considered 17 functionally obsolete north of E-470. Table 4-14 summarizes the functionally obsolete 18 interchanges that would be replaced or modified under each package. 19 Table 4-14 Functionally Obsolete Interchanges Structure Location No-Action Package A Package B SH 1 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure Mountain Vista New Structure New Structure SH 14 New Structure New Structure Prospect Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure SH 392 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure Crossroads Boulevard New Structure New Structure US 34 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure SH 402 New Structure New Structure CR 16 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure SH 60 New Structure New Structure SH 56 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure CR 34 New Structure New Structure 104th Avenue Major Rehab Major Rehab New Structure' 84th Avenue Major Rehab Major Rehab New Structure' *Structure would be replaced under reversible scenario (Option B2). 20 In total Package A would construct 84 new structures compared to 96 new structures in 21 Package B. Package A would modify 13 structures while Package B would modify 23. 22 Package A would rehabilitate 8 structures while Package B would rehabilitate 1 structure. S Transportation Impacts 4-46 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 4.6.2 Commuter Rail Grade Crossings 2 Rail service at new grade crossings and additional rail service at existing crossings would 3 increase the exposure for motorists crossing the commuter rail alignment. The commuter rail 4 design includes grade separations or lights and gates at each crossing affected by Package 5 A. With these improvements, the overall exposure factor along the commuter rail alignment 6 would be reduced to levels better than along the freight rail alignment under the No-Action 7 Alternative. A list of each of the grade crossing improvements included in Package A is 8 provided in Chapter 2 Alternatives. 9 4.6.3 Safety Statistics for Rail versus Highway 10 Commuter rail transit generally provides safer operations for passengers than both bus and 11 highway facilities. Data from the National Transit Database (NTD) (FTA, 2006) and the National 12 Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2006) show that passenger rail systems 13 result in noticeably fewer annual injuries than highway facilities. Over the 4-year period from 14 2002 through 2005, commuter rail had an annual average of 18 injuries and travel on 15 highways resulted in an annual average of 59 injuries per 100 million passenger miles 16 traveled. Bus facilities generally have similar safety statistics to highways. 17 4.6.4 Highway Crash Prediction 18 Accident prediction estimates were provided by CDOT Division of Transportation 19 Development. Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) developed by CDOT Safety and Traffic • 20 Branch were used for highway crash prediction. The SPF relates the number of lanes and the 21 average annual daily traffic volume to the number of anticipated crashes on a particular 22 section of freeway. While the estimation of crashes for Package A is relatively straightforward 23 using the SPFs, estimating crashes for Package B required a more complex set of 24 estimations. Detailed information about the safety analysis can be found in the Safety 25 Analysis of Alternatives (CDOT 2007). 26 Table 4-15 summarizes the predicted crash estimates for Package A and Package B. As 27 shown, both A and B are expected to experience approximately the same number of total 28 crashes in 2030 with slightly fewer injury and fatality crashes anticipated under Package B. 29 The total column is the sum of predicted injury, fatality and property damage only crashes. 30 The analysis found that 3,466 accidents per year would be expected in the Package A 31 scenario while 3,410 would be expected in Package B. The difference is less than 2%, and 32 given the variety of assumptions required for forecasting that difference was not substantial. 33 Similarly, Package A is expected to produce 977 injury and fatal accidents per year while 34 Package B is expected to produce 959. Again, the difference is less than 2% and too small to 35 be meaningful. 36 For those segments that have barrier separated lanes in Package B, 24% less total accidents 37 and 18% less injury and fatal accidents are expected to occur in the Package B scenario than 38 on the same segments in Package A. Where Package B segments have buffer separated 39 express lanes, 4% more total accidents and 2% more injury and fatal accidents are expected 40 to occur than on the same segments in Package A. The much greater length of the buffer • 41 separated segments erases the safety dividend of the barrier separated segments. Transportation Impacts 4-47 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Safety performance of the segments south of 120th Avenue would be improved in the 2 Package Option B2, (where the existing 2 barrier separated reversible HOT lanes would be 3 extended north from US 36 to 120th), with a safety dividend of about 16 less accidents and 4 4 less injury and fatal accidents each year between US 36 and 120th. 5 Table 4-15 2030 Crash Prediction Comparison Package A Package B Injury+ Total Injury+ Total Fatality (l+F+PD0) Fatality (l+F+PD0) SH1 - SH14 (H1) 19 60 25 76 SH 14 - SH 60 (H2) 228 780 202 638 SH 60 - E-470 (H3) 535 1,764 489 1,694 E-470 to US 36 (H4) 195 862 243 1,002 Total 977 3,466 959 3,410 6 4.7 FREIGHT TRAFFIC 7 Freight mobility in the study area is provided by both trucks on the highway network and 8 trains on the rail network. This section describes these components. 9 4.7.1 Truck Freight • 10 Currently, freight traffic on 1-25 ranges from 2,300 trucks-per-day on the north end of the 11 corridor, near SH 1, to 11,200 trucks-per-day on the south end near the Denver Metro Area. 12 This constitutes between 11 and 14 percent of the total daily traffic volume on the highway. 13 Future freight traffic is anticipated to grow at an annual rate that would range from just over 14 2 percent on the south end to slightly more than 3 percent on the north end. This would 15 constitute between 8 percent and 14 percent of the total traffic on the corridor. These 16 percentages are not anticipated to differ significantly under the No-Action Alternative or 17 Packages A or B. 18 Under the No-Action Alternative, truck traffic would be subjected to significant delays due to 19 overall congestion along the corridor. Under either Package A or B, freight traffic would 20 benefit from level of service and travel-time improvements over No-Action Alternative 21 conditions north of E-470. It is worth noting, however, that trucks would be prohibited from 22 using the TELs in Package B. Therefore, they would be subject to the higher traffic densities 23 in GPLs in that package. South of E-470, freight traffic would benefit from the moderate 24 travel-time savings in GPLs provided by Package B versus under the No-Action Alternative or 25 Package A. Again, however, truck traffic would be prohibited from using the TELs in that 26 section, so they would not benefit from the significant travel-time savings in those lanes. 27 Both Packages A and B would re-grade of 1-25 north of WCR 34, between WCR 38 and SH 28 56, north of SH 402, and south of US 34 so that the maximum grade on the corridor would be 29 4 percent. The regraded sections would enable heavy vehicles to better maintain the posted 30 speed limit throughout the corridor than under the No-Action Alternative. • Transportation Impacts 4-48 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • 1 4.7.2 Rail Freight 2 There are several existing rail lines in the project vicinity that carry freight into, out of, and 3 through the study area. The busiest rail freight line is the Union Pacific Greeley Subdivision, 4 which parallels US 85 on the east side of the study area and serves 24 to 26 freight trains per 5 day. The BNSF Front Range subdivision generally parallels US 287 on the west side of the 6 study area, and carries 3 to 5 freight trains per day. Both railroads operate branch lines in the 7 study area that serve up to one round trip per day. The Great Western Railroad operates 8 several lines within the study area which typically serve several trains per week. Details of 9 these operations are presented in the Existing Rail Conditions White Paper (August 2004) 10 developed in support of the North 1-25 EIS. 11 Under the No-Action Alternative, freight activity on these rail lines would be relatively 12 unaffected by highway growth. As private entities, the railroads are expected to manage rail 13 freight traffic growth within their corridors. Under Package A, one new track would be 14 constructed adjacent to the existing BNSF Front Range subdivision track between Fort 15 Collins and Longmont. Crossovers would be provided to allow freight and passenger traffic to 16 use either track as appropriate to maintain both commuter train and freight train movements. 17 Given the current train movements on this BNSF line, it is anticipated that freight traffic could 18 me maintained in conjunction with passenger traffic. Under Package B, there are no 19 modifications anticipated for the freight rail network, and conditions would be similar to the 20 No-Action scenario. a Transportation Impacts 4-49 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 4.8 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS • 2 Each of the build packages would have both physical and temporary operational impacts to 3 bicycle and pedestrian systems. More detailed information about impacts to existing and 4 planned trails is provided in Section 4.9.2 Packages A and B of this Draft EIS and in 5 Appendix C. 6 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, marked and unmarked bicycle routes, 7 bicycle lanes, and a variety of trail types. On-street bicycle routes typically include signing 8 and striping to separate bicycles from vehicular traffic, or they may exist informally, 9 established by consistent use by bicyclists. On-street bicycle routes are designed to 10 promote local trips, regional commuting, and connections to off-street trails. Off-street 11 bikeways, trails, or paths are typically physically separated from vehicular traffic through the 12 use of barriers or by following separate routes. These off-street bikeways can provide 13 regional links for bicyclists, pedestrian, equestrians, or other recreational users. 14 The regional study area includes numerous communities, each having varying degrees of 15 existing and planned bicycle/pedestrian facilities. To document the bicycle/pedestrian 16 facilities within the regional study area, GIS data, public bicycle/trail maps, comprehensive 17 plans, and a variety of planning maps were collected from municipalities, counties, and 18 state agencies. The mapping included trails, paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes. Due to 19 the size and complexity of the regional study area, sidewalks were not included as 20 bicycle/pedestrian facilities unless specifically designated on a locally approved plan or map 21 as being for the sole purpose of recreation. This section only includes bicycle/pedestrian 22 facility data within approximately 750 feet on either side of where improvements are 23 proposed (see Figure 4-26). Reports or documents used in gathering data are listed in 24 Chapter 10 References. 25 4.8.1 Existing Conditions 26 Figure 4-26 illustrates the three major regional trails located in the project area. The 27 American Discovery Trail corridor is comprised of both on-street and off-street facilities. This 28 trail is part of a larger, national system that provides bicyclists a route across the United 29 States. The Colorado Front Range Trail (CFRT) corridor is a collaborative effort which is 30 being overseen by Colorado State Parks. The CFRT corridor has existing and proposed 31 sections from numerous municipalities that allow for non-motorized vehicles to travel along 32 the Front Range from New Mexico to Wyoming. The St. Vrain Valley trail is a portion of the 33 CFRT; however, this is a loop trail that connects many communities within the center of the 34 regional study area. 35 There are also numerous proposed bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the project area. In 36 addition to the proposed facilities included in the tables, there is one potential future facility 37 near the US 85 station areas: an on-street facility is proposed at 30th Street by the City of 38 Evans. Figure 4-26 also shows the bicycle and pedestrian facilities mapped for the project 39 area with the regional facilities highlighted. s Transportation Impacts 4-50 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation.. • 1 Figure 4-26 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Regional Study Area 2 t I LEGEND ^e Alternative Corridors /\/ Highways %s" l j \., 85 /\/ Arterial Roads J \•\ Le jl Regional Study Area / �. - i_ 1 -r de City Boundaries / % ` �� PierceI-FFort7Colliris • r 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area I - - - - Proposed Trail ₹ Ault t 14 I ,V-�* , ret:�t ,call 2 Existing Trail American Discovery Trail (ADT) I �i• �;yncr t f Severance Eaton• ,l — l i �4►� t r' t Colorado Front Range Trail ; ► ,; ; I �r i , ; I St. Vrain Valley Trail I i _ .^�' • 1 — i r11r a 1�%1 'meow 1. 992 Proposed US 36 Alignment Trail i WCR 64 pond' 1, �i 1, ` ` re River Z rail Greeley I �VI� M " arts •r, lia_ 34 •` ,�..:- - 7120th . y;N � ►} �'' Loveland- `-•,-, r' &jarden.atvr1ot - 34 . .. I .s �: ` _�-' ,` Evans .f j �w ' LaSalle . r . •,- - I Campion Jotnstown _,,. I r`1 .� - t..Ber thca - --1 ,,— --! v Milliken / ..� a I • ( /r t.- _ tea— I �/� ' I 1 / Grlcresf IIII v rte^--r /, T' 4.1 ' /; i I i /. t fl mea? . / 1->— - -1 J • F4anc no ! ' . ; I ' t ,��,� '!4 ice` '�I '' ' • ,„i.= Lon neont - _ iYl, 1�1 .1 . ,a r',t /- ,- - !I ion, : �� •� �.. t - o.- :7i Vol . . 1 J I -- a / -I m�Fnestone 1 ' Niwot `• — i Frederick • • " Dacono -. I 52 ' �/ �C 4. fat •. II )...re"......<1e //Jf Giinbarrel ��++ `, ti/ / I _ . J I VI Valmont - -!_-I- 1, = wan I ( Boulder '� • • y ii ^.av �.� �►�� Lafayette— E9f , 1 8 ..� t\lef)Th iT l!oursvilley r e i„"�': on , l *\ • c ,t► . ►S norms --- , �`) ;,'... . . '■ h. �� Eastlake f � r S.,_ ;_- �:� Bruandield sue, fib �• •!fit k ,arson / v\ ` ��TtI•r tRr,�,i iiir r 193 _ ' ~ '►`'` � .1 / moo; d-! ��36 rrw., �Tr..r �► .41��9 % 1 7 '. • �' , : t /72 4 M `�,-a\\� ~ / i r *\s ,,. eel'• t, ?1/4.... •�+► � - C le;'' -tee; `�• r Denver4w � (—_. ! 25 . �tr� 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 i �i�{ � 1 - �� i 1 r r ' Miles North , f:�il;��w -_" tls'-• 0 t-- \... Map Oocumam CO iTr.a, wa m.d ZT:,M07 Transportation Impacts 4-51 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information, cooperation. transportation. 1 4.8.2 No-Action Alternative S 2 The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the 3 1-25 corridor. However, programmed safety improvements to interchanges and standard 4 maintenance to existing structures might result in minor effects. Under the No-Action 5 Alternative, traffic congestion would worsen, and increased vehicle emissions would continue 6 to deteriorate regional air quality. This could affect bicycle/pedestrian users, particularly near 7 heavily-used roadways. 8 4.8.3 Package A 9 Improvements along 1-25 generally would facilitate future bicycle/pedestrian travel, because 10 reconstruction plans would include provisions for future bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Widening 11 activities along 1-25 would temporarily impact several bicycle/pedestrian facilities where they 12 cross the interstate, but the improved interchanges would improve connections to sidewalks. 13 In addition, the new bridges over waterways included in the accompanying drainage design 14 would accommodate planned future trails. Existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian 15 crossings along the commuter rail alignment would generally have an additional track to cross 16 and result in additional delays to crossing bicycle or pedestrian traffic at the rail stations. At 17 the rail stations, the pedestrian overpass would provide a safe pedestrian connection over the 18 rail and connect to the nearest local road. The feeder bus routes and commuter bus service 19 would not noticeably affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities, other than providing an incentive and 20 transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to access commuter rail via the bus 21 service. • 22 4.8.4 Package B 23 Impacts for Package B attributable to improvements along 1-25 generally would be the same 24 as those described for Package A. However, transit station connections to existing and 25 proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be located along the interstate alignment 26 rather than along the BNSF alignment or US 85. Proposed BRT service mostly would occur 27 within existing right-of-way and therefore would not directly impact bicycle/pedestrian 28 facilities. However, proposed queue jumps along US 34 would require acquisition of some 29 new right-of-way within Greeley, which could affect some pedestrian and bicycle crossing 30 facilities. Similarly, feeder bus routes would not noticeably affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities, 31 other than providing an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to 32 access BRT via the bus service. 33 4.9 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 34 This section describes construction impacts for all three alternatives. It also describes construction 35 methods for highway and transit components as well as mitigation considerations. 36 4.9.1 No-Action Alternative 37 The No-Action Alternative would involve minimal construction over what is currently programmed, 38 approved, and funded and therefore would result in minimal construction impacts. S Transportation Impacts 4-52 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 1 4.9.2 Packages A and B 2 Construction of either build package (Package A or B) would create short-term construction 3 impacts throughout the construction period. Construction detours would create short-term 4 impacts on local traffic circulation and congestion. Delays to the traveling public and 5 inconvenience to corridor residents (partial closures where only local traffic is allowed) would 6 occur. Bridge reconstruction would result in the partial closure of local streets and highway 7 ramps. Detour traffic would put additional pressure on adjacent streets. Lane closures on 1-25 8 would most likely occur during night-time periods or on weekends. Ramp closures at 9 interchanges could also occur. 10 Temporary Occupancy of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 11 The North 1-25 EIS has identified the following seven pedestrian and bicycle facilities which 12 may be temporarily occupied during the construction phase of either Package A or Package B: 13 ► Spring Creek Trail, City of Fort Collins 14 ► Fossil Creek Drive Trail, City of Fort Collins 15 ► Lanyon Park Trail, City of Longmont 16 ► 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass, City of Northglenn 17 ► Box Elder Creek Trail, Town of Wellington • 18 ► Big Dry Creek Trail, City of Westminster 19 ► Farmers Highline Canal Trail, City of Northglenn 20 All localities meet the criteria noted in 23 C.F.R. 771.135(p) (7). The identified facilities are 21 similarly affected under the two potential construction scenarios: either a temporary closure 22 so as to lengthen an existing underpass or a temporary closure to allow for the construction of 23 an additional railway track. Regardless of the construction scenario, the duration of 24 occupancy would be less than the duration needed for construction of the full project. 25 Additionally, there will be no alteration to the existing trail alignments, no changes in 26 ownership, nor any temporary and/or permanent adverse physical effects with the activities or 27 purpose of the resource. Correspondence letters received from entities with jurisdictions are 28 included in Appendix B. 29 4.9.2.3 CONSTRUCTION METHODS 30 The highway and transit construction methods presented in this section were developed to ensure 31 that the project as defined is constructible. The final construction staging and the benefits of 32 constructing specific elements first (e.g., the transit component) will not be determined until final 33 design. Appropriate public input will be incorporated. Innovative traffic management techniques will 34 be considered as the final design proceeds after completion of the Final EIS. S Transportation Impacts 4-53 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 1 4.9.2.4 HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION METHODS • 2 Highway construction methods would not vary significantly between Packages A and B. In 3 general, highway construction would likely occur in the following order: utility 4 relocation/adjustments, bridge reconstruction/widening, roadway demolition, excavation and 5 grading, storm sewer, retaining walls and pavement. It is anticipated that the highway would 6 be opened in stages as it is constructed. Sequencing of construction packages and the 7 overall timeframe of construction have not been finalized and would be dependent on funding. 8 If the construction methods described in this section change substantially after selection of a 9 contractor, the contractor will coordinate with CDOT and the public. If the changed 10 construction methods result in additional environmental impacts, these will be evaluated in a 11 supplemental NEPA study. 12 Under Package B, construction of the TELs would include additional signing/striping, buffers, 13 and barriers. These elements would be constructed in the same way as the adjacent GPLs. In 14 addition, the electronic system required for the management of the lanes (toll collection 15 and/or enforcement) will need to be installed. These structures are similar to facilities already 16 constructed along toll roads and managed lanes in the Denver area, and do not present 17 construction issues. 18 4.9.2.5 TRANSIT CONSTRUCTION METHODS 19 The disparate transit systems included in the two build packages would require differing 20 construction approaches. However, some elements would be common to both systems, 21 including stations, park-and-ride facilities, and carpool lots. 22 Commuter rail, BRT, and commuter bus stations typically would include boarding and 23 alighting platforms constructed of either pre-cast or cast-in-place concrete. Simple pre- 24 fabricated canopy structures and other station amenities (benches, ticket machines, etc.) 25 would be installed after completion of concrete work. The park-and-ride lots and carpool lots 26 would be constructed using methods similar to those for roadway construction, including cast- 27 in-place concrete (curb and gutter, walks, etc.), asphalt paving (parking surfaces), and station 28 amenities (landscaping, lighting, etc.). There is an option for a parking structure at the 29 downtown transit center commuter rail station in Fort Collins. If this option is pursued, 30 potential constriction impacts will be further evaluated in the Final EIS. The majority of the 31 station efforts would be ancillary to the construction of the main transit components, 32 described below. 33 Commuter Rail 34 Construction of the commuter rail system would involve three major components in addition to 35 stations: trackwork, grade crossings/separations, and signal/communication systems. These 36 are described below. In general, the double-track commuter rail system would be constructed 37 by adding a second track at-grade at the same elevation as the adjacent BNSF track between 38 Fort Collins and downtown Longmont. A new-double track commuter rail system would be 39 constructed from downtown Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station on 40 Thornton. At locations where grade separations are constructed, substantial earthwork would 41 be required. Typically, the commuter rail system would be constructed in the following order: 42 site preparation and clearing, utility relocation, grading, ballast, ties, track installation, 43 stations, and signal/communication systems. • Transportation Impacts 4-54 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. ' 1 For trackwork, the rail, ballast, ties, and other track components would be delivered by rail 2 and/or truck. It is anticipated that other activities, such as grading/excavation and construction 3 of bridges, and retaining walls would be constructed using conventional methods, and 4 materials would be hauled by truck. 5 Several different approaches would be used for grade crossings. For at-grade crossings, it is 6 anticipated that weekend crossing closures would be required, as is typical when freight 7 railroads reconstruct grade crossings. These closures would allow for installation of ballast, 8 ties, and rail across the roadway plus the replacement of the roadway surface. Although it is 9 possible to perform these tasks at night, freight railroads have found greater efficiencies can 10 be achieved with one 48-hour to 60-hour weekend closure per crossing than with several 11 weeks of 8-hour to 10-hour night-time closures. For grade separations, the general sequence 12 would be to build the approaches within the railroad right-of-way and then use either night or 13 weekend closures to erect the girders and bridge decks at the actual separation. For 14 pedestrian overpasses, stair and elevator towers would be erected in the rail corridor or 15 station area. Freight rail traffic would be suspended for several hours to erect the girders and 16 bridge decks. Given the relatively low freight train density along the BNSF line, it is 17 anticipated that this suspension could be scheduled with the railroad to minimize freight 18 disruptions. 19 The signal system would be installed to ensure safe operation of commuter rail trains and 20 freight trains on the track. It would consist of a network of signals, switches, and ancillary 21 equipment installed after track construction is complete. This network would monitor and 22 control train movements plus control crossing protection for at-grade crossings. The • 23 communication system would use a fiber-optic backbone to transmit data throughout the 24 system back to the central control facility. Components that may be connected to this 25 backbone include closed-circuit television, a public address system, variable message signs, 26 and a voice communication system. Installation generally would include trenching for the 27 backbone and connecting lines, installation of cabinets and other elements, and then 28 connecting them all together. 29 Bus Rapid Transit 30 Construction of the BRT TELs generally would follow the same approach as described earlier 31 for highway construction. Amenities specific to BRT would include pedestrian overpasses 32 between parking facilities and platforms. These would be erected over the 1-25 travel lanes 33 and would require night-time closures of the interstate for girder and bridge deck construction. 34 This would be similar to the erection of new or replacement roadway overpasses. 35 4.9.3 Construction Mitigation Measures 36 Construction impacts to traffic will be presented to the public as part of the construction phase 37 public involvement program, occurring after completion of the Final EIS and Record of 38 Decision (ROD). Public suggestions for mitigation measures will be incorporated into the 39 mitigation plan, where appropriate. 40 The FHWA requires the development of a traffic management plan (TMP) for all projects (see 41 23 CFR 630, Subpart J). The plan development process is outlined in the Guide, Developing is42 and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones (FHWA, 2005). It is 43 assumed that this guide will be followed during the development of traffic control for the North Transportation Impacts 4-55 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 1-25 project. The guide lays out the development of TMPs, subject to public input. Plans • 2 would include: 3 ► TMP Roles and Responsibilities 4 ► Project Description 5 ► Existing and Future Conditions 6 ► Work Zone Impacts Assessment Report 7 ► Work Zone Impact Management Strategies 8 ► TMP Monitoring 9 ► Contingency Plans 10 ► TMP Implementation Costs 11 Elements specific to North 1-25 that should become part of the plan include: 12 ► Maintain the same number of existing lanes on 1-25 at all times except during off-peak 13 travel times. 14 ► Coordinate bridge demolition and detour routes to avoid overloading local streets with 15 detour traffic. 16 ► Limit peak period ramp closures to low-volume interchanges. • 17 ► Limit closure of high-volume ramps to nights or weekends. 18 ► Maintain access to local businesses/residences. 19 ► Begin implementation of travel demand management programs. The federal rule defines 20 the following travel demand management strategies in the Guide (FHWA, 2005), some of 21 which are already proposed as part of the North 1-25 effort (marked with an asterisk 22 below), and some of which should be evaluated for use during construction: 23 • Transit service improvements* 24 • Transit incentives 25 • Shuttle services 26 • Ridesharing / carpooling incentives* 27 • Park-and-ride promotion* 28 • HOV lanes 29 • Toll / congestion pricing 30 • Ramp metering* 31 • Parking supply management 32 • Variable work hours 33 • Telecommuting Transportation Impacts 4-56 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 4.10 SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS 2 Packages A and B would have similar physical and operational impacts on transportation 3 facilities. Most notably, they would handle the vehicle volumes on 1-25 and in the project area 4 very similarly. For example, the largest differences would be in the total VMT and freeway VMT 5 generated; however, there would be very minor differences in delay and travel time, which 6 indicates that both packages would handle traffic with similar effectiveness. Put another way, the 7 build packages would attract different levels of traffic, but from the driver's perspective, each 8 package would function similarly: drivers would experience similar travel times and similar levels 9 of traffic delay. The exception to these general findings would be the difference between GPLs 10 and TELs. According to the transportation analysis, the difference in travel time between the 11 Package A GPLs and the Package B TELs would be substantial, with approximately 53 minutes 12 saved with the Package B TELs on 1-25 between SH 1 and 20th Street. 13 Similarly, although the transit components of the two packages would operate differently and use 14 different modes and availability of service, Packages A and B would attract similar levels of 15 transit ridership. For Package A, commuter rail and commuter bus combined would attract almost 16 exactly the same ridership as BRT service in Package B. However, the user experience and 17 travel time would be different between the packages. Commuter rail from Fort Collins to Denver 18 would take 21 minutes longer than BRT. However, BRT service from Greeley to Denver would 19 take about the same amount of time as commuter bus. 20 Key transportation impact findings are summarized below. . 21 Compatibility with area plans: 22 ► Packages A and B were designed to accommodate future population and employment 23 growth, increased traffc volumes, and expansion plans of municipalities in the regional study 24 area, and to be compatible with both regional and local area transportation plans. Transit 25 improvements were designed to connect and be compatible with RTD's planned FasTracks 26 rail system. Highway improvements were designed to be compatible with DRCOG Metro 27 Vision and the North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. 28 Minor funding for improvements to 1-25 and passenger rail right-of-way preservation are 29 included in the NFRMPO 2030 fiscally constrained transportation plan but not included in the 30 Upper Front Range or DRCOG fiscally constrained transportation plans. 31 Travel Demand: 32 ► Transportation analyses used 2030 travel demand forecasts. These forecasts were produced 33 through the use of a multi-modal travel demand model, which was developed by combining 34 the existing DRCOG and NFRMPO travel demand models. Additional expertise was utilized 35 for toll and revenue forecasts. 36 ► Package A projected daily traffic volumes between SH 14 and E-470 would be 9 percent to 37 18 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, while Package B 2030 daily traffic 38 projections would be only 4 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative. 39 ► Package A would have a greater effect on parallel arterial volumes than Package B. 40 With Package A, arterial volumes would be about 4 percent to 12 percent lower than in 41 the No-Action Alternative, while in Package B arterial volumes would be 0 percent to 42 3 percent lower. Transportation Impacts 4-57 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 ► Both Package A and B would attract more highway users (people) to 1-25 than the • 2 No-Action Alternative. Package B would generate slightly more total users than 3 Package A. 4 ► The transit components of both Package A and Package B would not appreciably reduce 5 1-25 highway traffic volumes because transit ridership projections are an order of 6 magnitude smaller than vehicular demand projections. 7 ► In Packages A and B, transit ridership (not including the feeder buses) would be about 8 5,850 riders per day. Station activity for commuter rail and BRT would increase from north 9 to south while station activity for the commuter bus generally would be the same at 10 stations along the route. 11 System Operation: 12 ► In 2030, travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street using GPLs would be 10 minutes faster in 13 Package A and 15 minutes faster in Package B than the No-Action Alternative travel time. 14 ► In 2030, Package B travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street when using the TELs would be 15 47 minutes faster than the No-Action Alternative. 16 ► Packages A and B would experience similar peak hour operation along mainline 1-25 and 17 at the interchange ramp terminals. 18 ► South of E-470, Package B would experience fewer miles of congestion than Package A 19 due to the increased capacity with the additional TELs. 20 ► Using Package A commuter rail for a trip from Fort Collins' South Transit Center to • 21 Denver Union Station would be 37 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative. 22 Using Package B BRT for the same trip would be 58 minutes faster than driving in the 23 No-Action Alternative. 24 ► Using Package A commuter bus for a trip from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver 25 would be 14 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative. Using Package B BRT 26 for the same trip would be 46 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative. 27 Safety: 28 ► Packages A and B would modify newer interchange structures, rehabilitate older 29 structures, or replace the existing structures to address geometric and capacity-related 30 safety concerns. 31 ► Package B would replace two aging interchange bridges on 1-25 south of E-470 not 32 replaced in Package A. 33 ► To minimize the potential for conflict between the proposed commuter rail line and private 34 automobiles, railroad grade crossings were designed to comply with both FRA and RTD 35 safety standards through either grade separation or other treatment and warning methods. 36 Along the BNSF alignment in Package A, existing grade separations would be maintained but 37 no new structures would be added. For the new alignment from Longmont to North Metro 38 Corridor in Package A, six new grade separations would be incorporated into the design. 39 ► Packages A and B are expected to experience approximately the same number of total 40 crashes in 2030 with slightly fewer injury and fatality crashes anticipated under Package B. • Transportation Impacts 4-58 NORTH I25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 ► Barrier-separated sections of Package B were predicted to have fewer accidents than the 2 same sections of 1-25 in Package A. 3 Freight Traffic on 1-25: 4 ► Neither Package A nor Package B would affect the current growth rate for freight traffic 5 (estimated to be 2 percent on the south end and 3 percent on the north end). In general, 6 freight traffic in Packages A and B would benefit from improved traffic operations in the 7 GPLs and re-grading of the highway to a maximum grade of 4 percent. In Package B, 8 freight traffic would be prohibited from using the TEL. 9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems: 10 ► The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the 11 1-25 corridor. 12 ► Package A improvements along 1-25 generally would facilitate future bicycle/pedestrian 13 travel, because reconstruction plans would include provisions for future bicycle/pedestrian 14 facilities to cross the interstate and new bridges over waterways would accommodate 15 planned trails. 16 ► Impacts for Package B attributable to improvements along 1-25 generally would be the 17 same as those described for Package A. However, transit station connections to existing 18 and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be located along the interstate 19 alignment rather than along the BNSF alignment or US 85. Proposed queue jumps along 20 US 34 would require acquisition of some new right-of-way within Greeley, which could • 21 affect some pedestrian crossings and on-street bicycle facilities. 22 Construction Impacts: 23 ► Highway construction methods would be similar for both Packages A and B, although 24 Package B would require additional signage, striping, and barriers as well as installation of 25 the toll collection system. In both packages, new highway segments would open as 26 phases are completed and a design-build method could be sought for either package. 27 ► Transit construction methods in Package A would temporarily disrupt freight rail traffic for 28 the construction of grade crossing improvements and construction of the vertical elements 29 of the commuter rail stations. 30 ► Transit construction methods in Package B would require night-time closures of the 31 interstate to install the vertical elements of the BRT stations in the interstate median. 32 ► Regardless of the package selected, there would be temporary noise, vibration, and visual 33 impacts, although they would be minimized as much as possible. Furthermore, mitigation 34 measures would be needed to avoid air quality, water quality, and traffic impacts. The 404 35 permit would assign additional detailed mitigation measures. 36 ► Under both build packages, travel demand management measures could be used to 37 minimize traffic impacts. 38 Differences and similarities between packages are listed below. Details are provided in the 39 Tables 4-16 through 4-19 that follow. • Transportation Impacts 4-59 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Package Similarities: . 2 ► Plan compatibility 3 ► Total volumes on 1-25 north of E-470 4 ► Impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities 5 ► Daily average speed on 1-25 6 ► Ridership on commuter transit services 7 ► Operation of 1-25 from SH 1 to SH 14 8 Small Differences between Packages: 9 ► Daily freeway VHT 10 ► Daily total VHT 11 ► Automobile travel time on 1-25 GPLs north of E-470 12 ► Miles of 1-25 operating at LOS E or F in AM peak hour north of E-470 13 ► Number of carpool lots with access at LOS E or F 14 ► Number of structures being replaced or modified north of E-470 15 Large Differences between Packages: • 16 ► Daily freeway VMT (Package A is higher) 17 ► Traffic volumes between E-470 and US 36 18 ► Automobile travel time on 1-25 in TELs 19 ► Automobile travel time on 1-25 in the GPLs between E-470 and US 36 20 ► Operation on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 21 ► Feeder bus ridership 22 ► Transit user experience 23 ► Transit travel times 24 ► User safety on commuter rail versus highway or bus • Transportation Impacts 4-60 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 4-16 Effect on Highway Travel Demand Evaluation Factor No-Action Package A Package B Daily Users on 1-25 (People) 805,700 868,800 869,600 Average daily traffic volumes 105,500 119,000 109,500 SH 1 to E-470 Average daily traffic volumes 189,300 192,600 203,300 E-470 to US 36 Vehicle Miles of Travel 15,712,000 16,559,000 16,071,000 Freeway Vehicle Hours of Travel 325,500 330,400 327,300 Freeway Average Freeway Speeds 48 50 49 Daily volumes on northern -- Reduced 4-12% Reduced 0-3% parallel arterials Daily volumes on southern -- No net change Slight reduction parallel arterials 2 Table 4-17 Physical Characteristics Evaluation Factor No-Action Package A Package B New Structures 0 84 96 Modified Structures 0 13 23 Rehabilitatesd 27 6 1 • Structures (Major and Minor) Bicycle and No direct physical Temporary closures on Temporary closures on pedestrian facilities impact; increase in trails that cross the trails that cross the traffic congestion and interstate due to widening interstate due to vehicle emissions and construction widening and could affect users of construction proximate facilities Additional track crossing for trail users crossing the New connections to commuter rail alignment pedestrian facilities at interchanges and at New connections to BRT station areas pedestrian facilities at interchanges • Transportation Impacts 4-61 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 4-18 Summary of I-25 Operation Evaluation • Evaluation Factor I No-Action I Package A Package B Travel Time (minutes) General purpose lanes-SH 1 to 128 118 20th Street 113/ Tolled express lanes - SH 1 to 112 101 20th Street 65/ Mainline I-25 at LOS E or F (miles) AM peak hour 23 11 10/ PM peak hour 53 22/ 22/ Merge/Diverge Locations at LOS E or F AM peak hour 25 13 11/ PM peak hour 54 24/ 30 Interchanges at LOS E or F AM peak hour 20 3 / 2 PM peak hour 26 61 6/ Annual Crashes N/A 3,466 3,410 (predicted) fIndicates package with best evaluation factor value. • 2 Table 4-19 Summary of Transit Operation Evaluation Evaluation Factor I No-Action I Package A Package B Ridership(daily riders) On commuter services 0 5,850/ 5,850/ Special event weekday N/A 200 to 400 250 to 475/ Special event weekend N/A 500 to1,000 650 to 1,175/ Market Transit Share (percent) Commuters to Denver living <1% 50% north of SH 66 55%/ Travel Time (minutes) South Transit Center to 130 minutes 93 minutes Downtown Denver (in GPLs) 72 minutes/ Downtown Greeley to Downtown 135 minutes 121 minutes Denver (in GPLs) 89 minutes/ / Indicates package with best evaluation factor value. 3 • Transportation Impacts 4-62 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 5.1 APPLICATION OF SECTION 4(f) 5.1.1 Introduction Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966, as What's In Chapter 5? amended, and codified in 49 United States Code Chapter 5 Section 4(f) Evaluation (USC) § 303, declares that "(I)t is the policy of the 5.1 Application of Section 4(f) United States Government that special effort 5.2 Section 4(f) Project Information should be made to preserve the natural beauty of 5.3 Project Process & Identification of the countryside and public park and recreation Section 4(f) Resources lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic 5.4 Use of Section 4(f) Resources sites." Congress amended Section 4(f) in 2005 5.5 De minimis Impacts 5.6 Least Harm Analysis when it enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (Public Law 109-59, enacted August 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU added a new subsection to Section 4(f), which authorizes the FHWA and the FTA to approve a project that results in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) resource without the evaluation of avoidance measures typically required in a Section 4(f) evaluation. • On April 11, 2008, the USDOT put in effect a final rule for FHWA and FTA that clarifies factors to consider both in determining if avoidance alternatives are feasible and prudent, and when all alternatives use Section 4(f) property. In addition, the final rule also establishes procedures for determining when use has a de minimis impact, updates the regulations to recognize exceptions for use and applying a programmatic evaluation, and moves the regulation to 23 CFR 774. FHWA regulations (23 CFR 774.3) state: "The Administration may not approve the use, as defined in Sec. 774.17, of a Section 4(f) property unless a determination is made under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. (a) The Administration determines that: (1) There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, as defined in Sec. 774.17, to the use of land from the property; and (2) The action includes all possible planning, as defined in Sec. 774.17, to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use; or (b) The Administration determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) committed to by applicant, will have a de minimis impact, as defined in Sec. 774.17, on the property." • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . According to the Section 4(f) Final Rule (23 CFR 774.17) a feasible and prudent avoidance • alternative is defined as: "(1) A feasible and prudent avoidance alternative avoids using Section 4(f) property and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweighs the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property. In assessing the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property, it is appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource to the preservation purpose of the statute. (2) An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment. (3) An alternative is not prudent if: (i) It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need; (ii) It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; (iii) After reasonable mitigation, it still causes: (a) Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; (b) Severe disruption to established communities; (c) Severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations; or • (d) Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes; (iv) It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude; (v) It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or (vi) It involves multiple factors in paragraphs (3)(i) through (3)(v) of this definition, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of an extraordinary magnitude." Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and relevant state and local officials, in developing transportation projects and programs that use lands protected by Section 4(f). The proposed action, as described in Chapter 2, Alternatives, is a transportation project that may receive federal funding and/or discretionary approvals through USDOT; therefore, documentation of compliance with Section 4(f) is required. This Section 4(f) evaluation has been prepared in accordance with the joint FHWA/FTA regulations for Section 4(f) compliance codified as Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §774. Additional guidance has been obtained from the FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A • (1987) and the revised FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005). Consultation with officials with local jurisdiction will continue through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • 5.1.2 Section 4(f) "Use" As defined in 23 CFR 774.17 and 774.15, where applicable and not excepted, the "use" of a protected Section 4(f) resource can be classified as a direct use, a temporary use, a constructive use, or de minimis. These are defined in the following sections. Direct Use A direct use of a Section 4(f) resource takes place when the land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility. Temporary Use/Temporary Occupancy A temporary use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when there is a brief impact to a Section 4(f) resource that is considered adverse in terms of the preservationist purposes of the Section 4(f) statute. After the period of impact, the resource must be restored to the condition in which it was originally found. Historic properties with no permanent adverse physical effects or incorporation of land into the transportation project, but would require temporary occupancy for construction, are not evaluated in this Section 4(f) evaluation pending agreement with SHP0 on the "no adverse effect" determination. Under the FHWA/FTA regulations, a temporary occupancy of property does not constitute a use of a Section 4(f) resource when the following conditions are satisfied: • ► The occupancy must be of temporary duration (i.e., shorter than the period of construction) and not involve a change in ownership of the property; ► The scope of work must be minor, with only minimal changes to the protected resource; ► There are no permanent adverse physical effects to the protected resource, and there will be no temporary or permanent interference with activities or purpose of the resource; ► The property being used must be fully restored to a condition that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the proposed project; and ► There must be documented agreement of the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the foregoing requirements. Properties that may incur a temporary occupancy, specifically trails, are addressed in Section 4.9, Construction Impacts. Constructive Use Constructive use occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) resource, but the project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished. This determination is made through: ► Identification of the current activities, features, or attributes of the resource that may be • sensitive to proximity impacts; ► Analysis of the proximity impacts on the resource ► Consultation with the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. De Minimis • The SAFETEA-LU amendment to the Section 4(f) requirements allows the USDOT to determine that certain uses of Section 4(f) land would have no adverse effect on the protected resource. When this is the case, the use is considered de minimis, and compliance with Section 4(f) is greatly simplified. Section 6009 (a) of the SAFETEA-LU P. L. 109-59, amended existing Section 4(f) legislation at Section 138 of Title 23 and Section 303 of Title 49 USC to simplify the processing and approval of projects that only have de minimis (trivial or minimal) impacts on lands protected by Section 4(f). The de minimis subsection authorizes the FHWA and FTA to approve a project that results in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) resource without the evaluation of avoidance alternatives typically required in a Section 4(f) evaluation. A finding of de minimis use may be made for historic sites when no historic property is affected by the project or the project will have "no adverse effect" on the historic property in question. For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges a finding of de minimis use may be made when impacts will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). De minimis findings are discussed in Section 5.5 of this Section 4(f) evaluation. 5.2 SECTION 4(f) PROJECT INFORMATION 5.2.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro Area • and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins- Wellington area. The project's purpose is explained through five major need categories as described below. For more detailed information, refer to Chapter 1.0 of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Improve safety—Over the last decade, the number of crashes along 1-25 has increased, and a number of locations on 1-25 currently experience less than expected safety performance. There is a need to reduce crashes on the portions of 1-25 that have a high potential for crash reduction. Improve mobility and accessibility-2030 projections in the regional study area show an increase of 84 percent in households and more than 56 percent in employment over the 2000 levels. This growth would result in increases in travel demand throughout the regional study area. There is a need for transportation improvements to address 2030 transportation demand that balances mobility and accessibility along the 1-25 corridor. Replace aging and obsolete highway infrastructure—A number of structures along 1-25 are currently structurally deficient or are expected to be deficient by 2030. Segments of pavement on 1-25 are reaching the end of the pavement's life expectancy, and surface conditions are deteriorating rapidly. There is a need to replace the aging infrastructure along 1-25. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Provide for modal alternatives and interrelationships—Modal alternatives are very limited in northern Colorado and between northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area. There is a need to increase the number of transportation choices and avoid improvements that would preclude future transportation options. 5.2.2 Corridor-Wide Avoidance Alternatives A full range of alternatives were developed and evaluated based on responsiveness to the project purpose and need, feasibility of being constructed, environmental and community impacts, and cost. A full description of alternatives considered is included in Chapter 2.0, Sections 2.3, 2.4 and Section 2.5. The following text summarizes the findings of this analysis specific to how each corridor-wide alternative was determined to be not feasible and prudent as defined under Section 4(f). The definitions for feasibility and prudence are included in Section 5.4.2 of this chapter. No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative makes no substantial improvement to mobility and safety along 1-25. Because this alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project of improving safety, improving mobility and accessibility, replacing aging infrastructure, and enhancing modal alternatives, it is not a feasible and prudent alternative for avoiding the impacted Section 4(f) properties. • New Freeways on a New Alignment Freeway alternatives were evaluated that were located on an alignment other than along 1-25. These options are illustrated in Figure 5-1, and include freeways along US 287, US 85 and farther east (called the Prairie Falcon Parkway). None of these three alternatives was found to meet purpose and need because they would not improve mobility, improve safety or replace aging infrastructure along the 1-25 corridor. The three alternatives that were studied would divert less than 20 percent of the 55,000 daily trips, so they would not reduce congestion along I-25. In addition, since no changes would be made to 1-25, current safety, problems would continue and aging infrastructure would not be replaced. For these reasons, these alternatives were not considered to be prudent and feasible. A combination of widening to US 287, US 85, and 1-25 was studied. This alternative would meet the mobility-related purpose and need factor but would not meet the need to provide for modal alternatives. In addition, widening US 287 would, after mitigation, result in severe disruptions to the established communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. Businesses, civic buildings, and parks in the old downtown area would be demolished. Severe impacts would also occur to three times more historic properties and parks than those impacted by Packages A and B. For these reasons, this alternative is not feasible and prudent. Widening US 85 alone was developed as an alternative. This alternaive would not meet the purpose and need factor related to mobility and safety because it would divert less than 20 percent of the daily trips, and it would not address safety problems on 1-25. For this reason, this alternative is not feasible and prudent. • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-1 Highway Alignments Considered III II , L Wellington (r\ , 41111111i- US 287 Alignment 8i Would not attract sufficient traffic from 1-25. Has high J `~ ' ,a potential for environmental impact to communities. FOr t.0 L -: D Iiiii -lfi r. i.t... atk e Severance r lb' Ltte lig ,43 1-25 Alignment Windsor Would provide adequate - - - capacity to address mobility, 34 LOv '1 r .i- 1 , lj replace aging structures, and 34 - Gree f ): address safety on 1-25. Gerdes L I r c©i t! A L 6 .` - Mstewn LARIMER :'t �� i1111 ill ' Milliken - 36 - N -rte• orerest New Parallel Arterials I and New Highways _ US 85 Alignment Would not divert sufficient r Would not divert sufficient I traffic from 1-25 to address platted" traffic from 1-25 to address mobility needs. L ! 66 mobility needs. Longmont • - 7 E ;16, (363 Prairie Falcon Pkwy. 85 ; BOULDEI, C 1 Firestone Would not address mobility rick needs on I-25. Mostial 0 - 0 - . S qs Lupton Boulder 'r` 25 - . r / 19 - T . � `y31 ��36 Louisville � ! ciii ts• on Suporlo► I Broomfield tI _r"h.,I; oi r— �� c '. igr 72 y -'�. WesteNnste _ `•E04T •. International I - — \ - - N Airport ) -- O ;21, .t[=f- IF Ik K5 U N ......;;• --4 76 , 4 . le s1/4...\ II * e =nver 70 Vsi jrv70 T• Deriver Union Station bhp. '40 70 V 0 4 5 8 10 6 - tides North _ 225 / 1 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooreraticn. transportation. • A combination widening of US 85 and widening of 1-25 was studied. This alternative would meet the mobility-related purpose and need factor, but would not meet the need to provide for modal alternatives. Cost for the highway portion of the alternative would be $830 million greater than widening of 1-25 alone. For these reasons, this alternative is not prudent and feasible. Advanced Technology Transit Alternatives A number of advanced technology transit alternatives were considered, such as magnetic levitation, automated guideway transit, high-speed rail, personal rapid transit, and subway or elevated systems. Some of these could potentially have fewer impacts on Section 4(f) resources. None of these alternatives was found to meet purpose and need because they did not provide accessibility or connectivity to regional study area communities. They would not provide accessibility on connectivity because in order to meet the definition of advanced technology, the number of stations would be reduced to two or three instead of eight or nine. Because of this, these alternatives would not improve access to many regional study area communities. In addition, other transit technologies were found to provide a similar or greater level of transportation service at one-third to one-fifth the cost and complexity of the advanced technology alternatives. For these reasons, advanced technology transit alternatives were found to be not feasible and prudent. Commuter Rail or Light Rail on an Eastern or Central Alignment There were eight potential commuter rail or light rail transit alignments considered, as shown on Figure 5-2. Three of these transit alignments were located along the western side of the regional study area and were ultimately included as a part of Package A, because they would meet purpose and need when combined with improvements to 1-25. These three include the BNSF to RTD Northwest Rail, BNSF to RTD North Metro, and US 287 to FasTracks Northwest Rail. • Commuter rail alignments in the central part of the corridor were also studied. These alignments would likely adversely affect and result in a direct use of seven historic farms and result in a direct use of two recreation areas. These alignments were not considered to be feasible and prudent because: ► They would cause severe impact to known habitat and populations of Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, a federally threatened species protected by the Endangered Species Act. Because the new rail alignment would cross rivers and fill in 48 more acres of wetlands, even if the impacts were mitigated, it would be difficult to fully replace the current habitat value. ► They would result in severe impacts to substantially more (48 acres vs. 7.2 acres on the western alignment) acres of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. when compared to rail alignments along the western edge of the regional study area. ► They would provide access to 30 percent less population and employment. As a result, transit ridership would be 30 percent lower and the residents and employees served by the western alignments would not have access to a public transit mode, thus not meeting the accessibility need for the project. Three transit alignments were considered along the eastern side of the regional study area. These alignments did not meet project purpose and need. The future work trips between the eastern communities and the Denver metropolitan area are estimated to be just over 9,000 a day. By comparison, the future work trips between the western communities and the Denver metropolitan area are estimated to be almost 15,000 a day. This difference in future work trips is • substantial and results in the eastern side transit alignments not meeting the purpose and need factors of improving mobility or accessibility. For this reason, these alignments were not considered feasible and prudent. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-2 Transit Alignments Considered Il LEGEND Mode Alignment Considered BNSF to RTD Rail Northwest Rail BNSF to RTD Rail ter- We11ington North Metro UPRR and 1-25 to r Rail za7. I RTD Northwest Rail . Auk . UPRR and 1-25 to Rail p to RTD North Metro F . I I fl Ss 1-25 to RTD Rail rC i - 4-114-7 North Metro t Saveriance Eaten rs �i '- 1-25 Bus or Rail G 92) `""r^ Dent Line to RTD 287-' T r.• GWR Bus or Rail 4 - • North Metro �■ GWR and UPRR ,34 ' ' �� nd w r r to Denver Rail 3a zaJ Greel V l Garden CH ~ US 85 to Denver Bus Only 02 $7' Evan and DIA • 1 CR 50 La a Ca T natown - '" 60 US 287 to FasTracks Bus Only � MINIM Northwest Rail y56 Corridor l w i , l G area Planned RTD FasTracks Commuter O • et Rail Corridor -, CR 34 i W -.1 I I 68 Longmont aw= 7 ! t19_ JS ' i 85 BOULDER `i Irostons '119 kL' 287 ri iwot � _ 52 ., 52 t' I' L. s Boulder Erie Z5 7. '44 _ • _ L if►_ . afayotte�7 v ia, 7 �_ I .• 4 � 93'i IL-: r on % 36 Loule"Ili ---- - / /. t S •t Su Broomfield -J t ,- --4414-1\8\----N �} � �horMoe•- C. Northwest j o Com Rail Corridor in" ^^ Denver • ,'-�_ manner �`- / North E470 Internallonal ` 41.1 r. Metro Airport`�� 1 :r 2� Corridor P 1 I5 1 .y, �/ 12t r � JEFFERSON - _ �--) ) 7•� ? !1 1 • t �' "r 71 'niorn Station _ _ --- . .=',`t.• w V\IAt a0' t /\ s.' . I Denver r-- 0 2 ! \ y: 4 6 8 1Mile5 North - f I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-8 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. . Light Rail Technology Light rail technology was studied on various alignments. This alternative was found to not meet the mobility factor of purpose and need because the projected travel time was double that of commuter rail. Travel time is a substantial component in estimating transit ridership. A doubling of travel times would reduce transit ridership by at least half. For these reasons, this technology was found to be not feasible and prudent. Modal Alternatives as a Stand-Alone The possibility of advancing only commuter rail or BRT (including the BRT stations), or just 1-25 improvements as a stand-alone alternative was explored. Making only commuter rail improvements without any improvements to 1-25 was not considered feasible and prudent because: ► 1-25 volumes would not be reduced enough to meet the purpose and need objective of addressing future congestion and mobility. ► Safety problems on 1-25 would continue and likely worsen, thus not meeting the safety objective of purpose and need. ► Aging infrastructure along 1-25 would not be replaced, thus not meeting this purpose and need objective. Making only BRT improvements along 1-25 would not be feasible and prudent because it would do • nothing to improve mobility for automobile and truck drivers on 1-25. Making only highway improvements would not be feasible and prudent because the aspect of purpose and need, which is to provide additional modal options for travelers, would not be met at all. 5.2.2.1 PACKAGE A Package A includes the addition of general purpose (GP) plus auxiliary lanes along 1-25, commuter rail from Fort Collins to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station, and commuter bus along US 85 with alternating service to Denver International Airport (DIA). Package A also includes interchange improvements, feeder bus, stations, maintenance facility, and carpool lots. See Figure 5-3 for an overview of Package A. Components associated with Package A are as follows: ► A-H1 Safety Improvements: I-25, State Highway 1 (SH 1) to SH 14 ► A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: I-25, SH 14 to SH 60 ► A-H3 GP Highway Improvements: 1-25, SH 60 to E-470 ► A-H4 Structure Upgrades: I-25, E-470 to US 36 ► A-T1 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont ► A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro e ► A-T3 Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver ► A-T4 Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver Union Station (DUS) Section 4(t)Evaluation 5-9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-3 Package A 5 LEGEND , SH 1 1 New General Purpose Lane We • on C (GPL) in Each Direction .7. -- Correct geometric 4 Mountain Vista deficiencies • I 1 New General Purpose Lane Is S 4 and replace aging (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each 287 infrastructure Direction Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center - BNSF and Maple St • ❑ 4 AIM - - Commuter Rail (CR) CSU - Mason St. between A `—' University Ave. and W. Pitkin St. IP LE Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort Collins ' Pr°$1 td 85 US 85 South Fort Collins Transit Center - O Harmony ,4 Erter Mason St. and W. Fairway Lane nati ,Th E.vraae• 6 257) Feeder Bus Service ti' z) Lucerne ='267', Wlnds•r 1 O Interchange Upgrades va - Greeley - US 85 `34 ' Loveland t1/4j t095fD�S e"d and D St. © Number of Lanes j North Loveland - BNSF and 29th St. U „ South Greeley - Greele 81h Ave. Commuter Bus Station / Stop Downtown Loveland BNSF and 24th St. approximately 6th St. 1-40-1 • 6 + , Garden City Evans US 85 O Commuter Rail Station CR16 • C and 42nd St. CR50 r A 67 n 11R 4 Lf - Camilon r 60 Johnstown La Sall. FasTracks Rail Line (60) Berthoud - BNSF and SH 56 Milliken O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station . "5s •r sad •r• El Potential Commuter Rail _ 6 Operational & Maintenance Facility 36 CR 34North _ BNSF and SH 66 Mead Plattev4PtattevilIeUsa5 El Potential Commuter Bus .., 7 661 and Grand Ave. 411 Operational & Maintenance , Longmont at Sugar Mill - North of Facility Longmont /1 alignment,south of Rogers Rd. O=t119 _:$• - 36 B5 ' BOULDER 6 F,r.ston. 119 h67≥ y.d.rlck wet ----(52 Fort Lupton - US 85 and CR 14.5 _ 1-25 and WCR 8 - NW ‘53-/ Fort corner of 1-25 and CR 8 wcR s• Dna crow rpton Erie = oulder 119 Lad y.tt.l7 ) A - — 7 93 36 tL•rls • Sri on -- -- S Right-of-Way Northwest 25' Preservation Rail Corridor srperie • sr•• •Id T •r ton • o C 6 nn° I tll • •I • •r11 • nt W star North Metro E470 Denver N • - ' Ct I • n Corridor Irrt.rnotionalAirport It - rn . tiv - a4thAvt 2 _ • r • j - cts 121 . _ v`7• R'JEFFER ' O ` - l � •1 •* 71 '-i, _I EDenve l t.. W Union .tation 40: I CI / .r v= Denver 0 2 4 G 8 10 ice_ __riM. iles North II Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • One additional GP lane would be added to 1-25 in each direction from SH 14 south to SH 66. The segment of 1-25 from SH 66 south to SH 52 is under construction and scheduled for near- term completion, therefore, it is not addressed as part of this project. From SH 52 south to E- 470, an additional lane would be added to make an eight-lane cross-section. Interchanges would be upgraded or modified if necessary to accommodate future traffic volumes at Level of Service (LOS) D. LOS is a rating of traffic operating conditions determined by calculating delay and average speed and comparing traffic volumes to available capacity along a roadway. LOS A is the best rating, while LOS F is the worst rating. Interchanges considered to be aging would be completely replaced. The Alternatives Development and Screening Report, August 2007, includes more detail on the proposed interchange configurations. Double-tracked commuter rail service would be in place from downtown Fort Collins at University Avenue and Maple Street along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of- way to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor end-of-line station at 1st Street and Terry Street in Longmont. New commuter rail tracks would be added east of the existing freight rail tracks, and both sets of tracks would be used by commuter rail and freight rail. On the alignment's northern end in Fort Collins, from Mason Street and University Avenue to Mason Street and Maple Street, commuter rail service would be added to the existing freight rail tracks. In addition, a new double track line would be built from the 3rd Street in Longmont (connecting to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor and to the commuter rail to Fort Collins) to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. A 500-foot section of single tracking would be built in the vicinity of the historic Loveland Depot. • The commuter rail service would run every 30 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods when demand is highest and every hour in the off-peak periods. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station where it would continue on to DUS; a transfer would not be necessary. To reach Boulder, northern Colorado riders would transfer to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor line at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont, which would use the new rail segment extending from the proposed Northwest Rail Corridor end-of-line station at 1st and Terry Streets to connect to the Sugar Mill Station. Two sites are being evaluated for a commuter rail maintenance facility: Vine and Timberline in Fort Collins or CR 46 and US 287 in Berthoud. Nine station locations are planned for commuter rail. They are detailed in Section 2.2.2.4 of this Draft EIS. Package A also includes a commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to DUS and DIA. This service would operate every 30 minutes in the AM and PM peak hours and every hour during the off-peak periods. Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at signalized intersections, would be included to help achieve reliable speeds for bus service. Two maintenance facilities are being evaluated in conjunction with the commuter bus service: Fortner Road and Trilby in Fort Collins, and 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley. In addition, five commuter bus stations are proposed. Four feeder bus routes are proposed to enable riders to access the commuter rail and the commuter bus via local bus service. Many potential congestion management measures are included as enhancements to the packages, including carpool and vanpools, supportive land use policies, signal coordination, incident management, and increased use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.11 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5.2.2.2 PACKAGE B • Package B includes Tolled Express Lanes and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on the Tolled Express Lanes. This improvement package consists of adding one buffer-separated express lane in each direction along the entire 1-25 corridor, except between SH 60 and Harmony Road where two barrier-separated lanes would be added in each direction. The Tolled Express Lanes would be managed similarly to other toll lanes currently within the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) system. Electronic payment via transmitter is required. There are no tollbooths and no cash would be accepted. Similar to Package A, interchanges would be upgraded or modified if necessary to accommodate future traffic volumes at LOS D. Interchanges considered to be aging would be completely replaced. See Chapter 2 and Figure 5-4 for an overview of this Package. Components associated with Package B are as follows: ► B-H1 Safety Improvements: I-25, SH 1 to SH 14 ► B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: I-25, SH 14 to SH 60 ► B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: I-25, SH 60 to E-470 ► B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: I-25, E-470 to 70th Avenue ► B-T1 Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to DUS ► B-T2 Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins to DIA • BRT services would operate from Fort Collins and Greeley to DUS, utilizing the express lanes along 1-25. The service from Fort Collins would begin at the Fort Collins South Transit Center, and operate along Harmony Road in mixed traffic until accessing 1-25 at its interchange with Harmony Road. In addition, BRT service would operate from Fort Collins to DIA. During peak hours, buses would depart every 20 minutes with two going to DUS and one going to DIA. During off-peak hours, buses would depart every 30 minutes: one to DUS and one to DIA. Service from Greeley would begin at the 8th Street and 8th Avenue Transit Center in downtown Greeley, and include stops along US 34, in mixed traffic, until turning north to serve the BRT station at Crossroads. The bus would operate in shared general-purpose lanes along with mixed traffic along US 34. Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at signalized intersections, would be included to help achieve reliable speeds for bus services. Two maintenance facilities are being evaluated in conjunction with the bus service, as well as 12 bus rapid transit stations. Many potential congestion management measures are included as enhancements to the packages, including carpool and vanpools, supportive land use policies, signal coordination, incident management, and increased use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-12 Draft EIS NORTH 125 MI October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-4 Package B 25 Sit l LEGEND '85' 0 , Mar Correct geometric 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled deficiencies Express Lane (TEL) in Each Direction 4 and replace aging �7 infrastructure • • l• 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled I Auk •Express Lanes (TEL) in Each , Harmony Rd. and Direction Timberline - Fort Collins rt. rre:p .I _rail 2 South Fort Collins Transit Center - CiO $ ISO US 34 and SH 257 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route , US 287 and Harmony Rd., Fort Collins �(1 0 Eaton k (UUses TELs on 1-25) `�I/ nth . soars. West Greeley - US34and ses 1-25 and Harmony Rd. - Fort Collins P P 83rd Ave.,Greeley Windsor - 1-25 and SH 392i 41. - 92 Lacer n• Feeder Bus Service Windsor Greeley Downtown Transfer •67 , Center - 8th Ave. and O Interchange Upgrades C 4/4 8th St., Greetey 34 z Lovel nd •• ___ © Number of Lanes: General . - 34 Greeley t Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes Crossroads Blvd. - Loveland between Garda City o ■ z .. Crossroads Blvd. and US 34 �•�-- , •57 Ems n) Bus Rapid Transit Station 60 " dlt50 Cam on Johnstown La Salle Berthoud - 1-25 and SH 56 A X60 e- -7,. FasTracks Rail Line Milliken L 56 O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station «timid G»`r"t LARIMER ❑ Potential Commuter Bus Operational & Maintenance 36 CR34 Facility PM• Platteville 7/ Rrestone -1-25 and SH 119 _ Longmont • 119 '. di . 85 'I BOULDER Fkost.a. 19 flak . Mot 1— 0 i • I ' 52 Frederick/Dacono -1-25 "t w and SH 52 • Erl• • /2 oulder 119 l-25 and SH 7 Let ytt•7) •t( (/7� 93 V v Sri s on 36 Lwlsell ` • Right-of-Way Preservation limpodo Broomfield Men IIN: I Northwest e N rthsl • Rail Corridor OF t North o.mr.r 72 M••t mta O Metro E470! ,rrte.aatlen.l Corridor Airport 121 JEFFER ` ON r �/ - L - -1 Deny= t Union station ■` 40 7 t" 6 Denier V' 2:5 0 2 1 6 A 10 .7\ _ Miles North • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-13 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5.3 PROJECT PROCESS AND IDENTIFICATION OF • SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES The Section 4(f) resources in the vicinity of the regional study area include publicly owned parks and recreation areas, including recreation trails, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and significant historic sites. First, parks and recreation areas, recreation trails, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites were identified within the regional study area. The recreational uses of the public parks and recreation areas were then evaluated to determine if they are considered to be properties protected under Section 4(f). Management plans and agencies were consulted to evaluate if the waterfowl and wildlife refuges were actively managed as refuges. Historic sites were identified through an intensive level of cultural resources survey and evaluated for significance in terms of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). NRHP-listed historic sites qualify for protection under Section 4(f), as well as NRHP-listed or eligible sites determined by FHWA and FTA to warrant preservation in place. 5.3.1 Consultation and Coordination Consultation for purposes of this Section 4(f) evaluation has been initiated and is expected to continue through the final design and engineering phase. The consultation and coordination efforts that have occurred thus far are described below. Public involvement and community outreach for the project as a whole is documented in Chapter 8, Comments and Coordination. Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Stakeholders • Consultation Consultation and coordination has occurred with jurisdictions in which public parks, recreation areas, and the wildlife and waterfowl refuge are considered significant resources by Section 4(f) criteria. Site mapping, amenities, and activities of the resource associated with affected properties were verified. Meetings were held to describe the project, the alternatives analysis, and the nature and severity of impacts to affected resources. Coordination consisted of numerous meetings and correspondence. The officials with jurisdiction include: ► City and County of Denver ► City and County of Boulder ► Town of Berthoud ► City of Westminster ► City of Fort Collins ► Larimer County ► City of Longmont ► Wellington ► City of Loveland ► Colorado Division of Wildlife ► City of Northglenn ► Colorado State Parks ► City of Thornton After impacts associated with each of the packages were determined, consultation continued with the jurisdictions for which Section 4(f) resources could be potentially affected by the build alternatives. The potential de minimis findings, possible measures to minimize harm, and general mitigation strategies were discussed with a commitment to explore these strategies in more detail after identification of the Preferred Alternative. Coordination meetings have been held with Fort Collins, Northglenn, Loveland and Boulder County. Coordination will continue to occur throughout the EIS process. For information on Native American consultation and historic and archaeological resources • stakeholder consultation, see Section 3.15. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-14 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5.3.2 Identification of Section 4(f) Resources Historic Resources In accordance with the FHWA/FTA regulations, Section 4(f) requirements are applicable only to significant historic resources [i.e., those sites listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, or sites otherwise determined significant by the FTA or FHWA Administrator (23 CFR Section 774.17 and FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper] and are subject to use by the transportation project. The historic resources considered in this evaluation include all resources that were listed on the NRHP or determined officially eligible for listing on the NRHP. Only those Section 4(f)-protected resources that are determined to be impacted by the proposed transportation improvements are discussed in this chapter. There are additional Section 4(f)-eligible historic resources located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), which would not have a Section 4(f) use. All of the significant historic resources within the APE, whether impacted or not, are described in Section 3.15 of this DEIS. For purposes of this Section 4(f) evaluation, only properties subject to use by the project are detailed and documented. Table 5-1 lists resource specifics, including location and type of resource, and the reason each property is considered a Section 4(f) resource. Figure 5-5 shows the location of these resources. There are 5 direct uses of historic properties and 25 de minimis uses. Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Areas Data on parks and recreation sites was gathered from municipalities in the regional study area by • requesting data on properties, including parks and recreation areas, open space and trails, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database was created using this information and verified with the use of relevant comprehensive plans, parks and recreation master plans, open space management plans, and calls to the relevant jurisdictions. The current and planned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas were identified within the regional study area. The complete list of all public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas identified within 500 feet of any corridor proposed for improvements is provided in Section 3.18, Parks and Recreation. For purposes of this Section 4(f) evaluation, only Section 4(f) resources having a Section 4(f) use by either of the build packages are discussed (see Table 5-2 and Figure 5-6). The initial evaluation of parks and recreation areas, public trails, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges identified all resources within 100 feet of a proposed improvement. The corridor development and evaluation process identified these properties as protected resources to be avoided, which resulted in approximately 30 park and recreation resources being avoided by the two proposed alternatives. One park would have a direct use and seven park and recreation properties and wildlife and waterfowl refuges would have de minimis use as a result of proposed transportation improvements of Packages A and B. Only one wildlife refuge property met certain criteria and has been studied as part of this Section 4(f) evaluation. The criteria include the following: ► Have full public ownership or public easement. • ► Have a management plan and are actively managed as a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. ► There is a use of the land. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-15 0 m n U 0 m . U U U y U 5 _c O O O - O O p N (/ N a y y -to L L L .m! L L .. a C m N E N t"„ N N a N JE E E a c .c o) 1 Ir�1 W o o O a) a) a) a m 0 O Z c C U O O O r y O O t H o a) u) rm O O _T _T _T a"° T T 1:4 E C d a y a a a Z aCC) o) m m o 5 a -� C m m N m ° N N N E OMi U C C C ON, N r O CO 0 N - U 0 o U a a a CO m s O a N Jw 0 U N .O a a a fi m y°) a a O O J J s J co C E ) N 0 0 in 1 N U) N -O co m L d 0 C a m 0 C m C 0 m LO C) a) a) m 0 01 a_U U N 0 c O O) a a a c U O m O) 0 0 J W -o o -o -o m m a) m co, o c " c o c u) 0) Cl) co E C cO C)) c 0) m = a a mUU Cj mt mQ Q Q Q ami in m Q UQ ma ti E a IX O to 0 0 m ° co 0 0 o Qj 0 m o 0 o m o o m CC a ._ m OO Z .d G 0 0 0 C 0 = m 0 m m 0 j . 0 m a) 0 0 O a`- C 0 0 L- CD 4 0 m d Z `m .a d d 2 E E d E d _ `m 'Co 2 `m a`) 2 d `m a) in d `m C .O C C C Z -o m J O J J O m ,o -O J a J C Cr C C O C O C O C - O C C O CCOCCC O C C C L CC J T MOD J c J J J N J 0 J a) J C T J J N J J a) J J J J J m = m a) m ° O C U O L O L O L- O 0 = a) m t 0 0 L- O 0 N :j o m a s a s O a a a T r a tki T) 103 a m a T a tt J a To J a c J a .5 lm a'.5.m U _m a.5-.m ca .ma) mm W L.. O)._ O) O) O m ma) .Er.m.En0 .5-.5_ O W o W W W J W ,7) W W S W S W W O T).- LIES- W W - EWE -c W W a CC CA W hi- O h- i- ii- t 7 y r in K ± K ± K K K d' ± K > V J Q Q Q Q J n J J J J J Q J ¢ J Q < > Q Q )n Z Z Z Z to )n u) to fir) )n 6 Z6 Z )n Z Z 0-) Z Z O w L -O L L L L L L = V O_ a `°. .U- U U ')"i ❑ m 0 ❑ O ❑ 15 ❑ ❑ ❑ m �O y o a m o 0 0 0 0 m o o c 1.14 T o) E E ° 3 ch m L m m .c .c E EE m E E Q, E -o m m o) o) O) m O U U U O O U U O O O U U O U 0 0 0 O U CV O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6- 0 0 0 0tr, O O O 0 VJ V T E _T �/ C m a YV T O m a a)CZ O .T O m C d 2 a J U U gall 0 0 LLLL .e0LLamao a° ` mo W mm E '- > Ea E5 O N a 01- aCi L O c "OO - 'OO C J m 'o C 0 ❑ -O E lL >>m (0 0 C E = O m m +emu E L ` O U a m CO E L O O L U1 U D m m m m > m L ° @ LL TU LL ^) U mU a EB - j as U Ny X -O j C E L m 3 « d o C -cL o n 6) N " C J J O O O O O O O m 0 m O O QOM U or m m = O m m = N 0 (I) __ICI K 4000 0W ❑ ❑ UC J W J JU LL co Or if W W 2 ❑ O W a0 O 0 N y a) l!) (N OO) m (0 m V W N N M m co t° W a M M M M of u') (OO co N N O Th co N or O "Zr O) CO V � O `a G X KKK d' 2 d' 2 i 2 d' K D: JJD! I 0! 3 3m • J J J J J -J J J J J J J J > CO J J J F i!) )n )O N )n N LOU) N N i!) Ln LL') V) N N O )O N O LO O O O o Ea 6 L d ci c _ d T N N O w J C d D a a) - a) O O m C if., — N C Y Ifl V) m N ._ -- r « 0 N D D U N D O OQ - CO CO - % '- U y .- T U 0 N I I E. C C C .C O O " d C 7 U LL Z V Q C x o 0 O = a m 14 u aoNo �,rna � `°�° o a D og C r .o .� U V J c � a�= on c " E 3 U in .ro « Ny _ O - by O Oc U — me @ .: 9m. E C L a m m r .� N J@ , TC -1 � mLLL (O a) a m o o w d a — a — a m .� Z LE E Ea >r> J c L (0 a rJ (il N �@. N N 2 N (p E > y a) O r r y O 7 a N J p 0 6 0 0 �jN � 0 m o n m 3 a °m E $a 0 E .2a C L T ENp -oo N a E w F "" _ga) Q ma tic a a)) a « _ d i 1.4 oa3 •° �' oa30co T C C C ` _ 00 a) a) N NN .OQz N h cc Ol V O O) o E) Ol L U N '..to p-. L `�° L N co CD O E .: W at .a rn0 Co 0 mL- .O 0 5cm0 naa) 0. w a) Q Q Q Q 0 Koe) UOmZK4dmg. 000 = Q ` = C (`0 c a) c O c N RS Z O ty -c C O ` O ` O d 0 0.a p O a) _ a) 0 a) 0 a) (p ti L C C C_ • a o .�- L - U •- N '- N 1" 0 O O U a U .o U d U 92 U c �O .3 10 U U 0 O U m E) 0 (p 0 (`a N C •^( O r r D .T- az) D L D , D p D p 3 _ 9 LL LL O = ,..dc c cc c c c ✓ u y n a (O J E J _ J _ J V) a) o)m a) 4= 0 0 0 0 a) .C O O O P .) J Po Po P `a 9 b 0 ' 0 0 O) p > O m y my ) N _))« U U CO W in W W L W L W a) r it, CU a) D CO o a) N U U a s� • {' yC O mmU mao) c u e O a d N N (D N CO .w y U m �? N O N• O .�. N C ca f0 N V _ Ni Ni it CU =� p O 9 c i E CO V cu M Q y j m - co co V 7 V a) t� y t Y - co •H J J CC J J J J ad E r D N N r N J °" (o u i LLD m m mm GG Q '3 0 2 ,≥ 3 a ` cu EA' a) am CL OD 0 c 00 N N co O c�-o ' s 0 = )w L L L L L tti sc L Y 'J r L o r.., 2 .o 2 J 0 N (6 p J ` O s--, c c c c c : + 4 )cr a 'c c 0 @ C .O in to .,-i 1112 F O) O) 0) O) O) PI N_ 2 U 0 — - - - - p t0 O I g O o 0 o fA v co co 0 O O O o o y ry (fin O _N N to to N V y„ 2 S S S 2 O O O ar L LL 0J aJ N C O 'o LL a) 'o p a N C c m Ed v I- N 7 CO p N «_ d 3 N CC N di p n «_ a o cM 'a O — c _ a) c o 5 W t QJ tow oc_ O CC co L T L U ..4 N E — N ✓ — 15 o) a oO CO d ea 2U � U CU m o 'm to ce o O cn 0 Ct O O L a) p a N a) N 8 c@ c a) W L t-I.0) 3 ma) 03 d I E co o) m CO N In 0 Q IX Q W d m r- a ,- L N N a) V 0 m _ J m m m rd t° m m N in N (n N )n i"° < 2 Q Z C o m m ,Q N w L J n w' a) a) O a) C (N CO ° O i L 0 >i p t 0 O N N., C."0 T.) o0 m ; 000 o Q z D d a 3 m V1 cn � m n3 rn= 0 � °a n ) t a m N It u co CO 3 m ' O t m `m m rI W o QJi N U ._ t ( -0 C LT1 y !!N rH O 0) m N m C m to O e- co C �. H ar 0 w ° ' °aa� r -gym 3 � � c=ia�i CC Ca O 0! C d — a `m °-- --Es o o m m Z Lr p_ m Mr � ° rno mai m a°i o (° ~ «03 rcnor `oo .cc' "0 am p ?f . man I�- � 2ai wa � ._ ma il a 0 p a o c o CO c y No CO aa)) c U c C O « e,, m N.`Ln C t N N O0i 0) C 3 w `m o o p 3 m °c :t m e a) i o La O m _ m (-)ti ea 5 p2 0 t] 'O > U v j 1- C' L 2 — 'aim C 3a0 a' H n3aZa ¢ 2' Q L1J O. It d C -o "'i t' O O a' o c O L LL-* C V L 0 0 > V N H Z 15 J J z3 0 T T 3 T T m O -, 0 0 0 U a H U a c ti' O e 03 QJ C - Y = CO - ( N C' O O ° a Ill at O C U - U C U a) - U m ri_ « aiii '- o U N V! 'p .L d d N O n °'N . a f0 O J . _ 0 Cn O = C O i-i C O) C a m m m — a N W fa C O C C)) V a) c m O P 0 1 "a O O yG rJ E L C m D m m if u) C y p N N p)LT) a' co FBI Q c N 2 m U C C U O m U -0 T C h > O N U_ a) O O U � C D' U N m E 0 °' 4' a) D) N m m m L p. O N yX'y ≤ w' L a m m a U ≤ L m U m N 0 a) O U = C .= = - s0...., - 00 ,- 0 = 3 CZ Jn I- n I- I- a -O « Oil N A D en N OU V ..r �r z O ` `' m �' N N U R-4 N92 O U N 0 N °) N O M COsis _ CC) - O U N M V m 7 CO it O m a) C O O g/ c mo O _N = o F = ` 0 O C 2 O C a N L N C o 0 .7(.. -O U U «cew i_ ea ° to I- C O � Z —O N p N O NN a) C w 6 c _o . J 0 Q J al 13 E L °n -O no (' L C (' L ° 0 0' M a m 0 0 O O ._ "O O » a) >a' co a' S v J c CC c 0 C C Q Q CO > D > co CO y O C M CO L CO ` N 0 y m d a c a s 2 a c VI N a _ `m8 a E >. pL W w to 0 o co d C E L U o C j N C t O .0 d H °c -o Us c H 6- z n as O O H On > S Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS ii-k.11 information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-5 Section 4(f) Historic Properties LEGEND ts /V Study Corridors /V Highways ,i,s1-uemngon \ I •� 85 /\/ Arterial Roads i'� ••� i •\,87....r1 Regional Study Area �' r1T?; City Boundaries / - Pierce 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area ! For Ilins t 14 l 2 Ault ` HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN APE i - . t�' LL��,11 ` , • Einarsen Farm �Un Severance Eaton © Rudolph Farm il Cline Cottage ! Windsor---- n`sor Lucerne l," 2 CI Gallatin Residence f © Schroer Farm __ j ' . Gree 15 6 Zimmerman Grain Elevator ! 1 X263 J Hatch Barn 27 5 7 Garden City `j 34 Lovelan ; ; 8 Mountain View Farm .r I . - Eva j j / 9 Bashor Fame la Salle = 10 Bein Farm Carton •I F© nstown / I 1 O1 't` t 85 m Bimson Blacksmith Shop -�~ B�, » — t2 0 Milliken / is ® Little Thompson River Badge No. C-17-BN / Illi Olson Farm _ r.: 13 Giluesl illim Rademacher/Hilgers Residence = \ i/ ® White—Plumb Farm I w /: 16 Flagstone Residence Mead ;' MI Fort Vasquez 66 Platteville 18 Old City Electric Buildings • gmont 1 19 Colorado & Southern Depot - Longmont — 1 : i lone ; 20 Great Western Sugar Plant t .—, a - 22 Vollmer k v ; ® Sandstone Ranch ,/• 25 _, 'o_Firestone j ® Novartis Seeds Syngenta Seeds , • Niwot —{ �; j ® Dickens Farm r ' I rp 1_, t I ED Boggs Residence 0 Gu nnarrel Dacono Fort Captor I 52 ® Hingley Farm la Erie j 6 Valmont 26 Colorado and SouthernDepotlLoveland Depot O ' 7 Wallenberg , ® Loveland Landmark - City of Loveland Building j 28 Public Service Co. Fort Collins Substation - v'-Lalay 4 .I \.— l likLouisville Bnghtor: - x l 29 North Glenn First Filing I alma , 30 North Glenn Second Filing S"po'o „lJ—I , i F Eastlake �• Broornheld 0 lienderscn 1 93 T.\ r sthgiein it I 36 - -. ' Thotnum �L` - \ : — i ail - -- - ; , - Denver--: 70 ./"s t 1 / I • fir. � 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 .=r • ‘ i. :._ .\\( I I Miles North ,t/ • - 0....* • '7 wo oocant•at(H%onc_eismad) 6.06-x0+ Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-19 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-6 Section 4(f) Park, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge I Resources LEGEND )_-------•._.. /VAlternative Corridors ' -�,, /t/ Highways i � "' /\/ Arterial Roads / �••`\ cri. Regional Study Area i _ __ Pierce , 41 City Boundaries a Cities & Towns ( Fort Collins 1 e\._ 14 Ault ;1 257. l I II I I renuwth 0 Severance Eaton 1 , 1 1 — 1nisa , i Lucerne 3 i t c . Greeley il j 34 ---"L._ ' , lI -t _ 3 card c n 1 34 i Loveland , j bans i 1 Lasalle . iGttnpion Johnstown / I 6U s' 1 85 / l t Berthoud O Milliken / ' TI / I ; Grkrest I ® I. >,rj ' A Mead / iII I _ �_ -� Rahn* 2 J ' . ongmont 1 1 lone //� ; � % l Vollrr t 0 , ? �- f 0 Firestone t t / r Niwot Freder,tk I ' ili / --,„ Dacono Fort twnon 1 5 -. ' 0 Gunbarrel 1 .,l 0 , Lre S 0 Valmont , t4 s . o i 7 Wattenberg Boulder 1 i O Latayr,►x+I L t r louisrdle z , - _ : I / I ‘,',.._r /�+ &i�IHur .\ Sulrerup ea • •• Ea'uake `. 9 , Nnrttxllrvt /� 36 s • t: 4.10 T anion f L. \ j r Arapaho Bend Natural Area ,.... ____ : . ` Denver i Archery Range Natural Area 5. % a Big Thompson State Wildlife Area ea ® Civic Center Park - Thornton 1 ® Grant Park Q ® Little Thompson River 0 2 4 6 8 10 ® McWhinney Sculpture Park 1 ' I Miles North f (` Sandstone Ranch 1 2007 M16 C (pate a midi 7 anacr IIII Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-20 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • In order to ascertain the primary purpose of the properties, applicable management plans and jurisdictions have been consulted. Only the one property that met the above-mentioned requirements has been determined a Section 4(f) wildlife and waterfowl resource. One wildlife and waterfowl refuge would be impacted (used) by both build packages (see Figure 5-6). 5.4 Use of Section 4(f) Resources 5.4.1 Introduction Chapter 2, Alternatives, details the two build packages under consideration. The two build packages evaluated in this document are combinations of improvements that satisfy the Purpose and Need for the project. Both of the build alternatives (Packages A and B) would use portions of Section 4(f) resources. The effects from the two build packages are described with each Section 4(f) resource category. 5.4.2 Approach/Methodology This section describes how the proposed project would affect Section 4(f) resources. For each of the resources, an overview of Section 4(f) uses is provided, followed by a description of avoidance alternatives, measures to minimize harm, and mitigation measures that have been considered. In the instances where de minimis applies, the process did not require the identification of avoidance alternatives. Evaluation of any feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid use of the Section 4(f) resource An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering practice. A feasible alternative is not prudent if there are truly unusual factors present in a particular case; if there are uniquely difficult problems, if there are extraordinary operational or safety problems, or if the cost or community disruption resulting from the alternative reaches extraordinary magnitude. A prudent alternative does not result in unacceptable and severe adverse social, economic, or other environmental impacts. An alternative is not prudent if there is an accumulation of factors that collectively, rather than individually, have adverse impacts that present unique problems or reach extraordinary magnitudes. An avoidance alternative that fails to satisfy the Purpose and Need of the project is considered not feasible and prudent. Section 5.2.2 discusses corridor-wide alternatives that were eliminated because they did not meet the Purpose and Need of the project. Identification of measures to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources When a Section 4(f) resource is used, all planning to minimize harm, including development of mitigation measures, must be undertaken in coordination with the officials having jurisdiction over the resource. In instances where there are no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, a least harm analysis was completed for each Section 4(f) resource by alternative. • The results of the analysis are detailed in this chapter for each identified resource. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-21 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. 5.4.3 Use of Historic Properties • The uses of the significant historic Section 4(f) resources sorted by component are shown in Table 5-3. There was no use of Section 4(f) resources resulting from transportation improvements included in other Package A and B components. Additionally, the table lists the type of Section 4(f) use of each resource. Properties with a use and no adverse effect have a de minimis finding, pending SHPO concurrence with no adverse effects. These properties are addressed in Section 5.5. This project would result in Section 4(f) determination for five historic properties. Indirect effects to Section 4(f) resources were evaluated based on the current activities, features, or attributes of the resource that may be sensitive to proximity impacts. None of the indirect effects identified for the following resources rose to a level where the protected activities, qualities, or features would be substantially impaired. Table 5-3 Use of Section 4(f) Historic Resources ID Number Resource Section 4(f) Use Package A Package B A-H2 General-Purpose B-H2 Lanes: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.8930 Louden Ditch 316 linear feet of open ditch 357 linear feet of open ditch placed inside new(90 feet) placed inside new (87 feet) and extended existing (225 and extended (270 feet) feet)culverts culverts A-T2 B-T2 Commuter Rail: Bus Rapid Transit 120th to Longmont to FasTracks DUS North Metro 5BL.1245 Old City Electric 0.85 acre and demolition of No Use Building property 5BL.1244 Colorado and 0.51 acre and demolition of No Use Southern/BNSF property Depot 5WL.5263 Hingley Farm 7.34 acres or 9% of property; No Use incorporation of 2,585 feet by 125-foot strips of farmland into project and demolition of the farmhouse 5WL.1969, Denver Pacific/ 2.9-mile abandoned segment No Use 5BF.130 Kansas Pacific/ modernized for double-track Union Pacific commuter rail operations; Railroad, Denver demolition of 2 historic & Boulder Valley bridges Branch S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-22 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Louden Ditch (5LR.8930) Description Location: T6N/R68W, Nt/2 Sec. 27; T6N/R69W, SW1/4 Sec. 26 Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Louden Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 Total 316 feet of open ditch placed inside Total 357 feet of open ditch placed inside new (90 feet) and extended existing (225 new (87 feet)and extended existing (270 feet) culverts. feet) culverts. Resource Description The ditch was originally built in 1871. The entire ditch is approximately 23.25 miles long. Two segments of the historic Louden Ditch are located in proximity of Package A and B transportation improvements. Segment 5LR.8930.1 crosses I-25 and the existing frontage road at Larimer County Road 30 (LCR 30) East. The excavated earthen ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under I-25 and the frontage road was altered when I-25 was constructed in the 1960s and the ditch was placed inside a concrete box culvert. The documented segment(5LR.8930.1) is 3,316 feet long. Heavy riparian growth exists along the northwest banks of the ditch. The remainder of the ditch has been dredged within the project area and no vegetation is present along the ditch levee. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination The entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930) is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Both segments have experienced modifications near the highway and railway, but much of the ditch remains in its original alignment. Both segments (5LR.8930.1 and 5LR.8930.2) were found to retain sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(0 Use Package A Only segment 5LR.8930.1 of the Louden Ditch experiences a direct use as a result of Package A transportation improvements. This segment is presently conveyed beneath I-25 inside a box culvert measuring approximately 260 feet long. At this location, Package A involves re-alignment of the I-25 northbound and southbound lanes approximately 90 feet to the east of existing highway and widening each direction from two lanes to three lanes. The new corridor footprint would include relocating the east frontage road farther east of the current alignment. To provide adequate space for the re-aligned northbound lanes and east frontage road, an additional 225 feet of open ditch would be enclosed inside a box culvert underneath the new roadways. The new culvert would be extended from the end of the existing box culvert located on the east flank of the existing east frontage road. LCR 30 on the west side of I-25 would be rebuilt along the same alignment, although the template would be widened slightly to the north. The west frontage road would be abandoned south of the interchange. A new road (Byrd Road) would run south from LCR 30 and is functionally intended to replace the west frontage road. • At this location, the historic ditch follows a parallel course close to the south edge of existing LCR 30. A 91- foot-long segment of open ditch would be enclosed inside a new box culvert to pass beneath the new Byrd Drive connection to LCR 30. Section 40)Evaluation 5-23 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. Construction of the new culverts would likely require temporary occupancy of the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would possibly be temporarily diverted during construction, but would remain operational. Ditch waters would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. The direct use of 316 feet of open ditch, or less than 1 percent of the total ditch length, being placed into a new box culvert extension on the east side of I-25, and a short culvert beneath Byrd Drive, do not affect its historic alignment or function. The physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing it in culverts. Although these changes affect a relatively small portion of the overall linear resource, they would result in an adverse effectto the entire Louden Ditch. See Figure 5-7 for uses associated with Package A. Package B The uses of the Louden Ditch under Package B are similar to those described for Package A, although an additional 45 feet of open ditch for a total impact of 270 feet on the east side of I-25 would be placed in a box culvert extension due to the wider I-25 template. There would also be a new culvert enclosing 87 feet of open ditch beneath the proposed Byrd Drive. Package B would directly use 357 feet, or less than 1 percent of open ditch, as opposed to 316 feet of open ditch under Package A. The direct uses resulting from Package B are similar in nature but slightly greater than those resulting from Package A and would result in an adverse effectto the entire Louden Ditch. See Figure 5-8 for uses associated with Package B. Avoidance Alternatives Complete avoidance of the Louden Ditch would not be feasible and prudent at the Byrd Road intersection with East LCR 30. The grade of the roads to accommodate a non-culvert solution would be raised several feet • above existing grade, creating an elongated impact to the existing and planned roadways. Further, elevation of East LCR 30 would result in additional physical and noise intrusion at 14 to 25 residence locations north of Byrd Road. The proposed solution would extend the culvert structure currently conveying Louden Ditch underneath I-25. Avoidance of Louden Ditch would not be feasible and prudent because the ditch currently flows underneath I-25 inside a concrete culvert structure. This pre-existing condition precludes feasible and prudent avoidance by restricting where the ditch could be rerouted or where the I-25 widening could be relocated. The cost of rebuilding the entire existing and proposed I-25 highway infrastructure would be approximately $925,000 and would not represent a satisfactory change in historic setting or integrity, and this would not be considered feasible and prudent. All Possible Planning To Minimize Harm Packages A and B The proposed design includes a retaining wall along the east edge of the frontage road that was intended to limit impacts to a wetland area; this retaining wall also minimizes the length of ditch subject to direct uses. No other minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures were possible. Mitigation Measures for Louden Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Operation of irrigation ditch maintained during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. S Section 4(t)Evaluation 5-24 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 1 Figure 5-7 Louden Ditch Package A Use 2 3 LEGEND ". i - ii 4 Historical Resources os4b, '' ? It M ll 5 Package A Resource Impact ! tr4 • 0 6 Package A ROW Boundary r' ,' .4 ' j 7 5LR.8930.1 Property Boundary eTili ;; 8 ! 1 Package A EOP F� d9 :. 9 Roadway Features f m Rdaining Wall • 1 0 1 i Parcel Boundaries V Guardrails r 12 Jr ) ti 1 { �7)��- • r 14 13 i 1 .I *---- - 4`t- ----r--- --'-- . i4Lej 7 - ...._. .) Ira... ! . _\ .4, . ., - . "%di . . 1h- 14-tilasj Ct.- iJrat' . 1 8 .. Ar, • `, `+, ~• _ ` ____ is— it �-'i ' ' Jr/41 IV 19 _ - .." Existing culvert 20 i r 21 y.� ; a , � • � 22 -`,-.6.--- Vii '/ RJL 1 . 23 { - _ jig _rat F Ira is Pi 25 .-. .... . .- _ 1. 27 28 0 Open • ditch placed ' ; 29 o inside new culvert: - i I ' `" 4 40.1 30 -0 91 linear feet impacted ,r1 i # _ _ 32 " ; y' 1 S ; i 33 Open ditch placed I '� - �'�� inside extended culvert; 34 i N. 225 linear feet impacted 35 36 •. 37 _l 38 % 39 w - .ri 40 —' i / Total impacts to ditch - of 316 linear feet `� 41 i 42 43 1 I. " 44 45 '� 46 47 Location Map 48 - 49 [7N r 50 0 300 s 51 I Feet NorthiS 52 - - a 53 Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-25 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-8 Louden Ditch Package B Use I LEGEND 4 _1 . : ,; - "'I ' I ■ ' Ill� 1.:, •Historical Resources ;_ t M +" i t ill . ' No— r . A r ■ (. Package B Resource Impact Y , Package B ROW Boundary I t ade , Ill i r 5LR.8930.1 Property Boundary ,! :IF —.1 ■ ■ Package B EOP H Bridge I Cu v'ert ' '‘ , - elth! . a Roadway Features 5 ■ Retaining Wall - -el -. — 1 • ■ I Parcel Boundaries `,_� Guardrails ' •\ . . ' F. ' —""�. '_$H Ill I • ' ' r ' ,-(57 * it :: . - tritiv'' iti kJ Ill- at'. r . • z. ti ivqtr r 00.11/4t• Z 'Orr.' ` -4 - j / Existing culvert ■ , i j.rj c EIL a' • Las ■ I E:LR'30% ' 11 k 114 1 it.w - 1 I iry( el N p s , ._ . . 4 Leat 4 .. .1.. ._ , ' blf 1111 r • Open ditch placed inside new culvert ' ' �_ -- 87 linear feet impacted -x l ; I rI 11 •� � •i t1�1 4* • .1 I ' ••N Open ditch placed inside extended culvert: 270 linear feet impacted i 1. H \ \ i l, ii . It 7 ■ i r . . • ■ � 1, �' ■ = Total impacts to ditch /' of 357 linear feet F i / vp ISI i 'if ■ ,. . : II i ocation L Map -- - ' L I 7\1T 0 300 ImmJ I Feet North �] liS1 ._ l . Note: EOP-Edge of Pavement Il Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-26 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) Description Location: 103 Main Street, Longmont Type: Historic building/local landmark Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Old City Electric Building by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA 0.85 acre/demolition of property No use Resource Description The Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) is located at 103 Main Street in Longmont. It is an excellent example of 1930s industrial architecture featuring large windows, an open plan, and solid brick construction. This building served the city's power needs from 1931 to 1969. Longmont was one of the first cities in Colorado to develop a municipally owned electric generation plant. Eligibility Determination The Old City Electric Building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its significant role in the development of Longmont, and under Criterion C as an excellent, intact example of industrial architecture. This early power generation plant has also been designated as a Local Landmark by the City of Longmont. Section 4(0 Use Package A Construction of a new commuter railroad line alongside the existing commercial rail line on the north side of 1st Avenue in Longmont would require right-of-way acquisition and demolition of the entire 0.85-acre property, including a portion of the parcel containing this historic building. The building would need to be demolished or moved to a new location to accommodate the new rail line and associated construction activities. This direct use would result in the loss of integrity of this resource; therefore CDOT, FHWA, and FTA have determined that Package A would result in an adverse effect under Section 106, and a use under Section 4(f). See Figure 5-9 for use associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Avoidance Alternatives This property is located at 1st Avenue and Main Street in Longmont. This segment of the commuter rail connects the proposed Sugar Mill Station with the FasTracks station at 1st Avenue and Terry Street, the end- - of-line station of the Boulder/Longmont connection, and allows potential passengers on the Northern Colorado commuter rail line to continue on directly to Boulder. At this location, the existing track runs parallel to 1st Avenue in a very narrow transportation corridor bracketed by commercial buildings and urban development on all sides. In order to tie into the FasTracks design at the 1st Avenue and Terry Street location, the new track requires location on the west(or north) of the existing BNSF track. The narrow corridor that the existing track runs on passes directly along the south side of the Old City Electric Building. Construction of the commuter rail line would result in a use of the Old City Electric Building. An avoidance alternative was considered that would terminate the commuter rail line at the Sugarmill Station • and not connect to the FasTracks Northwest rail line, removing the possibility for potential riders to continue on to Boulder from the proposed northern commuter rail. This alternative would cause potential transit ridership to drop by approximately 6 percent and was not considered feasible and prudent because it would compromise the project in light of the stated purpose and need to provide for modal alternatives. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-27 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. The location of the 1st Avenue and Terry Street Station in an urbanized area of Longmont, and the relatively short distance of two miles between it and the proposed Sugar Mill Station, allows for very few alternative corridor alignments for this segment. To avoid the historic property, the existing rail alignment would have to be realigned to the south side of 1st Avenue, encroaching on approximately 85 feet of property for approximately 2,000 linear feet. Construction of the railway at this location would require the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of approximately seven businesses. Businesses at this location are industrial in nature and include needs that require large lots, such as recreational vehicle and boat storage, automotive sales, and warehouse operations. Finding vacant property to accommodate these space intensive businesses nearby would be difficult. Relocation of these businesses to a new location outside the local district would jeopardize the businesses'sustainability. New railway construction, trackwork, signage, freight detours, etc., would cost approximately $1 million. An estimated additional $5 million would be required for the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of businesses located along the right-of-way. This alignment would also create two additional at-grade crossings, decreasing the overall level of safety for the motoring public within this heavily traveled area. Therefore, this is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would result in unacceptable safety problems, severe economic impacts, and additional construction costs. Cumulatively,these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. Allowing the BNSF railway to remain in place and re-routing the new commuter rail alignment north of the Old City Electric Building would result in several impacts. The Butterball processing facility, located in the northeast quadrant of the 1st Street and Main Street intersection, would be removed. This is one of seven major processing facilities in the company and is Longmont's fifth largest employer, with 920 employees. Additionally, part of the electrical substation located at 1st Street and Coffman Street would be removed, causing the site to be reconfigured. This alignment would also generate an additional at-grade rail crossing on US 287/Main Street, 200 feet from the existing crossing, decreasing the overall level of safety. The approximate cost of this alternative would be an additional $6.6 million for the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of businesses located along the right-of-way and construction of the new alignment. This alternative, similar to rerouting to the south of 1st Street, is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would result in unacceptable safety problems, severe economic impacts, and additional construction costs. Cumulatively, these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm A property acquisition would be necessary to accommodate the commuter rail track and alignment. However, if the structural integrity of the historic building allows, relocation to an alternate site unaffected by the proposed improvements is a possibility. Mitigation Measures for Old City Electric Building • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • Relocation of historic structure to be evaluated: — Engineering feasibility study of historic building relocation. — Identification of a new site for relocation of the historic building. — Sponsor to maintain relocated building is required. • Detailed recording of the building, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended. • All mitigation measures are pending SHPO concurrence. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-28 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-9 Old City Electric Building Package A Use LEGEND a t. r - r s. 4 �, __ Historical Resources I ji ''M� �� b I. Package A Resource Impact . ° : _ -x _ r---1 Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundaryli +� dik ti � �,5BL.1245 Property Boundary _ �', �, i� �'iPackage A Comm Rail Footprint t t JCommuter Rail Design N ,,, „t `, 1Parcel Boundaries p, 1s S a --1 l��U" ; It 4.1, in ,t iI tilir r i ilk itaattai "11 • v- il 11‘, . . _ 1 2ND AV 1 y- 41• ilk a_ " 4. ita , a w r 11 d r ?‘ SOO s a Area = 37,055 Sq. Ft Ire Orril Acres =0.85 .-` l lerins: 4t.' I at's: St ID ' .. fi,sir �Q "°r _Ir le lit i 41fir, + 6' �: fj`i 4 4 QQ`P Nilb i j? }lr III ,_ 1 ° T 14, : , 1 -N-- - , • i , , , ____, _ , , I. ,____, , N,,, 1 sT a 4„..eh' • r n i _ _ e . 4 At . • ,1 i.%, I - - - 1 / �..�,-N till le ! S 1 se Y k. 41111- 4 44 0 taii eft tii I- i F -i ,». , , co I.., . et : Ii, , G f � 'al "�` �- l + • R 1 w 1. i \ iti T - it Location Map BOSTON AV es- _ iiI,A -- T 4�. .J ! .: r .at a .-: - t .1R N f p 1 lb lig Feet Ile 1% iiirt;,-ara, . A , Ilsers 1 �r I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-29 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL.1244) Description Location: 100 Main Street, Longmont Type: Historic building Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Colorado& Southem/BNSF Depot by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to North Metro Corridor End-of- Fort Collins to DIA Line Station 0.51 acre/demolition of property No use Resource Description The historic Colorado &Southern/BNSF Depot(5BL.1244) is located at 100 Main Street in Longmont. The depot was built in 1905. It is one of the two early railroad depots in Longmont and is one of the finest small masonry depots in the state. The depot is the only existing Richardsonian Romanesque style building in Longmont. Eligibility Determination This depot (5BL.1244) is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its association with railroad transportation and its contribution to the development of Longmont. The building is also NRHP-eligible under Criterion C as an excellent and well preserved example of masonry railroad depot architecture in Colorado. Section 4(0 Use • Package A Construction of a new commuter railroad line alongside the existing commercial rail line on the north side of 1st Avenue in Longmont would require right-of-way acquisition and demolition of the entire 0.51-acre property, including the area occupied by this historic building. The building would need to be demolished or moved to a new location to accommodate the new commuter rail tracks and associated construction activities. This direct use would result in the loss of integrity of this resource; therefore, CDOT, FHWA, and FTA have determined that Package A would result in an adverse effectunder Section 106, and a use under Section 4(f). See Figure 5-10 for use associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Avoidance Alternatives This segment of the commuter rail connects the proposed Sugar Mill Station with the FasTracks station at 1st Avenue and Terry Street, the end-of-line station of the Boulder/Longmont connection, and allows potential passengers on the Northern Colorado commuter rail line to continue on directly to Boulder. At this location, the existing railroad track runs parallel to 1st Avenue on the north side in a very narrow transportation corridor. In order to tie into the FasTracks design at the 1st Avenue and Terry Street location, the new commuter rail track requires location on the west(or north) side of the existing BNSF track. The narrow corridor that the existing track runs on passes directly along the south side of the Colorado&Southern/BNSF Depot . Construction of the commuter rail line requires the total acquisition of the depot property and demolition or relocation of the structure. An avoidance alternative was considered that would terminate the commuter rail line at the Sugarmill Station and not connect to the FasTracks Northwest rail line, removing the possibility for potential riders to continue on to Boulder from the proposed northern commuter rail. This alternative would cause potential transit ridership to drop by approximately 6 percent and was not considered feasible and prudent because it would compromise the project in light of the stated purpose and need to provide for modal alternatives. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-30 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 ES information. cooperation. transportation. The location of the 1st Avenue and Terry Street Station in an urbanized area of Longmont, and the relatively short distance of two miles between it and the proposed Sugar Mill Station, allows for very few alternative corridor alignments for this segment. To avoid the historic property, the existing rail alignment would have to be realigned to the south side of 1st Avenue, encroaching on approximately 85 feet of property for approximately 2,000 linear feet. Construction of the railway at this location would require the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of approximately seven businesses. Businesses at this location are industrial in nature, and include needs that require large lots, such as recreational vehicle and boat storage, automotive sales, and warehouse operations. Finding vacant property to accommodate these space intensive businesses nearby would be difficult. Relocation of these businesses to a new location outside the local district would jeopardize the businesses'sustainability. New railway construction, trackwork, signage, freight detours, etc., would cost approximately $1 million. An estimated additional $5 million would be required for the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of businesses located along the right-of-way. This alignment would also create two additional at-grade crossings in this heavily traveled area, decreasing the overall level of safety for the motoring public. Therefore, this is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would result in unacceptable safety problems, severe economic impacts, and additional construction costs. Cumulatively, these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. Allowing the BNSF railway to remain in place and re-routing the new commuter rail alignment north of the Old City Electric Building would result in several impacts. The Butterball processing facility, located in the northeast quadrant of the 1st Avenue and Main Street intersection, would be removed. This is one of seven major processing facilities in the company and is Longmont's fifth largest employer, with 920 employees. Additionally, part of the electrical substation located at 1st Avenue and Coffman Street would be removed, causing the site to be reconfigured. This alignment would also generate an additional at-grade rail crossing on US 287/Main Street, 200 feet from the existing crossing, decreasing the overall level of safety. The approximate cost of this alternative would be $6.6 million for the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of businesses located along the right-of-way and construction of the new alignment. This alternative, similar to rerouting to the south of 1st Avenue, is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would result in unacceptable safety problems, severe economic impacts, and additional construction costs. Cumulatively, these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm Relocation of the historic structure to another site would minimize the destructive nature of the use. There would be an engineering feasibility study to evaluate the relocation of this historic building prior to demolition. No other minimization measures would reduce the Section 4(f) use. Mitigation Measures for the Colorado& Southern/BNSF Depot • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • Relocation of historic structure to be evaluated: — Engineering feasibility study of historic building relocation. — Identification of a new site for relocation of the historic building. — Sponsor to maintain relocated building is required. • Detailed recording of the building, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended. • All mitigation measures are pending SHPO concurrence. I Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-31 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-10 Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot Package A Use 1111 iiirt eir 7. ‘,,,,,,N. r LEGEND r i z' Historical Resources It � . !i _- e N Package A Resource Impact - a ID Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ' 5BL.1244 Property Boundary ., 1 ., , ` Package A Comm Rail Footprint k t, 11 ____ qv I. Commuter Rail Design ;I * I 1— I1 IE Y r Parcel Eoundaries / • _ , cc e "' m In.. itkappa- II = t .r1 °W Y'. I �• 2ND AV -,- -,..n • SesAlr, illirt; • -ler Ili: ,.; . '- sip " , fi a- t I : I *II; 6 e: ill: “ ICleitare 41' 1 it.$001 , .. - ''*7 _fr , 4 •. . ., lirril- i 0 : " 1 1 _ tairh' \r‘ 44 4 # t a-” irovallIP. • Qy It ' Q�P ` ils . * -- - _ ii; + - E Ir i I I — 1ST AV ass 0- , ........._ .........„ „......_.„,_. 116.....a. - , Illirill4N fru:. -I"IIIIII w I; I 1 t` ' 2 1• r 0 /.� - 1 '; •', . :� i:i ;.. . } 4 Area = 22,151 Sq. Ft --illirthi I - I, 7 rd * � - I • es Acres = 0.51 1 — )1 L \• 4 1� 11111 1] - 1!dit'J' �1t +� 1►•: �1_: .� i - � Ili . /i . __ - 1 i- .1 r 4 . - -- - - is'. , PY j N a 1 I I ! Y � � t _ Is '�i1I ,. �i1 Et ' • •k r 1s `. » a j(,fit= i I .. : to,. i . art ..n.__ • 4. . 1�� aiiili + Mt Y_,. ..11 ' 1 i C -ris., 1 _... �� 1 F ± it 1 i. I +� .4Z, � 1 Ski ..1�� I �• 2 • < " T .E '+.•j Il y ' t italif Lt IP - • li�.:: f��''' i• BOSTON' AV :. S 4' f -�.�- __—_____--t- t I . } Location Map .;:, •` + i !i - ' ..S.. 1 1...:,.. , # • se r - a I Irk r.. I I . - • - L. k I w k = - _ w t - -'- 'a• 3007\1 It 0 !! + 4, r Feet _ II f to:, North " c I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-32 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Hingley Farm (5WL.5263) Description Location: 7523 Weld County Road 7, Erie Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Hingley Farm by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to DIA Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 7.34 acres/9% of property; incorporation of 2,585 feet by 125 feet strips of No use farmland into project and demolition of the farmhouse Resource Description The farmstead is located at 7523 Weld County Road (CR) 7 in Erie. This farm is a very intact example of a historic agricultural operation in Weld County. Built in 1900, the hipped roof farmhouse is an intact example of the Classic Cottage domestic architectural style in a rural context. Eligibility Determination This farmstead is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agricultural development in Weld County, and under Criterion C for its significance as an intact early farmhouse and farmstead. Section 4(0 Use Package A Proposed development of a new commuter rail alignment within a 125-foot-wide right-of-way corridor parallel to CR 7 would cause direct use of this historic farm. A strip of land within the historic property, measuring 2,585 feet long and 125 feet wide, would be acquired and converted from agricultural to transportation use. The area to be acquired comprises 7.34 acres, or approximately 9 percent of the entire 81.35-acre historic property. An entirely new transportation feature would be introduced into the rural, agricultural setting. The majority of this affected land is currently utilized as cultivated fields. The proposed rail corridor would pass through the original farmstead complex at the southeast corner of the property, and would require removal of the contributing, architecturally significant farmhouse. The property, if the farmhouse were either rebuilt or replaced elsewhere on the property, could still serve its present agricultural function, albeit in diminished capacity due to the loss of arable land. These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource; therefore, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that an adverse effect under Section 106 would result. Figure 5-11 depicts the uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.33 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Avoidance Alternatives Avoidance Alternatives for the Hingley Farm were explored in detail, and it was determined that it could only be avoided if the commuter rail alignment were placed on the east side of CR 7 in this area. If this alignment were used, there would be severe environmental impacts, including impacts to approximately 21 acres of prairie dog towns, 18 more acres of habitat than a western alignment. There would also be an increase in impacts to wetlands of 0.25 acres, for a total of 0.36 acres of impacts, some of which are higher quality wetlands than those found on the western alignment. These wetland impacts would require an approximate expense of$22,000 to $29,000 for mitigation. The western alignment would also avoid impacts to ponds. Additionally, there would be an increase in social impacts, increased disruption to established communities, and increased impacts to minority populations. These include impacts to 66 properties and 55 structures, 18 more properties and 22 more structures than are impacted with the western alignment. Twenty-two of these properties are located in areas identified as minority, resulting in 16 relocations. The cost of property acquisition and relocation associated with an eastern alignment is approximately two times that of the west side of CR 7. To shift the alignment only for the length of the Hingley Farm property would require two crossing structures over CR 7, at an approximate cost of$5 million ($2.5 million per structure). Therefore, due to severe environmental impacts, including increased impacts to wetlands that are a federally protected resource, disruption to established communities, severe impacts to minority populations, and additional construction costs, it was decided that avoidance of the Hingley Farm by rerouting the alignment to the eastern side of CR 7 is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The location of the rail line to the west side of CR 7 makes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of the impact to the farm not feasible and prudent because it would require either the crossing of CR 7 twice or the re-alignment of the road, and result in greater impacts to environmental resources as noted above. This solution would increase the cost of the project in addition to affecting properties on the east side of CR 7. There would be an engineering feasibility study to evaluate the relocation of this historic building prior to demolition. Relocation of the farmhouse to an alternate location on the farm that would be unaffected by the proposed transportation improvements would minimize impact to the farm. Mitigation Measures for Hingley Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • Relocation of historic structure to be evaluated: — Engineering feasibility study of historic building relocation. — Identification of a new site for relocation of the historic building. — Sponsor to maintain relocated building is required. • Detailed recording of the building in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended. • All mitigation measures are pending SHPO concurrence. s Section 4(0 Evaluation 5-34 Draft EIS NORTH 1--25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-11 Hingley Farm Package A 110 :: , LEGEND r; — 'f Historical Resources ' _ ' 11- f_______ I Package A Resource Impact "'s . t . ` J Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary it-:111 — 5WL.5263 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint � s _— �. jai WCR 18 7 — "4 ,t Commuter Rail Design '• ` " • '' '"' ,r rial�, T _ ' rTl' • Parcel Boun .. daries 4.0 yt 1 . ... ., -.1 lei __ _ . f T . 'a•t- 4- , . sr 7 I Area = 319 Acres = 7.34 c '. ,I • A. i I rw 4. . ,.. dli /. N I - A ll- ` I ` — i �- .�S • /7 - • Possible farmhouse r ' i I "' i ---7 :• relocation or demolition • .I f; Location Map -" likrir. �t °,a vi lompuri a- As, _ k 0 400 I Feet Norm " ill111111.1e I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-35 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969, 5BF.130) Description Location: T1N/R68W, NW 1/4 Sec 24 Type: Historic railroad Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of UPRR-Denver& Boulder Valley Branch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA 2.9-mile abandoned segment modernized for double-track commuter rail operations; demolition No use of two historic bridges Resource Description This linear historic resource is the abandoned Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch (UPD&BVB)that ran a distance of 26 miles from Boulder to Brighton. The rail line was originally built in 1870. Two segments of this rail line in Weld County enter the project APE, including 2,310-foot-long (0.44-mile) segment 5WL.1969.41, and 11,620-foot-long(2.2-mile) segment 5WL.1969.1, both of which follow the original alignment. Both segments are in a deteriorated state. One 2,083-foot-long (0.39-mile) segment of the same rail line in Broomfield County is designated 5BF.130.1, and includes a contributing wooden trestle bridge that carries the rails over Little Dry Creek. • Segment 5WL.1969.1 runs east-west 2,000 feet north of C R8. The segment is 2.2-mile-long part of abandoned UPD&BVB between Boulder and Brighton. Construction started in 1870. Rails and ties have been removed near I-25 and parts have been paved over by county roads. This abandoned portion of the railroad includes a wooden trestle bridge located east of CR 7 and west of I-25. The railroad bridge crossing I-25 was removed soon after 1999. Eligibility Determination The OAHP has officially determined that the UPD&BVB is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important role in the development of the agricultural economy of the Front Range of Colorado. Segments 5WL.1969.41 and 5BF.130.1 retain sufficient integrity of location and association to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5WL.1969.1 does not retain enough integrity to support the eligibility of the entire resource. Section 4(0 Use Package A The proposed new commuter rail would utilize the existing track alignment and add a parallel track alignment following the historic UPD&BVB in this area before joining the Dent Branch (SWL.1317.11) wye and turning southward. Where the new commuter rail line would cross onto the Dent Branch, there would be direct impacts to as much as 260 feet of track by the replacement of existing"through rail"with switching tracks and associated apparatus (see Figure 5-12). The existing historic bed, ballast, and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway (segments 5WL.1969.1. 5WL.1969.41, and 5BF.130.1) would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. s Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-36 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Where the abandoned railroad crosses I-25, the commuter rail would require a new 470-foot-long bridge spanning I-25. The original railroad bridge was demolished during a previous I-25 highway widening project. A new bridge crossing would not be expected to negatively affect the historic setting beyond its already diminished integrity at this location (see Figure 5-13). Additionally, the new double-track rail alignments would require a new supporting structure over an unnamed drainage at the historic wooden timber and log footer bridge (5WL.1969.1 Feature 1). This 47-foot-long by 17-foot-wide historic bridge would be demolished to allow for construction of a new railroad bridge measuring approximately 60-feet-long and 70-feet-wide (see Figure 5-13). The installation of the double-track configuration for the commuter rail would also require a new supporting structure over Little Dry Creek. The existing 69 foot long by 27 foot wide, wooden trestle bridge (5BF.130.1 Feature 1) would be demolished and a new bridge measuring approximately 75 feet long and 70 feet wide would be constructed at that site. Although new rail would be placed upon existing bed, ballast, and grade, and a new track placed adjacent to the historic alignment, this is a compatible effect with the historic use and setting of the historic railroad line, and would be expected to preserve an otherwise deteriorating resource (see Figure 5-14). Summary Effect Determination: A continuous 2.9 miles, or approximately 11 percent, of the entire linear resource would be re-occupied with new track on the existing bed, grade, and ballast, and an additional new track located 15 feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new but compatible rail infrastructure elements to the historic setting. Demolition of two historic bridge features along the Boulder Valley Branch would result in direct impacts to the resource. These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource; therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that an adverse effectunder Section 106 would result to the historic Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad line (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Package B This segment originally bridged I-25, but the structure has been removed. Because Package B improvements occur at ground level within the span of the original bridge, there would be no impacts to the railroad segment by improvements associated with Package B. No direct or indirect impacts would occur at any segment locality. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the improvements would result in no historic propertiesaffectedwith respect to the historic UPD&BVB (SWL.1969 and 5BF.130). Avoidance Alternatives Shifting the alignment of the commuter rail tracks off of the historic railway alignment would require substantial acquisition of non-transportation corridor land from private and public ownership along a 3.03-mile distance. There are no vacant, adjacent, or parallel linear corridors onto which the rail could be relocated. Relocation would result in new economic, social, and environmental impacts from the new construction and acquisition. Environmental impacts include impacts to prairie dog colonies, and an additional 0.3 acre of high quality wetlands, which are a Federally protected resource. Social impacts include impacts to three residential properties, which would require relocation. Economic impacts would include those resulting from approximately 36 acres of farm and ranch land impacted by the realignment of the rail tracks. This farm and ranch land is located in an area that contains Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, increasing farmland impacts if the alternative alignment were used. I Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-37 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Avoidance alternatives are not considered feasible and prudent if they do not avoid using Section 4(f) property. Although avoidance of the UPD&BV is possible, these measures would result in impacts to other Section 4(f) resources. The realignment of the double track railway off the historic alignment would result in an additional 70 linear feet of impacts to each of the historic and Section 4(f) protected Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966) and Community Ditch (5WL.2247). Bull Canal/Standley Ditch is currently eligible for listing on the NRHP because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado and as an important example of irrigation engineering. The Community Ditch is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Impacts to the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch are currently de minims under Section 4(f). There are currently no permanent impacts expected to Community Ditch. Impacts to these two resources as a result of avoidance of the single resource of the UPD&BVB, which has been recorded as being in a deteriorated state, would have the potential to increase the impacts to these two resources to adverse levels. Avoidance alternatives would result in additional impacts to social, economic, farmlands, and other environmental resources; would result in additional construction costs; and would impact two separate Section 4(f) resources of equal preservation value. Cumulatively, these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The physical railway template for a new double-track rail configuration has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and FTA design and safety standards. This minimizes the dimensions of new bridges and culverts. Re-utilization of abandoned historic track, bed, and ballast helps to preserve the historic rail alignment. Also, the commuter rail analysis indicates that use of this rail alignment allows for tie-in to the Dent Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad, which is the most cost effective manner to terminate at the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line station. Mitigation Measures for UPD&BVB • Detailed recording of the affected railway, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-38 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Ill Figure 5-12 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch — Package Packa e A Use g LEGEND ' Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.1969.41 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries FI♦ Bridge / Culvert _ _ n.' _ _ , - 1 ' . 260 Linear Feet Impacted as ._ a _ _ - III%*Soe-_ � — I 1 le ! 1-,,t, . .,4. 1. A_ .$i.c , , . , ___— , t ........ , V/ -40 — iiti • / -r,_ / fa ri , _ — .. _ lis . \t___ . 7 rill. 011----7----.N.Location Map.,) vN 0 200 0 il I Feet North L I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-39 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-13 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder — Package e A Use II Valley Branch g „ s 1 1 II v LEGEND Historical Resources al Package A Resource Impact I Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.1969.1 Property Boundaries Package A Comm Rail/Highway Footprint Commuter Rail/Highway Design Parcel Boundaries H Bridge / Culvert - amIIII. * *-..% . ,.....] Bridge would extend from original /abutment of removed RR bridge--J r r- New 470-foot-long bridge spanning I-25 A -- _ � .riii;NB i SB3 mfr V 0 300 1 n: �� I Feet North - ' N \ 4 ' rNew 60-foot by 70-foot wide bridge to i. t accomodate new commuter rail tracks ' `".+ ' -.0100 IF , #,/ , Tr 1 .- itritilior- Existing 47-foot by 17-foot wooden bridge would be demolished / oca Ltion Map 0 200 Q iml Feet North I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-40 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. SFigure 5-14 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch — Package A Use LEGEND ' Historical Resources .` . Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary . ' 5BF.130.1 Property Boundary PackageAComm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design •, Parcel Boundaries .. f Bridge / Culvert - - - - 7-'- qb CVO e. P ,. gib e�d'Bo . . '\� r poet yea .. • New Bridge approximately • / _ 75 feet by 70 feet - ,�al . : ,04 • �. ?. JN� t♦ rY � flk _ 4 • ' • . '' - " c f n �. • , Lille cre • 4� it-'�. j ` X `. �'. I i 14111/44k:4414- jp 'et,...' 11114r\; P 4 • : • . ,3, ..•� 1 • • 1• -- --"P _ - _:A. 'rill� ,� , • ' l A, ,t # —�.r I = ;-i Existing 69 foot by 27 foot wooden - 3 °� — �' trestle bridge would be demolished l f 1 " `^ - l - 3 fPLtt m er Y Location Map . , a , r ; i:4 . • .y � 0 100 /\ ,: t Feet . _ North .„ ' 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-41 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5.4.4 Use of Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Resources Table 5-4 summarizes the proposed use of the individual parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuge Section 4(f) resources in the regional study area. There is no use of Section 4(f) resources resulting from transportation improvements included in other Package A and Package B components. Table 5-4 Use of Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Section 4(f) Resources ID Resource Section 4(f) Use Type of Use Number Package A Package B A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Lanes: Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH14toSH60 McWhinney Hahn A total of 1.21 acres, or A total of 1.21 acres, or Direct Use 7 Sculpture Park 27%, of park used for 27%, of park used for (both packages) placement of new ramps placement of new ramps S S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-42 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park (Map ID Number 7) Description Location: West of I-25, north of US 34, Loveland Size: 4.5 acres Type: Park Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Visitor's center, sculpture park, houses the Chamber of Commerce, restrooms, gateway to the City branding the City as an"Art City,"drinking fountain, public telephone. Usage/Patronage: 3,200/year Relationship to Other Resources: One of 27 developed parks in Loveland; Loveland Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center is located adjacent to the park. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Loveland Significance: As a Community Park, McWhinney Hahn serves the community of Loveland as a whole by providing a special use area for art exhibition and serving as"gateway"to the City. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park by Package A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 1.21 acres (approximately 875- A total of 1.21 acres (approximately foot by 60-foot strip of land) or 27% of 875 foot by 60 foot strip of land) or 27% of park used for placement of park used for placement of new ramps; includes impacts to sculptures, trails, and new ramps; includes impacts to access. Serves as"gateway"to the city. sculptures, trails, and access. Serves as"gateway"to the city. Resource Description This public park is included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan prepared by the City of Loveland, 2001. The park includes an artificial pond, trail, and picnic tables. A special use is provided to display art and sculptures in a public setting. The Chamber of Commerce/Visitor Center building and parking lot are included in the park's total acreage. The City has placed the art and sculpture in the park so that they are visible to motorists to signify a"gateway"to the city and promote visitation to the Visitors Center. The park also provides visitors with a direct view of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Section 4(f)Use Package A Use at this location would result from reconfiguration of the US 34 interchange from a fully directional cloverleaf to a three-quarter directional interchange. The northbound off-ramp from I-25 to westbound US 34 would affect the southernmost portion of the park, resulting in the use of 1.21 acres. The interchange ramps adjacent to the park would be elevated 20 feet to 30 feet on retaining walls. The US 34/I-25 northbound-to-westbound interchange ramp and new grade-separated interchange at US 34 and Rocky Mountain Avenue would directly use land from this Section 4(f) property. The land used at this property includes sculpture exhibit area and the trail around the man-made pond. Access to the park is from Foxtrail Drive, which is likely to be closed because of the proximity to the US 34/Rocky Mountain Avenue interchange ramps. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-43 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. The City describes the property as serving as a"gateway"to the city and was planned to be oriented to the Front Range with views of the mountains. A park planning goal was to place art in highly visible locations and the identified use would decrease that visibility. The use would be of such magnitude that the function of the park would be largely lost. See Figure 5-15 for park use. Package B Uses of the Section 4(f) resource or park at this location would be the same as those associated with Package A resulting in 1.21 acres directly incorporated into the project. Avoidance Alternatives A direct interchange at the crossing of US 34 and I-25, two major regional transportation facilities, is necessary for each facility to function in a manner that meets purpose and need. Avoidance of this impact could occur if this interchange was closed and no connection was provided. This is not considered feasible and prudent because it would not meet the purpose and need factor of improving accessibility. The McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park could be avoided if the regional interchange facility could be moved further to the north or to the south of its existing location. Moving the facility 500 feet to the north to avoid using the McWhinney-Hahn Sculpture Park would substantially increase the total impacts throughout the development in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the I-25 and US 34 interchange. Approximately 50 retail and restaurant establishments, many as part of the newly constructed Centerra Marketplace, would be demolished, as would three office buildings, three hotels, and the Loveland Chamber of Commerce. This shopping center is designed to have immediate access to I-25; prices at the Marketplace are dependent on the easy access of goods to and from the Marketplace from 1-25. Additionally there are a number of restaurants that offer"fast-food service," making them appealing to those utilizing the Marketplace primarily for shopping. The"fast-food" restaurants are also appealing for those traveling through the region on 1-25 seeking a convenient meal. Demolishing 50 buildings in the newly constructed Centerra development would result in a severe loss of property tax revenue to the City of Loveland. Relocation of the large number of resources with the same access to I-25 and proximity to each other would cause a unique problem. Additional affected resources include the Medical Center of the Rockies, high-functioning wetlands, riparian areas harboring high quality habitat, and the two NRHP-eligible features—the Loveland and Greeley Canal and the Farmers Ditch. The Loveland and Greeley Canal is NRHP eligible under Criterion A for its important contribution to agricultural development in the Loveland Area. The segment near the interchange retains integrity, and avoiding the park would impact approximately 180 linear feet of this historic canal. Farmers Ditch is NHRP eligible under Criterion A for its important contribution to water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Moving the facility to the north would impact approximately 2,800 linear feet of the ditch. Avoidance of direct impacts to the park by moving the facility to the north would still require new on- ramps to be built as part of the existing interchange to accommodate future traffic volumes at this location. These proposed on-ramps would be elevated 30 feet higher than the existing highway on- ramps. This change to vertical profile, while not causing direct use to the park, would substantially affect the values that provide the basis for the function of the park as a"gateway"to the City. The addition of the walls would impede the views of the park users to the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains and would impede the views from passing motorists to the park showcasing the art. Both of these views constitute attributes that serve the primary function of the park as a "gateway"to the city, thus the function of the park would be largely lost. In a meeting held August 2007 with the City of Loveland (the agency with jurisdiction), the City cited both the views of the mountains and the view to the sculptures as the reason for locating the Visitors Center there and touting it as the"gateway"to the City. The City expressed concern that the proposed walls would impair the view to the Visitors Center as well, and the new interchange would move people quickly through the area making them less likely to stop at the Visitors Center. The City asked for additional meetings to discuss the possibility of moving the Sculpture Park and Visitors Center in their entirety to a location that would function more as a"gateway."Mitigating the land lost by replacing it with adjacent land in the same location would not effectively address the uses of the park. Cumulatively, the severe and unique impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, two eligible ditches and 50 Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-44 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperaticn transportation. buildings make moving the interchange (and US 34) to the north not feasible and prudent. Moving the facility to the south to avoid the sculpture garden would create additional use at the Section 4(f)-protected Schmer Farm. This historic farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with early agriculture and under Criterion C for containing excellent examples of agricultural architecture. The property is one of the last remaining intact examples of a Larimer County Farm from the turn of the century. A field trip was conducted in the North I-25 corridor in June 2006 with the SHPO's office and CDOT historian for the purpose of assessing historic properties in the study area. The Schmer Farm was one of the properties assessed. It was found that the Schmer Farm maintains a very high level of integrity because the land area of the farm has remained essentially unchanged since 1916, and the farmhouse and outbuildings exhibit very little alteration. Within two months of that field visit, the SHPO recommended that the property be officially assessed as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Moving the interchange at this location to the south to avoid the park would create an additional 3.7 acres of use, and require demolition of the farmhouse and associated outbuildings. The use at the farm would be elevated from a di minimis to an adverse effect. Due to the high level of architectural integrity, loss of this resource would undermine the intent of Section 4(f) to preserve significant historic sites. Avoiding the sculpture garden by moving the alignment to the south would also result in impacts to low- to medium-function wetlands and riparian areas associated with a man-made feature in the southeast quadrant, impacts to high-quality wetland and riparian areas associated with the Big Thompson River, impacts to potential Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat and impacts to the NHRP-eligible properties of the Loveland and Greeley Canal and Farmers Ditch. Impacts to the NRHP properties of the Loveland and Greeley Canal and Farmers Ditch would be new compared to the impacts associated with the original alignment. Cumulatively, the severe and unique impacts to the Schmer Farm, wetlands and riparian areas associated with the Big Thompson River, potential Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat and two eligible ditches of moving the interchange south would make this alternative not feasible and prudent. Similar to the northern avoidance alternative, total avoidance of the park by moving the interchange south would still severely impact the features and attributes(views to and from the park) of the park that make the park achieve the City's goals. This impact would severely affect the park basically rendering the park unusable for its intended purpose, as a gateway feature. The use of the sculpture garden can be effectively mitigated by moving the sculpture garden to a location more suited to its primary purpose as a gateway to the City of Loveland. A new location would provide better access and better visibility so the sculpture gardens features, attributes and activities are consistent with the City's goals for the park. Moving the eligible farmhouse and associated out buildings on the Schmer Farm would destroy the integrity of this property. The SHPO views this property as a unique significant property with a high degree of integrity since it has remained essentially unchanged since 1916. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The US 34/I-25 interchange has been designed to accommodate major movements between these regional facilities as well as accommodate safe and efficient local system traffic. Previous interchange design configurations were much wider and would have used a greater area of the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park and the Schmer Farm. The US 34/I-25 interchange is the most compact design possible to minimize right-of-way acquisition. Retaining walls have been included to minimize direct impacts. CDOT would pursue replacing acquired park land with a suitable replacement property of similar size for the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park due to the magnitude and character of parkland lost as a result of Packages A and B. Mitigation Measures for McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park • Coordinate with City of Loveland to relocate park to new location. • Coordinate with City of Loveland to identify new park, gateway, and visitors center location. • Continue coordination with City of Loveland into final design to assure no disruption of services Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-45 Draft EIS NORTH 1-,Z] October 2008 EIS information. cooperaTion transportation. Figure 5-15 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park Use by Packages A and B I g ti.,,, ..: LEGEND . 411 i Package A Park Impacts -•1e I( Package B Park Impacts , t . -, ! : ,I T.,- Ilit - 4. - - rr t r 't--a - - .__ _ -. i • , . MCWHINNEY 8lVO � � �St ` • s ^• ._-sue Flit; _ • ..- • n 4111S11 ..t %''4 • t * .6 ""Alikr. . 'Ilk‘ I 111). _• _. _ _ , • t r a — —.1 - _ .. - - mss .. -4 •- _ 3, _i , - f_OIQRAII DR • _ e. ♦ • i I irlir ci. I • . ...1 Lj.4 tik •"...le - it, 1 I . - i ._ w. r W F .i iTt? - �� • - U is it « ! . 1 - .. mss♦ .fie' w a a U - \ 1/4 .,• —� • _ __ _ w_ Z • . - .rte .?9 NW ERONIAGERU. �^--- aV f ti- - K. Ill .. .,,.. _. .. yam-_-m `•, _ .T - Al L UJ[W , k 1 } - . iL MCWHINNEY HAHN SCULPTURE PARK. L -.11i t . ,fit , roGe • •n _. R- # FORT COLLINS TIMNATH SEVERANCE �: zr - ' j 25 •\. .. -. E EISENHOWER BLVD ••Y n.. Y •.l __ _ _ ti,+ -. - a Her+-sue._ t • 1, 8 , 1AINnSc)R. 'j , tl 1 • li r _tit ,t , >E - it i 4, LARIMER e III t i LOVELAND • , '1 - �-s 1:1\•"---,4 'GREELEY �.... ._. - 4\ •\ O JOHNSTWN 'WELD I \ . •• 0 " i! , II BERTHOUD Q _ _ ` `' 0 200 400 0 '' f' , I I J Feet North L4 II Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-46 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 5.5 DE MINIMIS IMPACTS SAFETEA-LU was enacted in August 2005. Guidance for addressing de minimis was provided in December 2005. This guidance authorizes the FHWA and FTA to approve a project that results in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) resource without the evaluation of avoidance alternatives typically required in a Section 4(f) evaluation. Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU amended 23 USC 138 which now states: "[T]he Secretary shall not approve any program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under Section 204 of this title) which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use." "(b) De Minimis Impacts.— (1) Requirements.— (A) Requirements for historic sites.--The requirements of this section shall be considered to be satisfied with respect to an area described in paragraph (2) if the Secretary determines, in accordance with this subsection, that a transportation program or project would have a de minimis impact on the area. (B) Requirements for parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges.— The requirements of subsection (a) (1) shall be considered to be satisfied with respect to an area described in paragraph (3) if the Secretary determines, in accordance with this subsection, that a transportation program or project will have a de minimis impact on the area. The requirements of subsection (a) (2) with respect to an area described in paragraph (3) shall not include an alternatives analysis. (C)Criteria.-- In making any determination under this subsection„ the Secretary shall consider to be part of transportation program or project any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures that are required to be implemented as a condition of approval of the transportation program or project." There are different processes for evaluating de minimis for historic resources and park and recreational resources. These processes are outlined below. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-47 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. 5.5.1 De Minimis for Historic Resources S Historic sites qualifying for Section 4(f) protection must be officially listed on or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, or contribute to a historic district that is eligible for or listed on the NRHP, or be a supporting segment of an NRHP-listed or eligible linear resource. The NRHP eligibility is established through the Section 106 process. Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU amended Title 23 USC Section 138(b)(2) which now states: "With respect to historic sites, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if— (A) the Secretary has determined, in accordance with the consultation process required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C 470f), that— @ the transportation program or project will have no adverse effect on the historic site; or (H) there will be no historic properties affected by the transportation program or project; (B) the finding of the Secretary has received written concurrence from the applicable State historic preservation officer or tribal historic preservation officer (and from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if the council is participating in the consultation process; and (C) the finding of the Secretary has been developed in cohsultation with the parties consulting as part of the process referred to in subparagraph (A)." The following Section 4(f) properties are recommended for de minimis determination. These properties are shown on Figure 5-16 through Figure 5-53. Impacts to the properties have been evaluated based on current engineering design. The SHPO (through this documentation) has been informed of the FHWA and FTA intent to make a de minimis finding. The de minimis finding will not be complete until the SHPO provides written concurrence with the effect determinations provided in this Draft EIS. As described in Section 5.2.2, a de minimis finding for significant historic resources is recommended when the Section 4(f) use is minimal or trivial. The de minimis impact finding is based on the degree or level of impact, including any avoidance, minimization and mitigation, or enhancement measures that are included in the project to address the Section 4(f) use. De minimis impact findings must be expressly conditioned upon the implementation of any measures that were relied upon to reduce the impact to a de minimis level. Table 5-5, De Minimis Uses of Section 4(f) Historical Resources by Component, summarizes the effects on the individual historical resources. Additionally, the table lists the type of Section 4(f) use of each resource. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-48 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources Section 4(f) Use Type of Use and ID Number Resource Section 106 Package A Package B Proposed Effect Determination A-H1 Safety B-H1 Safety Improvements: Improvements: SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 SLR.8932 Larimer County Ditch 83 feet placed in two 83 feet placed in two De minimis culvert extensions. culvert extensions. no adverse effect 1.76 acres, or less 1.76 acres, or less than 1%, of property than 1%, of property 5LR.11396 Einarsen Farm as incorporation of as incorporation of De minimis 1,600- foot by 50-foot 1,600-foot by 50-foot no adverse effect strip of farmland into strip of farmland into project. project. A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 0.27 acre or A total of 0.40 acre or less than 1% of less than 1% of the property by property by incorporation of a 2.5- incorporation of a 10- De minimis 5LR.11393 Rudolph Farm foot by 1,247-foot strip foot by 1,247-footstrip no adverse effect • for farmland and a of farmland and a 0.13-acre portion of 0.13-acre portion of the farmland for new the farmland for a new driveway access. driveway access. A total length of 85 A total length of 85 5LR.11409 Cache la Poudre feet of open ditch or feet of open ditch or De minimis Reservoir Inlet 1% of total length in 1% of total length in no adverse effect culvert extensions. culvert extensions. A total length of 85 A total length of 85 57R.995.4 Lake Canal feet of open ditch or feet of open ditch or De minimis 1% of total length in 1% of total length in no adverse effect culvert extensions. culvert extensions. A total of 137.5 feet, or A total of 137.5 feet, or less than 1%, of total less than 1%, of total ditch length ditch length 5LR.2160 Boxelder Ditch incorporated into a incorporated into a De minimis new 62.5-foot-long new 62.5-foot-long no adverse effect new culvert and a 75- new culvert and a 75- foot-long culvert foot-long culvert extension. extension. A total of 70 feet, or A total of 70 feet, or 5LR.503.2 Loveland and less than 1%, of total less than 1%, of total De minimis Greeley Canal ditch length in culvert ditch length in culvert no adverse effect extension. extension. A total of 2,539 linear A total of 2,539 linear feet or 3% of the total feet or 3% of the total De minimis 5LR.8928 Farmers Ditch ditch length would be ditch length would be no adverse effect placed inside culvert placed inside culvert extension. extension. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-49 • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources (cont'd) Type of Use and ID Number Resource Section 4(f) Use Section 106 Proposed Effect Determination A total of 6.61 acres, A total of 7.0 acres, or or 5.3%, of the total 5.6%, of the total acreage of the historic acreage of the historic farm subject to direct farm subject to direct use, including an use, including an approximately 1,800- approximately 1,800- foot by 124-foot strip foot by 134-foot strip (5.09 acres) of (5.48 acres) of farmland incorporated farmland incorporated 5LR.11209 Schmer Farm into new elevated and into new elevated and De minimis at-grade ramps, , and at grade ramps, and no adverse effect 1.52 acres for 1.52 acres for construction of new construction of new access from US 34 to access from US 34 to the frontage road the frontage road leading to the Schmer leading to the Schmer farmhouse and farmhouse and businesses on the businesses on the southwest corner of southwest corner of the interchange. the interchange. A total of 170 feet, or A total of 240 feet, or 5LR.850 less than 1%, of total less than 1%, of total 5WL.841 Great Western railroad length railroad length De minimis SBL.514 Railway incorporated into a incorporated into a no adverse effect new bridge. new bridge. A total of 2.1 acres or A total of 2.2 acres or 2% of total property by 2% of total property by incorporation of incorporation of 5LR.11382 Hatch Farm narrow 850-foot and narrow 850-foot and De minimis 450-foot strips of 450-foot strips of no adverse effect farmland into two farmland into two water quality ponds. water quality ponds. A total of 135 feet or A total of 135 feet or 6% of total ditch length 6% of total ditch length De minimis SLR.8927 Hillsboro Ditch would be incorporated would be incorporated no adverse effect into culvert into culvert extensions. extensions. A total of 4.76 acres, A total of 5.28 acres, or 3.5%, of the or 4%, of the property property by by incorporation of a De minimis 5LR.11242 Mountain View Farm incorporation of a 65- 60-foot by 3,900-foot no adverse effect foot by 3,200-foot strip strip of farmland of farmland adjacent adjacent to 1-25 and to 1-25 and SH 402. SH 402. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-50 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources (cont'd) Type of Use and ID Number Resource Section 4(f) Use Proposede 106 Section Effect Determination A-H3 GP Highway B-H3 Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 17.94 acres A total of 20.04 acres or 6.2% of the or 7% of the property property by by incorporation of a incorporation of a 4,600-foot by 170-foot 5WL.5203 Bein Farm 4,600-foot by 150-foot strip of farmland De minimis strip of farmland adjacent to 1-25 and no adverse effect adjacent to 1-25 and an 800-foot by 110- an 800-foot by 110- foot strip of farmland foot strip of farmland adjacent to SH 60. adjacent to SH 60. A total of 600 feet, or A total of 600 feet, or Hand /Home Supply2%, of total ditch 2%, of total ditch De minimis 5WL.3149 Ditch Confluence length,incorporated length incorporated no adverse effect into culvert into culvert extensions. extensions. A total of 12.74 acres A total of 12.81 acres or 9% of property by or 9% of property by De minimis 5WL.5198 Olson Farm incorporation of land incorporation of land no adverse effect from both sides of from both sides of 1-25. 1-25. A total of 908 feet, or A total of 850 feet, or 5WL.1966, less than 1%, of the less than 1%, of the 5BF.76, Bull Ditch segment of total ditch length total ditch length De minimis 5BF.72, the Bull Canal/ would be placed into would be placed into no adverse effect 5AM.457 Standley Ditch three culvert two culvert extensions. extensions. A-T1 Transit B-T1 Transit Component- Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins/Greeley Fort Collins to to Denver Longmont A total of 65 feet, or less than 1%, of total De minimis 5BL.3449 Supply Ditch ditch length would be No use no adverse effect placed into a culvert extension. A total of 35 feet, or less than 1%, of total 5BL.3113 Rough & Ready ditch length placed No use De minimis Ditch nto a culvert no adverse effect iextension. Culvert extension of De minimis 5BL.4832 Oligarchy Ditch 48 feet, or les than 1% No use no adverse effect of total ditch length. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-51 Draft EIS NORTH 1-23 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources (cont'd) Type of Use and ID Number Resource Section 4(f) Use Section 106 Proposed Effect Determination A-T2 Transit B-T2 Transit Component- Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to DIA Longmont to FasTracks North Metro A total of 60 feet, or less than 1% of total De minimis 5LR.1729 Big Thompson Ditch ditch length, placed No use no adverse effect into a culvert extension. A total of 0.33 acre or 5BL.513 Great Western Sugar 9% of the property No use De minimis would be used for no adverse effect pedestrian walkway. A total of 2.17 acres, or less than 1%, of 5WL.712 Sandstone Ranch unused land within the No use De minimis historic district used no adverse effect for new railroad right- of-way. A total of 63 feet, or 5WL.5461 Boulder&Weld less than 1%, of open No use De minimis County Ditch ditch would be placed no adverse effect into a new culvert. A total of 130 feet, or 5WL.1974 Rural Ditch less than 1%, of open No use De minimis ditch would be placed no adverse effect into a new culvert. 4.89-mile abandoned segment modernized for double-track De minimis 5WL.1317 UPRR-Dent Branch commuter rail No use no adverse effect operations. 200-foot sections modified to install switching tracks. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-52 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation, S Larimer County Ditch (5LR.8932.1) Description Location: I-25, north of Larimer County Road (CR 56) Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Water supply and storage company Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A Use of Larimer County Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H1 Highway Component: B-H1 Highway Component: Safety Improvement: Safety Improvement: SH 1 to SH 14 SH 1 to SH 14 83 feet of open ditch would be placed 83 feet of open ditch would be placed inside new culvert extensions inside new culvert extensions Resource Description The Larimer County Ditch crosses I-25 approximately 900 feet north of Larimer County Road (CR) 56, south of the Town of Wellington. The ditch has been owned and operated by the Water Supply and Storage Company since 1892. The open ditch crosses underneath I-25 and the east frontage road inside two almost continuous concrete culverts. The earthen ditch segment is approximately 20 feet wide with grassy levees, and traverses rural terrain. Eligibility Determination In 2001, the Larimer County Ditch (5LR.8932) was determined to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important contribution to irrigation in Larimer County. Segment 5LR.8932.1 does not support the eligibility of the greater ditch resource because of past modifications to its structure at the culvert crossings underneath I-25 and the existing east frontage road. Section 4(t) Use Package A Package A improvements include a wider frontage road along the existing alignment parallel to the southbound I-25 mainline, requiring a 38-foot-long culvert extension to the west side of the existing 35-foot-long culvert. A new 40-foot-wide frontage road would be built parallel to the east side of the northbound I-25 mainline, requiring a new concrete box culvert crossing of the ditch at that location. The new culvert would place 45 feet of open ditch within a concrete culvert. The length of open ditch placed inside new culvert extensions would total 83 feet. There would be no mainline I-25 improvements in this area (see Figure 5-16). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of I-25 and frontage road, and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effectto the Larimer County Ditch. Package B Package B improvements include the same impacts as Package A. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of I-25 and frontage road, and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effectto the Larimer County Ditch (see Figure 5-16). Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.53 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B The I-25 frontage road improvements incorporate safety shoulder widening in conformance with standard engineering design, and have been moved outside of the safety clear zone for the mainline I-25 travel lanes. Mitigation Measures for Larimer County Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-54 Draft EIS NORTH P25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. IIIFigure 5-16 Larimer County Ditch — Use Packages A and B LEGEND ti t Historical Resources Packages A & B Resource Impact lei Packages A & B ROW Boundary rI 5LR.8932.1 Property Boundary f r Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert 1 A Roadway Features ... Retaining Wall i , , IParcel Boundaries `J Guardrails . _ '. } • i 11410 Existing 1-25 culvert will remain in place. ,f. -l* iK ;. _ ), New 38-foot-long culvert • extension over West Frontage Road c--- - 1 o ie .... - • _ . . i ; ! . . .. . • • it. .T _ _ ic : - I , , . , S A Ili , _. ,c+ y • u1 1 is<;#00 , - -,_________--___ !• • \k :lc. : ]::ilk.-. -, r-•�. } iy � • i . ) 1 • i i .- ' New 45-foot-long culvert _ f extension over East Frontage Road i - t / _ Matill 1 i i v s ii NB SB 1 `` r / AI Location Map ' Y �J 200 x 40 �� Feet North 4' f ' Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-55 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Einarsen Farm (5LR.11396) Description Location: 1320 Northeast Frontage Road Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Einarsen Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H1 Highway Component: B-H1 Highway Component: Safety Improvement: Safety Improvement: SH 1 to SH 14 SH 1 to SH 14 1.76 acres, or less than 1%, of 1.76 acres, or less than 1%, of property property as incorporation of 1,600 foot as incorporation of 1,600-foot by 50-foot by 50-foot strip of farmland into strip of farmland into project project Resource Description The historic Einarsen Farm (5LR.11396) is located on the east side of I-25 at 1320 Northeast Frontage Road. The farm, which was established in 1890, consists of an intact barn and hipped roof cottage-style farmhouse. Eligibility Determination Based on its association with 19th century Larimer County agriculture and the good integrity of the farm structures built during the period of significance (1880s to 1940s), this farm has been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A and C. Section 4()Use Package A At this location, the existing configuration of two general-purpose lanes in each direction would be maintained and the east frontage road would be widened to add paved shoulders. Realignment and widening of the east frontage road and associated right-of-way expansion would encroach upon the southwestern edge of this historic farm property. Under Package A, a narrow strip of land extending north from East Vine Drive would be permanently incorporated into the transportation right-of-way. This acquired right-of-way would allow construction of wider roadway shoulders and would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historic farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road. This strip of land measures approximately 1,600 feet in length, and 50 feet at its widest extent near the East Vine Drive intersection, tapering to zero feet wide at the northernmost point near the ranch access road. The impacted area is along the edge of a cultivated field and contains 1.76 acres and constitutes less than 1 percent of the total area of the 220 acres within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are located near the proposed improvements. See Figure 5-17 for Package A uses of this property. The historical farm setting was permanently altered in the 1960s by initial construction of I-25 and introduction of the highway and associated traffic noise. Currently, the farmhouse is located 80 feet from the east edge of the existing frontage road. Changes in noise and physical setting and atmosphere are not expected to diminish the function, character, feel, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. S Section aw Evaluation 5.56 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. A temporary construction easement could be necessary along the western edge of the property for haul roads, construction access, and staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this temporary occupancy of the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction-related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature, and would not permanently affect the atmosphere of the farm setting. Thus, indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities would occur, but would not be expected to significantly diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm, farm structures and farmhouse NRHP- eligible. Because of the small amount of farmland directly impacted, its proximity to the existing non-historic frontage road, and the fact that no historic farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-17 for Package A uses of this property. Package B Direct impacts to this historical farm under Package B are very similar in nature and extent to those anticipated under Package A. A slightly shorter segment of the east frontage road would be realigned and widened. The acquired right-of-way to allow construction of wider roadway shoulders would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historical farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road. The impacted strip of land measures approximately 1,600 feet in length, and 50 feet at its widest extent near the East Vine Drive intersection tapering to zero feet wide at the northernmost point. The impacted 1.76 acres are located along the edge of a cultivated field and constitute less than 1 percent of the total area of the 220 acres within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are located near the • proposed improvements. Because to the small amount of farmland impacted, its proximity to the existing non-historic frontage road, and the fact that no historic farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minim's pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-18 for Package B uses of this property. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B The design of the transportation improvements was dictated by safety requirements for the intersections of the frontage roads and Vine Drive on either side of I-25. All possible measures to minimize harm were included. Mitigation Measures for Einarsen Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. i Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-57 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-17 Einarsen Farm Package A Use I g g , , kNii LEGEND s • f - ' `v Historical Resources I '� 1 ip Package A Resource Impact <. Package A ROW Boundary • I , , 5LR. 11396 Property Boundary Package A EOP Ill— Bridge Guardrails Roadway Features I♦ ill Retaining Wall __ail Parcel Boundaries A, Guardrails • d 4 f p: E is is emits L . ,cn 4 / tit %. re / litha ---774"--:—‘ 11 . , , t Lit I.7: ."771 MI: , ici : 11 61) P ILO. T .___Iii„ , f wirrittrr ?3 L r I f .2,3kaiso : : t :0 4 ..el..H rattlitti > - 4 • . --IL -Pri e i - m rtr tail trip ra rt lt,. FT; igt g - • ' ,ilek. I\ I .v. - - " ' a; , kILIMIlleNiscil Pi-IF •ateIll- 1 • .. - _J acx 1,..,,,, lki L , 44 is 1 1 t's_. 4. , 6:011` . ..1 • 1 IP, 6 1 efinir tri : . ; • , 4 1 1 Ir . . !� ti� 1 f ( seliell I I Ilk)F, lire iile lit 1 , j Area = 76,694 Sq. Ft w y a aIFS It: -! ' ll in ` � . Acres = 1 .76 ti �..--...,F. ,,,./. . AL&iRit I - 'br --1---1 er-iti *N t colt N .1�� ill �_ %t4: MOS # \ „pa. _ .. �t iR • tQ . e J;- iE VINE DRa. — fir:6-7c - . -.. ' tv___)ri / - ---..-\{ \ f �rrarr S. liS • .'{ 4 - �?• r -� Location Ma i -_�i _ • 0 400 FPQ 41 I Feet �' North 111, II Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement 1 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-58 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportationill . Figure 5-18 Einarsen Farm Package B Use y. - C LEGEND 1 Historical Resources - - Package B Resource Impact �E. \ %. Package B ROW Boundary 5LR . 11396 Property Boundary �1 I : ;. `� ' i� Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails . ' - s Roadway Features �. Retaining Wall IParcel Boundaries A, Guardrails 1 WM-, jç . ,� j Id q ,7.JI-1, frfow_l, to. sA.1 .., , - • r SA-IAV " -I I is " ' it imi t IF 3 i r - — . i�a r� ri 'tflk%'t1 ri- va:sti• t . ° E4)itatil, ttle L . 6:1 : V LI\ _ ry ! a Ls A 1 k ..i , I _!1 rr .T1HTT r ft J S �,L1 'C 1 d t i PP. Si Z r "jPtr�a:4 > i 1 , ) ti pir ., Ms- SI 1 littsktP,L, p , _ . , _ _ , • • _ . r 1 ., grip It is- 4P1C,t.17: . I Ts I .11PPir I ' :1 . . . ', � ' j �� leArea = 76,694 Sq. Ft'.441-?;it,,Air t It lit EL , r .,,r .� Acres = 1 .76 Fe: cutlet Aer fret ay ARnir : islii ._ 3/4 ,,c ........\ .4, Joe . _ . „point. _..,. , .\, , 4 \ /6 41:4j:(11:‘\10/4,4i e _` /4, tit la 44, Or iti "� A r 4 Iv . 1 ; eth. .ate -E-VINE-DR t \ C, —., ' ._ .1 ." •• • / - )\ -•• . :,,[ . I / i Location Ma - i�. ? ( If V 0 400 imilml Feet North . i k / IINote: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-59 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. Rudolph Farm (5LR.11393) S Description Location: 1028/1100 Southeast Frontage Road Type: Historic Farm Section 106 Effect No adverse effect Finding: Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion C Use of Rudolph Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 0.27 acre, or less than 1%, of A total of 0.40 acre, or less than 1%, of the property by incorporation of a 2.5-foot by property by incorporation of a 10 foot by 1,247-foot strip of farmland and a 0.13-acre 1,247 foot strip of farmland and a 0.13 acre portion of the farmland for new driveway access portion of the farmland for a new driveway access Resource Description The Rudolph Farm is located at 1028 to1100 Southeast Frontage Road on the east side of I-25, a short distance south of the existing SH 14 interchange. The property is associated with the Rudolph family who acquired this land in 1915. The homestead contains an intact historic farm house constructed in 1923, and several agricultural outbuildings. Eligibility Determination The Rudolph Farm contains well-preserved examples of agricultural architecture in Larimer County and retains its agricultural setting. The farm structures were built during the period of significance for agriculture in Larimer County(1880s to 1940s), and exhibit very good integrity. The property is therefore eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Section 4(0 Use Package A The Rudolph Farm is located on the east side of I-25, a short distance south of the existing SH 14 interchange. Under Package A, I-25 would be widened to accommodate three general purpose lanes in each direction, for a total of six traffic lanes. Package A roadway modifications would cause the frontage road to be replaced by new I-25 highway lanes. Currently, the closest farm building is located approximately 57 feet from the edge of the frontage road and 103 feet from the edge of I-25. To maintain the existing I-25 elevation in this area, the new highway lanes would be slightly elevated from the frontage road elevation. The resulting slope of fill needed to elevate this portion of the roadway would extend 28.5 feet away from the edge of the roadway into the western edge of the historic property boundary. A 2.5-foot-wide and 1,247-foot-long strip of this fill slope would involve property owned by Rudolph Farm. The remainder is existing CDOT right-of-way. The fill slope would result in a regrading of the existing terrain with no change in ownership or farm use. There is a resulting temporary use of the 0.13 acre narrow strip at the toe-of-slope. The closest farm building would be approximately 70 feet from the edge of I-25. The land would remain available for use by the farm in the future. The farm's west driveway extends through CDOT right-of-way to allow access to the frontage road. This 26-foot-wide strip of CDOT right-of-way was likely disturbed by earth-moving equipment when • the frontage road (and I-25) was constructed in the 1960s. The east frontage road, which currently provides access to the historic farmhouse from SH 14 on the north and Prospect Street to the south, would be removed. Under Package A, access to the Rudolph Farm property would be provided from Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-60 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. the north end of the property, where there currently exists an unpaved curvilinear driveway from an unpaved and nameless east-west farm road. Approximately 0.27 acre of land adjacent to and including the north driveway would be subject to direct use. The proposed improvements include a new curved access road leading to the existing entry at the north end of the Rudolph Farm. The total direct use would constitute 0.27 acre, which is less than one percent of the 111.42-acre farm. Removal of the east frontage road, widening of the I-25 mainline, creation of a new connection to the farm's existing north side driveway, and temporary construction impacts along the farm's west edge would not diminish or alter the architectural setting or characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-19 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Under Package B, I-25 would be widened, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. Although more lanes would be constructed, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way. I-25 widening would eliminate the existing frontage road located along the east side of I-25. The closest farm building would be 57 feet from the edge of the new I-25 lanes. Impacts under Package B would be roughly similar in nature and extent to Package A, with the exception that a wider, 36-foot-wide strip of land would experience direct temporary impacts along the farm property's west edge. Of this strip of land, the eastern 10-foot width, or 0.27 acres, is actually within the legal farm parcel boundary, and the remaining 26 feet between the legal boundary and the frontage road edge is CDOT right-of-way, all located inside the historic farm boundary. The • new fill slope would produce direct impacts to approximately 0.27 acre of the historic farm property. The fill slope would result in a regrading of the existing terrain with no change in ownership or farm use. The directly impacted strip of Rudolph Farm land would remain available for use by the farm in the future. As was the case under Package A, an additional 0.13 acre of land, including part of the existing north driveway, would be subject to direct impacts to construct a new access from the interchange to the farm driveway. The total direct impacts would be 0.40 acre, which is slightly greater than the area directly impacted under Package A but still comprises less than one percent of the 111.42-acre farm. The direct use caused by proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-20 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B Since the I-25 template would be widened, impacts to the historic farm were lessened by eliminating the east frontage road between SH 14 and Prospect Street, and replacing the existing main access to the farm from the east frontage road with improved access to the north side of the property. If the frontage road had been retained, it would have been shifted eastward to accommodate the wider I- 25 template, and would have required acquisition of a larger strip of land for new right-of-way along the entire west edge of the property. s Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-61 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooEeration. transportation. • Additionally, the I-25 centerline was planned to be shifted farther to the east to allow for construction phasing, but this concept was abandoned to ensure limited impact to the Rudolph Farm. This would consist of changes to the proposed frontage road that wouldlessen use of the property. Any alternative involving an I-25 alignment shift to the west near the Rudolph Farm would result in loss of access to at least three light industrial businesses on the west side, force relocation of 0.5 mile of frontage road on the east side that would affect access to another existing business, and have a substantially greater impact to two existing irrigation ditches(Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet and Lake Canal) along the west side of I-25. Mitigation Measures for Rudolph Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. s s Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-62 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 111 Figure 5-19 Rudolph Farm Package A Use . 1 I t I 1 1 1 1 I III L I 1 III LEGEND Historical Resources alPackage A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary + 1*- flit 5LR. 11393 Property Boundarylip • ,-I P1 Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails Roadway Features M.. Retaining Wall IIIP Parcel Boundaries SA Guardrails wetoritwtilit) r k. r Iiiii + • j�. f t 10rb;,r: . _ N• 1/41 . L'il .i-i;to ... . ;•mix 4r� Area = 5,630 Sq. Ft v it I I `� ! Acres = 0. 13 t se. 4 • . ., 4. ... revaitinmrwavyworritn . i i lip i . . , . •• _ . . I illilipr ti 14 s j t 1. �. C i t :"57 ,/ ,. , . , . . — /" IIa I Area = 5,886 Sq. Ft ,.-.44 Acres = 0. 14 N:. �I� 11 1'11' X11 _ - � l 1 Location Map., r — . 11 . . o Zoo VN 0 � . • _ III u FeetN. N-... — ._ . North • ' Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-63 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-20 Rudolph Farm Package B Use III8. .•[SI I I Ell I TIN I LEGEND Historical Resources A Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary .' \ ^,. 5LR.11393 Property Boundary Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails ' Roadway Features D-Ill Retaining WallLisHie404. : 10 1 I Parcel Boundaries 41.A Guardrails ' � . .........- airlc: . lir I‘ NH.k..%%...,,,,,,,;_:77.3 i IR 41 ., la . I.' s 2.,.-• 1 I + ,- 1Hfl in- Y' et a t nb Area = 5,630 Sq. Ft Acres = 0. 1341 • ...mi. gb i : _..: I _ . lit:\ i It leo • I is SE_ fi 14 r W T. .14 H # 1. i la itL ,YY • ! . ` R.;:::,' , II A. ' : i , . I 1 it,l; lq, j r r l i t i:;..))..: s4'�, I t {p r -4 1 , `-r i Ile' Pik of ii cl :t s.. I i Area = 11 823 Sq. Ft 1 Acres = 0.27 b t lec I ` / h II ,Location Map - --- a 0 0 ir °Ft North '' „tt • 11 Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-64 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet (5LR.11409) Lake Canal (5LR.995.4) Description Location: North I-25 and Prospect Road Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total length of 85 feet of open ditch or A total length of 85 feet of open ditch 1% of total length in culvert extensions or 1% of total length in culvert extensions Resource Description The entire inlet ditch was built as part of a larger irrigation system developed in 1892. The ditch is 10 miles long ending at Cache la Poudre Reservoir. The ditch crosses I-25 approximately 1,400 feet north of Prospect Road. The ditch crosses I-25 at a drop box that runs east under I-25. It continues southeast, terminating at a point where the ditch parallels Prospect Road. The well maintained segment is 3,750 feet long, 36 feet wide, and 10 feet deep. The ditch segment is concrete lined and contains a modern drop box, control house, and • complex system of gated box culverts that are interactive with Lake Canal. The ditch traverses cultivated fields and is sporadically lined with riparian habitat of shrubs, willows, and cottonwoods. Eligibility Determination The entire feature (5LR.11409) is eligible under Criteria A and C. The Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet is eligible under Criterion A for its association with a period of intensive development of successful agriculture. The inlet ditch is significant as part of an engineered water storage and delivery system associated with corporate irrigation projects in Colorado prior to the sugar beet industry. The portion of the inlet ditch crossing I-25 (5LR.11409.1) is non-supporting due to earlier modifications including piping under I-25 and other improvements. Section 4(0 Use Package A Package A would require an extended culvert at Station 4050. A 75-foot-long extension of a culvert farther east of the existing concrete box culvert outflow and a 10-foot-long extension west of the intake at the same culvert would be needed to carry the widening of existing west frontage road shoulders and the Prospect Road interchange widened northbound I-25 on-ramp. The total length of the inlet ditch placed inside a new culvert extensions would be 85 feet. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the I-25 ramps and frontage road, and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effectto the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-21 for uses associated with Package A. s Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-65 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Package B Package B would require an extended culvert at Station 4050. A 75-foot-long extension of double concrete box culvert farther east of the existing culvert outflow and a 10-foot-long extension west of the intake at the same double concrete box culvert would be needed to carry the widening of west frontage road shoulders and Prospect Road interchange widened northbound I-25 on-ramp. The total length of the inlet ditch placed inside new culvert extensions would be 85 feet. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the I-25 ramps and frontage road, and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effectto the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimispending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-21 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B The existing Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet passes underneath I-25 in a concrete box culvert and has lost its historic integrity. Use of retaining walls to minimize the need for culvert extensions along the west side of I-25 are incorporated into the proposed 10-foot extension. Because the integrity of this segment has already been compromised, the eastern outran of the ditch would not be modified. Mitigation Measures for the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. . Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-66 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ipFigure 5-21 Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet — Use Packages A and B I lessmal; iirrees:\NN LEGEND Historical Resources N - Packages A & B Resource Impactlir==== \ej- \ C". Malliii gilt N P Packages A & B ROW Boundary I_ 5LR.995.4 & 5LR.11409.1 Boundaries • _4wisti t f / 4r Packages EOP it.. Bridge /Culvert -, it • Roadway Features -■ Retaining wall I NB Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails „N,. • I SB,asF Lake Can-alai-4k._ A h. it 4. , daft al It ta .. K . h. 0 a s `4 .co{' �V is ? • UE ■ alsit k 1' • i IF i It 4 — z •� , it fTotallengthnew' 10-foot culvert culverts 460 feet r" ' , extensions ■ : \ ' N. ` / i + Dual 75-foot-long ' culvert extensions r-, i '' j Iv / ■ CI s b {} a • . ••� ! — Existing 375-foot-long �,. , J yjl . � culverts under I-25 / 1 'i I -- 1 I ocation Map - r f. --- .4, riNisirs- -* N1/4 vN - / , ' ., 0 ?00 Q TNn 6•I ii Feet North ' • _______.-----_----------X ti i t Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-67 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Boxelder Ditch (5LR.2160) Description Location: North I-25 and SH 68 (Exit 265) Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Boxelder Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total of 137.5 feet, or less than 1%, of A total of 137.5 feet, or less than 1%, of total ditch length, incorporated into a new total ditch length, incorporated into a new 62.5-foot-long new culvert and a 75-foot- 62.5-foot-long new culvert and a 75-foot- long culvert extension long culvert extension Resource Description The ditch was originally built in the mid-1880s. The entire ditch is approximately 5 miles long. Boxelder Ditch crosses I-25, Harmony Road, and the northbound highway ramp at the Harmony Road interchange. The recorded segment in the project APE (5LR.2160.1) is 3,194 feet, or approximately 0.6-mile long. The earthen ditch is approximately 12 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under the existing roadways was altered when the highway was constructed and is routed through a steel pipe culvert. Grassy vegetation exists • along both banks of the ditch in most areas. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination The Boxelder Ditch (5LR.2160) was officially determined to be NRHP-eligible by the OAHP in 1996. The ditch is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. The segment within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, design, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4()Use Package A Under Package A, the I-25/Harmony Road interchange would be realigned, including widening of the on- and off-ramps. Boxelder Ditch is currently enclosed inside a pipe underneath the existing ramps, fill slopes, and mainline I-25 traffic lanes. To accommodate construction of a new southbound off-ramp from I-25, which would be situated 90 feet west of the existing ramp alignment, a 75-foot-long section of the open Boxelder Ditch would need to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the ramp. The remainder of the ditch located within the area proposed for Package A highway improvements is already piped under I-25, the northbound on- ramp to I-25, and Harmony Road, and no new direct use would occur in those locations. A small direct use would occur where the ditch would pass beneath a new property access road on the southeast side of the interchange. This new access road would terminate at a cul-de-sac and is required to replace an existing access from the abandoned east frontage road. A total of 62.5 feet of open ditch would have to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the proposed cul-de-sac. Installation of the new culvert would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected • from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-68 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 US information. cooperation. transportation. The two box culverts required under Package A would enclose a total of 137.5 feet of open ditch that retain integrity, but would not alter its historic alignment. Because these direct uses constitute less than one percent of the entire length of the Boxelder Ditch, and would not significantly diminish or alter characteristics that render the ditch eligible for NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-22 for uses associated with Package A. Package B This use is identical to Package A. CDOT has determined that Package B would also result in no adverse effect to the Boxelder Ditch. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-22 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B Impacts to the ditch in the northwest quadrant were minimized by adding a retaining wall along the west edge of the southbound off-ramp. Realigning the southbound off-ramp to avoid the ditch would result in a substandard design with regard to design speed and sight distance. Impacts to the ditch in the southeast quadrant were minimized by realigning the northbound off-ramp. Realignment of this ramp to avoid use of the ditch was not possible without compromising accepted design standards. Mitigation Measures for Boxelder Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-69 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-22 Boxelder Ditch Packages A and B Use [ III . .... _ 3 a LEGEND 11 l a 1 ike;17 Historical ResourcesL Packages A & B Resource Impact 1, I 11 - � Total impacts to ditch : 137.5 feet J Packages A & B ROW Boundary III 5LR.2160.1 Property Boundary 11 11 'fir i Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert I Roadway Features E� Retaining Wall 11 11 i r-iii Parcel Boundaries �, Guardrails 11 11 Open ditch placed IIII inside extended culvert; r r ill 11 1 75 Linear Feet Impacted . • " II 11 y 1111 11 4%,.... w. II I II 11 • e 1I 1i Yi ' i Existing culvert :1 II ill ‘...., ,..._ .‘. . • • it ..- Illate E r_ -- 1----"E'I4ARMONY_RD i se Igillilla ‘fe----------------_j ,,.._ 1 '' rrr -• I; .r.: ,_. ir. , ; ET /. ., ,.. . ,„4„ +, .., . , 7 , i ,. ,_ , ,_ ,_. .__ , 1 I i . /_ a ...* AI _ ._ „. ., ....ii__ ___.. _ . , i I ' ' , i - • l = Existing culvert / .`t , ti _Fr- if/ , •i , i i •vil►� . ► I r Open ditch placed J. / - t inside new culvert; -\ / I 62.5 Linear Feet Impacted I Location Map I I r I \ . 7 _ - I 0 300 � _ . _ .. _ = .. IMIMli 1 Feet 1/4 North Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-70 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Loveland and Greeley Canal (5LR.503.2) Description Location: Crosses project corridor at various points in the vicinity east of I-25 along US 34 Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Loveland and Greeley Canal by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 70 feet, or less than 1%, A total of 70 feet, or less than 1%, of total ditch length in culvert of total ditch length in culvert extension extension Resource Description The canal was originally built in 1861. The entire canal is approximately 31 miles long. Two documented segments are in the project APE. Segment 5LR.503.2 of the historic Loveland and Greeley Canal crosses I-25, as well as the parallel frontage road, and is 2.62 miles long. The canal is approximately 39 feet wide and 26 feet deep. During the construction of I-25 in the 1960s, the original canal alignment was preserved but the integrity of the canal in this location was compromised by placing it within a concrete box culvert under the highway. The three-sided, pre-cast concrete box culvert measures 23 feet wide and 402.6 feet long. Both banks of the canal are grass-covered, and riprap is used for bank stabilization in many areas. The area surrounding the canal segment includes retail and residential development. The earthen ditch segment 5LR.503.4 follows the historic channel alignment through the old town area of Loveland. The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Eligibility Determination In 1984, the Loveland &Greeley Canal was evaluated by the OAHP as NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important contribution to agricultural development in the Loveland area. The Loveland and Greeley Canal is nearly 150 years old and evokes the historic agricultural era and conveys the important contribution that irrigation canals made to local history. Segment 5LR.503.2 retains physical integrity except where it was placed in a culvert beneath I-25. Segment 5LR.503.4 retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4()Use Package A Segment 5LR.503.2: Package A involves the widening of I-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing three general purpose lanes in each direction for a total of six traffic lanes. Although more mainline travel lanes would be constructed on I-25, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way without affecting the existing culvert conveying the canal underneath the highway. A new US 34 interchange northbound I-25 on-ramp would be constructed outside the existing highway right- • of-way and would cross the Loveland and Greeley Canal east of the existing culvert opening. The existing box culvert must be extended an additional 70 feet on the east side of I-25 and the northbound I-25 on-ramp would be built over the top of the new extended culvert. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-71 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Construction of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment . access. The ditch would likely be diverted temporarily during culvert construction but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from construction-related sedimentation. The 70-foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under Package A would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment. This change would affect only a fraction of the 31-mile-long channel, and would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible. Segment 5LR.503.4: None of the proposed improvements would cause changes to this historic property. The 70-foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under Package A would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment. Because this change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minim's pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-23 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Segment 5LR.503.2: Package B involves the widening of I-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. Although more lanes would be constructed, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way with the exception of a new US 34 to north-bound I-25 on-ramp. Effects to the historic canal would the same as would occur under Package A, and involves extending the existing three-sided concrete box culvert beneath I-25 an additional 70 feet to the east to accommodate the proposed new I-25 on-ramp. Temporary impacts due to construction of the US 34 ramp and installation of the new culvert would be the same as Package A. • Although 70 feet of canal with integrity on the east side of I-25 would be placed in a culvert extension, this change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render the canal eligible for the NRHP; therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minim's pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-23 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B The northbound on-ramp was shifted closer to the I-25 mainline in order to avoid encroachment on the Centerra Shopping Center on the northeast quadrant of the I-25/US 34 interchange. This design change also resulted in a shorter length of the ditch being subject to direct uses. No other minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures were possible. Mitigation Measures for the Loveland and Greeley Canal • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-72 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-23 Loveland and Greeley Canal Package A & B Use { 4 LEGEND Historical Resources • Packages A & B Resource Impact I elli, . Packages A & B ROW Boundary ■ I Ili 5LR.503.2 Property Boundary ■ 1, ill : IPackages EOP I.—. Bridge / Culverts Roadway Features FU Retaining Wall II:, I I i = Parcel Boundaries A.A. Guardrails ■ h • T ,. }}.. r J. ky. Fi- i . r, nil • s I . t 0 1 * . F� • I . . ■ s e w , 1\ 1\ . : :-:°' -t • ' w, .�T - Existing culvert ■ ii ' , Ida. g. .1� t 1 1 • . .... Open ditch placed inside extended culverts; , • 70 Linear Feet Impacted i - - ' � P il 7 . .., ,.-Tre"----- t • .k. • i r . ,...., . ,, ,_,_ „T.- 14, _ _ . ._ ;_ , i it '. - „__ / • f y — / - Ws, ..14- • if i . . =.1 • r / �; _ _ . ' `i ,.. , , , , !cf.. • , - ii:. 11.1 Location Ma --- - � �'- r 6 P . . t. R • r 0 200 l � I Feet � .. North 2 - - i ' i 3 4 Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-73 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. Farmers Ditch (5LR.8928.1) • Description Location: US 34, immediately east of I-25/US 34 interchange Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Farmers Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 2,539 linear feet or 3% of A total of 2,539 linear feet or 3% the total ditch length would be placed of the total ditch length would be inside culvert extensions placed inside culvert extensions Resource Description This irrigation ditch was originally built in 1864. The entire Farmers Ditch is approximately 15 miles long. Three segments of the ditch are present within the APE (see Figure 5-24). Segment 5LR.8928.1 of the Farmers Ditch crosses I-25 parallel to US 34 in the vicinity of the I-25 and US 34 interchange. Here, the earthen canal is approximately 16 feet wide and 1.49 miles long. The levees and banks along both sides of the ditch are grass- covered. The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Segment 5LR.8928.2 is the portion of the irrigation ditch located west of I-25 and within the northeast quadrant of the interchange where Farmers Ditch crosses US 34. The ditch has been lined with concrete and realigned • and modified by commercial development and construction of I-25 and US 34. The segment is 1.8 miles long. Segment 5LR.8928.7 of the historic Farmers Ditch generally runs perpendicular to I-25 and crosses the proposed Package A commuter railway alignment. The earthen ditch is 151 feet long and 9 feet wide. Grassy vegetation lines both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes industrial and residential development. Eligibility Determination The entire Farmers Ditch (5LR.8928) is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.7 retain visual and structural integrity within a semi-rural setting, and both segments support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5LR.8928.2 of Farmers Ditch has been modified to the point that its remaining features no longer support the eligibility of the entire resource. Section 4(0 Use Package A Segment 5LR.8928.1: Under Package A, the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a concrete box culvert would be conveyed an additional 65 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overly the ditch culvert. Figure 5-25 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway improvements would result in temporary occupancy of the ditch. A temporary construction easement may be acquired. Segment 5LR.8928.2: The Farmers Ditch segment 5LR.8928.2 runs parallel to the north side of US 34 until it reaches the west frontage road of I-25, where it flanks the north side of that roadway as an open ditch for several hundred feet. The ditch enters a pipe where it crosses underneath the west frontage road, 1-25, and I- • 25 ramps. The ditch remains underground inside a culvert pipe until it daylights at the east frontage road. Under the Package A improvements, direct use of the ditch would occur in four places along this ditch segment. Direct uses would occur at two locations on the west side of I-25 where this historic ditch parallels the north Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.74 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 US information. cooperation transportation. • side of US 34. Approximately 1,225 feet of open ditch west of, and an 1,090-foot-long stretch of open ditch east of Rocky Mountain Avenue lies within the proposed wider US 34 roadway template. The open ditch would be encased inside an underground pipe to allow construction of the wider pavement and side slope. Two direct uses would occur on the east side of I-25. These include a 115-foot-long portion of open ditch on the northeast quadrant of the I-25/US 34 interchange, which would require the ditch to be encased inside a culvert beneath the proposed new northbound I-25 on-ramps. A short distance farther to the east, the same ditch flows under US 34 inside a concrete box culvert. Proposed widening of the US 34 roadway in this location would require culvert extensions of approximately 44 feet on the north side of US 34 and 65 feet on the south side (5LR.8928.1) of US 34, totaling 109 feet more open ditch that would be conveyed inside a concrete culvert (see Figure 5-24). Segment 5LR.8928.7: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Ditch segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 would experience temporary construction impacts during culvert installation and highway construction activity. The direct impacts to these same segments cumulatively amount to 2,539 linear feet, or 0.48 mile, of open ditch, requiring placement inside underground pipes and box culvert extensions. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment in much of the I-25/US 34 interchange area has already been compromised by numerous culvert installations, realignments and other modifications, and no longer supports the qualities that make the entire ditch NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA, andCDOT have determined that the Package A transportation improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers Ditch (5LR.8928). It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Package B • Segment 5LR.8928.1: Under Package B, the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a concrete box culvert would be conveyed an additional 65 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overly the ditch culvert. Figure 5-26 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction impacts would be the same as Package A. Segment 5LR.8928.2: Package B improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange, as well as US 34 and the Rocky Mountain Avenue intersection, would result in very similar direct impacts to the historic Farmers Ditch as Package A. The proposed transportation improvements would result in temporary and direct impacts identical to those associated with Package A. The direct impacts to these same segments cumulatively amount to 2,539 linear feet, or 0.48 mile, of open ditch, requiring placement inside underground pipes and box culvert extensions. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B transportation improvements would result in a no adverse effectwith respect to the entire Farmers Ditch (5LR.8928). It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding At the US 34 Interchange, the roadway template has been minimized as much as possible, and has utilized retaining walls throughout the interchange system(i.e., along all ramps, I-25 and US 34) to avoid and minimize impacts to the Schmer Farm and other environmental resources. It is the least harmful design without lanes and changing the level of service of the interchange system. The interchange design has balanced many system issues to accommodate both highway to regional arterial roadway movements, directly connecting ramps, and accommodating local traffic movements with the least amount of impact not only to environmental resources but also to existing developments in the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants. • Section 40)Evaluation 5.75 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. All possible measures to minimize harm were taken to minimize impacts to other resources surrounding the I- • 25/US 34 interchange. These resources include McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park in the northwest quadrant, the historic Schmer Farm in the southwest quadrant, as well as wetlands located in all quadrants of the interchange. The wetland complex located in the northeastern quadrant of the interchange is classified as a moderate wetland function and value rating based on its association with an existing waterway, mature riparian zone, and high diversity of vegetative species, which provide food and habitat for various wildlife species. The wetland complexes in the remaining quadrants are comprised of three man-made detention ponds and one emergent wetland complex located adjacent to an irrigation ditch, all of which contain a /ow wetland function and value rating. Mitigation Measures for Farmers Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society/standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHP0 concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-76 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-24 Farmers Ditch Packages A and B Location Map Ill V . i .I - �. fir` / LEGEND sr wire. a 1,. .-�" -;—.,_ . %_:. , . . ' Historical Resources P.: A, - - Package A Resource Impact PackageAROWBoundary A:�-,d* ;�• ' : 5LR.8928.1 & 5LR.8928.2 Boundaries _ • r . , Location Map Boundary H Bridge/Culvert -- Roadway Features �O Retaining Wall - 5LR.8928.2 Guardrails • ..`�� = Parcel Boundaries �� ^" as • 'J' s . =t ) ti:'; • ' t' ' I I 1 • ..; , , ;.illt �j r * �_SK — . s f = s ' ' — 34 iI TT 1 � . �0 a E I . 1 I 'rni1 t, i ' I �I , r co 4 I It , , CD • vr, ; , J t y% I i Location Map,/ , l I Feet ! \ =-- - - E LCR 20E -- North .e: - 1� Y I • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-77 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-25 Farmers Ditch Package A Use II, { _ . , .. LEGEND s ' : - Y�i A Historical Resources 4 ..- \ MIII Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary /' _ 115 Linear Feet Impacted 5LR.8928.1 Property Boundary ., 100 J Package A EOP H Bridge /Culvert e . Roadway Features —U Retaining Wall -i' 1Linear Feet Impacted 1 Parcel Boundaries `J Guardrails _ A sir,c. , , T• ll r li gri .. i _i i - 1 ` 2. i •, s1 _j - • a{-1-. -� I 34 - . T W is .7)\\\\th: li a CI it -a;.... .."...7"..11;;PIMe . W 65 Linear Feet Impacted "ji1 tz___ .. +� _ I 1. kal-- "-- ..JJ ,4, Ili '1/4 —Y Air 4. ii _ ____ _ . -- '� 1,225 Linear Feet Impacted tIMIMP4'' . IL- I 1 1- 114 71.4:44Ire-1-1. :\riu...::41:11711...is: r � r�. _ f .\ . T -� �1 111__-_ -n - Or - - -- i " I .'4'?_ I s. r---- ±13 • w ,4 . - ei- i e;j- * 41 :=74.473H1 . a . *0 . : 141 ' _ 4 --Fii- Hk. _ all4( I e . w- . ' 1 �.. - pap us �s aiwit �. °3° ) 7 . 1 ,090 I ine<3r Feet Irnpt�ctecl --- � id 1 -., , . c .i ,:, '\N / 1 I I I . I p r.� �' / /' ., l -__. _ Location Map '=— -- -- .� .•.• , �_ • _Y - _ a , - .- 34 /\0 300 -- • A ImmImml Feet North Note: EOP Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-78 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-26 Farmers Ditch Package B Use LEGEND "lit , Historical Resources ` _ - �� - Package B Resource Impact 11 44 Linear Feet Impacted Package B ROW Boundary \\\ 1 al I 5LR.8928.1 Property Boundary . --,-sre 1 Package B EOP H Bridge / Culvert \ ' 115 Linear Feet Impacted \, 't'i Roadway Features Min 9 . � Retainin VVaII 1 , ... ` Parcel Boundaries 4♦ Guardrails kI, ( `A ' li rffr IN flr • . , t \ -_r _ .4t 1 J - ..... 10 ilk It' r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ '�_•/ lip 65 Linear Feet Impacted — ti.� 1 ' / , _ �• _ _r • ots1_ 7 ,Ifiallae Iii_ .., T ii .� � - a ;d1 46 • iks, , ritt / .7. ri . 1225 Linear Feet Impacted - ,,r,i Ira tr .. ,__,; .1 ONO,' 'Ns, ---.-..- .-----""•—v=1 c 4 .- , Wes. - - -- - 's - itie: F---ti N NOM 4 1 , +. y�„ �1 a -� � .. i ( C 34 -ab. tie.- a► -- 1--/ I AL' V:- 1090 Linear Feet Impacted / ~ ..� .,� 1_,_ ,' 1. 1 ! r. . .) ,r1 _ Location Maps le _ itita =�"A ._ ........ r—>i_ X34 0 300Feet ,... T T T Tlir i North • L :„...,,, ,.., Note: EOP-Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-79 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Schmer Farm (5LR.11209) • Description Location: 5464 E. US 34 Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect No adverse effect Finding: Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Schmer Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 6.61 acres, or 5.3% of the A total of 7.0 acres, or 5.6% of the total acreage of the historic farm total acreage of the historic farm subject to direct use, including an subject to direct use, including an approximately 1,800-foot by 124- approximately 1,800-foot by 134- foot strip (5.09 acres) of farmland foot strip (5.48 acres) of farmland incorporated into new elevated and incorporated into new elevated and at-grade ramps, and 1.52 acres for at-grade ramps, and 1.52 acres for construction of new access from US construction of new access from US 34 to the frontage road leading to 34 to the frontage road leading to • the Schmer farmhouse and the Schmer farmhouse and businesses on the southwest corner businesses on the southwest of the interchange. corner of the interchange. Resource Description The Schmer Farm is located at 5464 East US 34 and dates to the early 1900s. The property is a fairly complete example of a Larimer County farm from the turn of the century. The 124-acre farm is operational and includes a well-preserved farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings. Eligibility Determination This historic farm is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A because of its association with early agriculture around the Loveland area, including sugar beet cultivation. It is also NRHP-eligible under Criterion C for containing excellent examples of agricultural architecture. Section 4(0 Use Package A This historic farm would be directly used by proposed improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with Package A. Direct uses of the site would occur in two locations, including along the east edge of the site as well as a small area on the northern edge of the property. One direct use would result from the construction of new interchange ramps, including a long curving ramp from westbound US 34 to southbound I-25, and a new southbound on-ramp from eastbound US 34 on the southwest quadrant of the interchange, which replaces the existing loop ramp. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.80 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Land acquired from the farm would provide the foundation for support piers for the new elevated flyover ramps between US 34 and I-25. Additionally, land would be acquired from the farm to allow construction of fill slopes used to support the widened highway lanes and near-grade ramps located just west of the existing southbound on-ramp. Farmland acquisition related to construction of these new ramps would create direct impacts to as many as 5.14 acres of land along the east edge of the property. Another small area of direct use would occur west of the farmhouse, where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse, gas station, and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange. A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be used in this location. The combined 6.61 acres of open farmland subject to direct use under Package A amounts to approximately 5.3 percent of the total 124-acre area occupied by this historic farm. No direct impacts to the historic farm building complex along US 34 would occur under Package A. Indirect effects include the on-ramp, which would bring westbound US 34 traffic directly to southbound I- 25.It would be elevated 30 feet higher than the existing highway feature in the area and introduce an additional transportation element into the setting of the Schmer Farm. Transportation features have been part of the rural atmosphere and setting of the Schmer Farm since the 1960s, when I-25 and US 34 were completed. The new indirect effects to the farm setting would not substantially impair the function, setting, or architectural qualities that render the farm NRHP-eligible. The farm would remain operational and would be protected from encroachment during construction. Because the transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to • make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-27 for uses associated with Package A. Packaae B Uses resulting from Package B transportation improvements are similar in nature to those expected under Package A. This historic farm would be directly impacted by proposed improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with Package B. Direct impacts to the site would be slightly more than in Package A because of the additional managed lanes on I-25, creating a slightly wider highway footprint. Farmland acquisition related to construction of these new ramps would create direct impacts to 5.48 acres of land along the east edge of the property. Another small area of direct use would occur west of the farmhouse, where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse, gas station, and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange. A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be used in this location. The combined 7.0 acres of open farmland subject to direct use under Package B amounts to approximately 5.6 percent of the total 124-acre area occupied by this historic farm. No direct impacts to the historic farm building complex along US 34 would occur under Package B. Indirect effects would be the same as Package A. Because the transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-28 for uses associated with Package B. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-81 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B Options to the directional interchange mainline ramps to identify alignment and measures to minimize harm have been evaluated. Traffic analysis indicated that there was some flexibility in phasing the directional ramp improvements to address the movements that are critical to maintaining the operational capacity of the diamond interchange at I-25/US 34. The eastbound-to-northbound flyover ramp would likely have required the removal of the Schmer Farm buildings on the south side of US 34. The original design also involved an on-ramp to southbound I-25 departing from the elevated US 34 flyover that would have caused direct use of the east edge of the Schmer Farm. It was confirmed that the eastbound-to- northbound directional ramp could be eliminated and an adequate level-of-service for 2030 traffic volumes could still be provided. As such, this modified design is serving as a measure to minimize harm for this property. This would result in a $40 million cost reduction. Mitigation Measures for Schmer Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Work with SHPO during final design to formulate acceptable aesthetic treatment of highway ramps and flyways (facades, pier treatments, elevation changes, landscaping, etc.). • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-82 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 Nil October 2008 EIS r information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-27 Schroer Farm Package A Use LEGEND ta ri r , ._, . .,_ Historical Resources I 1 l ?,, y ,� t 1 P• ackage A Resource Impact 4 ,r ,I_ ,Package A ROW Boundary -t., + �.. 5LR.11209 Property Boundary \ .1 Package A EOP �■ Bridge Guardrails ' . - i \ Retaining Wall p .. i:. - . .. . - , ' Roadway Features F� 9 � -� .. � \ Parcel Boundaries `A Guardrails lai OW .A —.11" 1 :, i reN "4 " - —r it I of .. . II I • • . , • r a r 1 , ....., ., . , , , r,,,,... 4 ;161 .;b . f . I \ : t . tr . r _ - / t / Area = 66,347 Sq. Ft i \ • Acres = 1.52 is, , - , ;1 I 1,‘ if i 11 1 • h . 2/1 I i III i i I I i , II I I I i i pi f r Area = 221,661 Sq. Ft I i III I ' Acres = 5.09 i j 1- ' ` 7 rlr _....,. f, °� I -- et,- ' ri" - ` - A+ � ' Indirect effect to farm setting caused I i by elevated ramp structures. jI: ; ."7"." 4; it " r Ramps would be at least 30 feet ' 1i +it"lit higher than existing roadways. h I Jiag' i ' . t I . �• j--ti 4IRT ' . �: :t.t-yetc '-_,. _ � lilL rr,'F� ='�-� •• - I 25 Location Map:;',, "S. - �- - - - rt .-4 IIIIIIIIIIjMIIIuI1 E LC 20E 7\1 - Ill{ llli`,liiIU( � 0 400 a . kr, ' VI tr 1 ,. I ' I Feet North Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-83 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-28 Schmer Farm Package B Use , 4- - . .mot. � � 111 LEGEND Historical Resources ; -� ' �:. _ . I - Package B Resource Impact •� ' , ty 1i� Package B ROW Boundary i ; *111 5LR.11209 Property Boundary b ',40,12.. .rif.rf'• •` e ` � ► 'I I ,. Package B EOP Bridge Guardrails �' t i:. x� - II ' H " Roadway Features �y Retaining Wall ;i .2 . i sd �� b . - - M 4.Parcel Boundaries `1 Guardrails li _ - - - _ _ _ -- __, 11( ',. 111:1110 0-- • f ,i f siii 4 I 11 II � ' i1 N I Area = 66,302 Sq. Ft � '\ . I \1' I Acres = 1.52 I I ./ fi 1 it ', ' l II II - . ) , . ,, i i :! ,1 i I Ii i • i iAl Area =238,569 Sq. Ft �, I �! il • -'-'' t :hi Acres = 5.48 ff . , -_4� I II I lI 'i P I , ` I i 1 if • _ - ! Indirect effect to farm setting caused by 141! I ) i I '� ! elevated ramp structures. r 4 7 Ramps would be at least 30 feet higher 1 ' ' rc �� ( i LtttoatwaY .. is I - , _ II ® 1t ,t Location Map , z • p 400 Vnv ,� _R E LCR 20E .. ,i,I 11111' 11:P `II L� I Feet North //o n t h 4 '� ;.4 . , I l 1011110411 I I u ,IIl.11i1I iv �i Note: E0P—Edge of Pavement I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-84 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Great Western Railway (5LR.850) Description Location: T5N/R68W, C Sec, 15 Type: Historic railroad Section 106 Effect No adverse effect Finding: Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Great Western Railway by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 170 feet, or less than 1%, A total of 240 feet, or less than 1%, of total railroad length incorporated of total railroad length incorporated into a new bridge into a new bridge Resource Description The total length of the entire historic Great Western Railway(GWR) is 110 miles. Six segments of the GWR resource in Larimer, Weld, and Boulder counties pass through the North I-25 EIS APE. The 15.7-mile-long GWR Loveland to Buda section (5LR850) was built in 1902 to 1903 by the Loveland Construction Company and contains Larimer County segments 5LR.850.1 and 5LR.850.5, as well as Weld County segment 5WL.841.11. Segment SLR.850.1 is approximately 1,241 feet long. The GWR is conveyed • over I-25 in this portion of the APE by a non-historic bridge. Segment 5LR.850.5 is approximately 551 feet long. Segment 5WL.841.11 is the first end-of-track point for the Loveland to Buda section, and the portion within the project APE is 784 feet long. The GWR Johnstown to Liberty section was built in 1905 to 1906 and is 12 miles long. Within the APE in Weld and Boulder counties, this section contains segments 5WL.841.9 and 5BL.841.1. Segment 5WL.841.9 is 1,241 feet long, and Segment 5WL.841.1 is 784 feet long. The Boulder County segment(5BL.514.1) of the GWR Johnstown to Longmont section was constructed in 1903 and is approximately 2.1 miles long. Eligibility Determination The entire GWR in Larimer County (5LR.850), Weld County (5WL841), and Boulder County (SBL.514), is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important role in the economic development of the Colorado Front Range. All of the segments passing through the APE (5LR.850.1, 5LR.850.5, 5WL.841.11, 5WL.841.9, 5WL.841.1, and 5BL.514.1) retain sufficient integrity of location and association to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource; however, those portions of the railroad spanning I-25 have been modified and have lost integrity of design and workmanship by being placed on a bridge during the 1960s. Section 4()Use Package A Segment SLR.850.1: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans I-25 via a non-historic 210-foot-long steel girder railroad bridge. Package A involves the widening of I-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing three general purpose lanes in each direction, or a total of six traffic lanes. To accommodate this wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over I-25 with a 295-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 85 feet longer than the existing structure spanning I-25. The proposed • new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-85 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. In order to replace the existing bridge with a longer structure, it would be necessary to construct a • temporary"shoo-fly"structure, whereby a section of railroad would be temporarily re-aligned to cross I-25 on the north side of the existing railroad bridge. This measure would prevent a disruption in rail service, while the old bridge is demolished and the new bridge structure is being constructed in its place. A new rail crossing would be constructed north of the existing bridge. The shoo-fly structure would require altering the existing historic railroad grade at either end of the existing bridge (approximately 85 feet at each end to provide a smooth transition to the new alignment), curving to form the bypass of the existing bridge. Once the latter step has been completed, the shoo-fly would be removed, and rail traffic would be restored to its historic east-west alignment. The bridge replacement under Package A would place an additional 85 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of I-25 on a bridge, only 170 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be used by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans I-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP (see Figure 5-29). Segment 5WL.841.11: In this location, the existing I-25 northbound and southbound roadways span this historic railroad with twin 82-foot-long, 38-foot-wide concrete slab bridges (C-17-CE and C-17-CD). Neither bridge is historic. Under Package A, the northbound and southbound roadways would be realigned to the west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing three general purpose lanes in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new pre- stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures that would be approximately 24 feet wider and 79 feetlong. The old bridges would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway so that no direct use would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained. Removing the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and regrade slopes within the railroad right-of-way and would result in a temporary occupancy. Segment 5LR.850.5: This rail line would remain in its current historic alignment and would continue to tie into the railroad mainline corridor west of Cleveland Avenue that would contain the proposed commuter rail line. No direct use of the historic railroad ballast, bed, and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not to be expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Segment 5WL.841.9: Under Package A, the I-25 northbound and southbound roadways would be re- aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be widened from two lanes to three general purpose lanes in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures that would be 82feetlong and 63to 75 feet wide,. The old (but non-historic) 103-foot long, 38-foot wide rolled I-beam bridges (D-17-DB and D-17-DA) which spanned the railroad would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, so that no direct use would occur. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges, thus the railroad would have an additional 62 feet of overhead cover. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained. Removing the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way and would • result in a temporary occupancy. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the highway bridges. This increased overhead cover due to the new bridge decks would not result in a direct use. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.86 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooFeration. transportation. • Segment 5BL.514.1: The commuter rail improvements in this area call for the addition of a dedicated commuter rail track parallel to the existing commercial railroad track. In all cases the existing rail line would remain in its current historic alignment. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed, and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but that is not expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Approximately 170 feet of railroad track at Segment 5LR.850.1 would experience a direct use as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction occupancy and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). New commuter rail track along the transportation corridor would contribute to modern but compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting at two locations(5BL.514.1 and SLR.850.5). Because the use of these segments associated with the proposed Package A transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effectwith respect to the entire GWR in Larimer, Weld, and Boulder counties (5LR.850, 5WL.841, and 5BL.514). It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-29 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Segment 5LR.850.1: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans I-25 via a (non-historic) 210-foot- long steel girder railroad bridge. Package B involves widening of I-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. To accommodate • this much wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over I-25 with a 330-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 120 feet longer than the existing structure spanning I-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge. Similar to Package A, construction of a shoo-fly would be needed during construction. The bridge replacement under Package B would place an additional 240 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure relatively similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of I-25 on a bridge, 240 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be altered by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans I-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP. Segment 5WL.841.11: Under Package B, this section of 1-25 is in the transition zone between a highway section containing two general purpose lanes with one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction, to a wider section containing two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The northbound and southbound roadways would be realigned to the west of their current alignments, and these new roadways would span the historic railway on two new pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures similar to those proposed for Package A that would be approximately 70 feetwider and 79 feetlong. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, and no direct use would occur. The old bridges would be demolished. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained, and no direct use would result. Removing the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting. However, the new bridges • would place an additional 140-foot-long portion of the railway underneath the new bridge decks. This increased overhead cover due to the wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Section 4(0 Evaluation 5-87 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Segment 5WL.841.9: Under Package B, the northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned • approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing two general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadway alignments would span the historic railway on new 82-foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges, thus the railroads would have an additional 62 feet of overhead cover. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, and no direct use would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained. Removing the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and regrade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place an additional portion of the railway underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to the wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however,; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Approximately 240 feet of railroad track at Segment 5LR.850.1 would be directly impacted as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction occupancy and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). Because the impacts to these segments associated with the proposed Package B transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer and Weld counties (5LR.850 and 5WL.841). It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-30 for uses associated with Package B. • Planning and Measures Included to Reach a Be Minimis Finding Package A The bridge for Package A can not be reduced in lengthbecause a retaining abutment that is the minimum distance allowed from the edge of I-25 is already included in the design. All measures to reduce impact have been considered. Package B The bridge for Package B cannot be reduced in lengthbecause a retaining abutment that is the minimum distance allowed from the edge of I-25 is already included in the design. All measures to reduce impact have been considered. Mitigation Measures for the Great Western Railway • Permanent easements or acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain rail operations during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-88 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-29 Great Western Railway Package A Use LEGEND 1 e Historical Resources t J{ �� • - j Package A Resource Impact i Package A ROW Boundary f' - 5. ii 5LR.850.1 Property Boundary ::: _' .• ' • ;' 1* Package A EOP H Bodge / Culvert 25 }. Roadway Features N..�. Retaining Wall ` Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails t ' ID } r `' I Y I tr. 1 ii r ai.il� 7 I i !' I•; ‘ Location of existing bridges i I A 1 ` I re- .- , -at a —...' see— - - •_-. ..F r - t n • • 7 , . �. ; -. —E LCR 20E ' IS . 4..ar'.. iv :, = s,_A .i 4. i _my ._.�a °i : tilt+. ' .3.. r• - GIY • r • F ( r ill I 1 J • "iii -� r = . �';�ti '�', 85 Linear Feet Impacted ; 85 Linear Feet Impacted 2... ' i ', for . . , • c - a T vie.. • qr 4 f� , r' I r r \ t r , , ., ; . ..., , , . Jrj * . - ;� , = j I New bridges would replace the existing bridges over the -� • �-� y w I , railway. • To construct the new bridges, a "shoo-fly' structure /` .+ ' would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the N. • = •1 •I �' north side of the exsting bridges. �; i _is!, � ,•. !i The track impacted by this 'shoo-fly' are indicated in red. F� 1 • 1.. . ,.._. .. 1 : . —7 11/4 77", , , '"iirliS '. ocatioAi l Map •_ fr, I • I ? a 1 200 ^ i . _ imei I Feet North w ?i • 4 . (� , I Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement 41 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-89 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-30 Great Western Railway Package B Use . . i, a LEGEND a '1 Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5LR.850.1 Property Boundary - Package B EOP a.. Bridge /Culvert _ i r f , Roadway Features •i Retaining Wall ® :11, -- - - ' h K,-T4. i Parcel Boundaries `J Guardrails - ,. ., ,I ... e i : ... . , . . ta, ill . o • . .. ‘ itilik .; I , • I . iiiiimir h. y � 1 - - ' Location of existing bridges li 1 _ ✓ i t w kir I" + Rt.-dieMIWNNIIetc 11 - : , b , i . -..... _mil..: .MI ti A -- 120 Linear Feet Impacted - 120 Linear Feet Impacted I a .r eir "" (: V . % ! 4 'flat A - [ New bridges would replace the existing bridges over the F ..,r . ,7 railway. �* r Q-aj" To construct the new bridges, a "shoo-fly' structure r i 'l would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the *+" '— •. I _T north side of the exsting bridges. - Y-' i / �' The track impacted by this "shoo-fly" are indicated in red. i ,, !_()cation Map r Fa 200 t , �J 11 ct I Ft North Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement 4 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-90 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Hatch Farm (5LR.11382) Description Location: 640 Southeast Frontage Road Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion C Use of Hatch Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 2.1 acres, or 2% of total A total of 2.2 acres, or 2% of total property, by incorporation of narrow property, by incorporation of narrow 850-foot and 450-foot strips of farmland 850-foot and 450-foot strips of farmland for two water quality ponds in the for two water quality ponds in the project project Resource Description The Hatch Farm is located at 640 Southeast Frontage Road in Larimer County. This property includes a historic balloon-framed barn, which is unique for this area. The barn was constructed circa 1920. The barn is surrounded by farmland. Eligibility Determination • The significance of the Hatch Farm is attributed to the architecture of the barn. The barn retains very good architectural integrity, is an excellent example of a specialized type and construction method of agricultural architecture, and has been determined to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Section 4(0 Use Package A Under Package A, the existing I-25 template in this vicinity would be changed from the existing two general purpose lanes in each direction, to a wider footprint containing three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment approximately 50 feet east of its current edge of pavement. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, Package A design includes construction of two water quality ponds on the east side of I-25, extending into this historic property. Ponds in this area were placed to avoid wetlands and Section 4(f)- protected parkland along the Big Thompson River. The northernmost water quality pond would extend nearly 300 feet into the historic property and would occupy an area approximately 0.9 acre in size. The southernmost pond would extend approximately 104 feet into the historic property and would occupy an area approximately 1.2 acres in size. Together, these ponds would use approximately 2.1 acres of land within the site boundary, or approximately two percent of the area of the 106.78-acre historic farm property. The proposed water quality ponds would be visually unobtrusive. Because the historic barn would not be directly used by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with Package A would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-31 for uses associated with Package A. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-91 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cocceration. transportation. Package B • Under Package B, the existing I-25 template in this vicinity would be altered to include two general purpose lanes and two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment approximately 65 feet east of the current edge of pavement. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, the Package B design specifies the construction of two water quality ponds on the east side of I-25, extending into this historic site. The northernmost water quality pond would extend nearly 286 feet into the historic property and would occupy an area approximately 0.87 acre in size. The southernmost pond would extend approximately 91 feet into the historic property and would occupy an area approximately 1.33 acres in size. Together, these ponds would use approximately 2.2 acres of land within the site boundary, or approximately two percent of the area of the 106.78-acre historic farm property. Because the historic barn on the Hatch Farm property would not be directly used by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with Package B would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-32 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A No minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures are currently possible because of the requirement of locating water quality ponds on the east side of I-25 while avoiding uses of the Big Thompson riparian corridor and wetlands. All measures to reduce impact have been considered. Package B • No further minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures are currently possible because of the requirement of locating water quality ponds on the east side of I-25 while avoiding uses of the Big Thompson riparian corridor and wetlands. All measures to reduce impact have been considered. Mitigation Measures for the Hatch Farm • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-92 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-31 Hatch Farm Package A Use Ha MI l l _ t l t I Willi X 1 11 1 1( - ... _ - . .f LEGEND Historical Resources = - 1 ) . lag' Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary • ' rf 5LR.11382 Property Boundary '" �� ,f`, t ,v\rilig l Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails i A y Roadvny Features U■ Retaining Wall : •` Parcel Boundaries L, Guardrails `_ -ghat _, Dilligissor OE '-:gm .jr . " , _., , ;.,...af,: - 4,7.,,,, ,..._ , _. . • I ) 1 � ct l:, l sa- r 1 r iii _et--oil 4. a 10 I • • .4 ; �� rilffirrica is • ri„. it .- ... it iks .o► Yt lit OP Itilltar k `' ! . . . . it-. e 4 a It .,, 0- !' h - 4. ' , • - IV" i . - iire , et40: � ' 1 Area = 39,096 Sq. Ft Acres = 0.9 "� r --r..,`, - r i i lilt 11�a • ip nit , , < i ./ Area = 52,292 Sq. Ft 6Y-1 Dr / :st Acres = 1 .2 � 1 �Z •• l..• Al .' r.- n 4� _ .� +r .,, s. .�• R Sf A7 , . - :- .tf Location Map's— — �► riot . illiii t -----� 4 et tir - 0, Vii.' 4 41 tiw,y• . a 0 300 u Feet ` ... i 4 North � �" 3 Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-93 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-32 Hatch Farm Package B Use II.1 .,. 1111111111. I II - .. _ • - - -- LEGEND ' liii Historical Resources ■ • *-,.II I . !' Package B Resource Impact s ,� - Package B ROW Boundary • �I • : � ," r� 5LR 11382 Property Boundary I '3 1 Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails i ` 1 Roadway Features U—U Retaining Wall I • _ . Parcel Boundaries S A Guardrails • I _. AI-1St SINSAINIMISISI IIIIW IJ 1 _ r • • . .. . . ..._iitiii . -,. . . III iv . .....E LCR 20E c ! • t► W� ; b , • 7 6 Wt y r '�1� I E In i I 1 Il+ c tab alai . ' ,.'1 i 1 _,. • 1.‘ .' . 4* H jfr . - ' II' tr. t_. __ l , C 4. •it ,�� 11 • •• t .. ....• ll 1 • OF • 411 i : If rVirillitt . 4fe gle% e rt. el "Atiiil ______; i Jett lajp vat 111 , 1. ` 1" i 0 ,1: _a.ar totes it oid - el, . ,I.• �eifil, Area = 38,114 Sq. Ft - ` Acres = 0.87 1 . . . - - . . _ ,-t ff \i 1 j_ 1 t 1 - -- -i % i AC % let. Yr (fro, 1* . ' . Vi, Po"' w .N. '. it # \ Illb t • 4 Area = 57,774 Sq. Ft Location _Map ,,--- u . .4 diiillourbekt Acres = 1 .33 — 4 * * 4 a. 4 r 0 300 Q t°' � 4 a Ito11�111 ml I Feet ; St Northttia •: III Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-94 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927.1) Description Location: North I-25 1.3 miles south of US 34 Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Hillsboro Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 135 feet or 6% of total A total of 135 feet or 6% of total ditch length would be incorporated ditch length would be incorporated into culvert extensions into culvert extensions Resource Description This segment of the historic Hillsboro Ditch crosses I-25 just south of the I-25 and US 34 interchange. The irrigation ditch was constructed as one of the first cooperatively owned ditches in the area. The entire ditch (5LR.8927) is approximately 19.25 miles long. The documented segment in the project APE (5LR.8927.1) is 2,065 feet(0.4 mile) long. The ditch channel is approximately 20 feet wide. Sparse riparian growth covers both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area is primarily rural in character. • Eligibility Determination The entire Hillsboro Ditch is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Outside the I-25 right-of- way, this segment of the functioning ditch appears to maintain its historic alignment and its association with the rural landscape through which it runs. Segment 5LR.8927.1 within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(0 Use Package A Under Package A, I-25 would be expanded to eight lanes, containing three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The Hillsboro Ditch is presently conveyed underneath I-25 inside a modern concrete box culvert. The box culvert would be replaced with a new 135-foot-longe box culvert of the same cross-section dimensions, 14 feet wide and 14 feet tall. That portion of the Hillsboro Ditch already inside the I- 25 culvert has lost integrity. Widening of the I-25 southbound lanes, ramp, and the associated slopes under Package A would require 90 feet of land west of the existing road slope edge. This requires enclosing 90 feet of open ditch on the east side of I-25 in a new culvert to allow for the expanded highway construction. Similar widening of the highway and fill slopes along the northbound lanes requires that 45 feet of open ditch be enclosed in a culvert on the east side of I-25. A total of approximately 135 feet of open ditch would be subject to direct use from Package A transportation improvements. Construction of the concrete culverts would require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access, and would require a temporary easement. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from by construction-related sedimentation. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-95 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the pre-existing culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible. The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25-mile linear resource. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (SLR.8927). It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-33 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Package B improvements include an eight-lane I-25 facility and would contain two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. Direct uses of the Hillsboro Ditch associated with Package B are identical in nature and extent to those associated with Package A. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the pre-existing culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible. The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25-mile linear resource. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-33 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B Retaining walls were employed to limit uses on both the east and west sides of the I-25 corridor. Eliminating or reducing the width of medians between the northbound and southbound roadways of 1-25 and between I-25 and the east frontage road could minimize direct uses to the ditch. This minimization measure is not consistent with the intent to maintain a wider median for future transit needs, and • therefore, is not being utilized. No other avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures were possible. Mitigation Measures for the Hillsboro Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-96 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-33 Hillsboro Ditch Packages A and B Use II a - 1 LEGEND ■ Historical Resources Packages A & B Resource Impact ■ a Packages A & B ROW Boundary ■ rot 5LR.8927.1 Property Boundary ■ Packages EOP H Bridge /CuNert 9 Roadway Features M ■ Retaining Wall ■ r 7-04 Parcel Boundaries A,a, Guardrails ■ 4.1110 v , ■ 1 ■ I 4 ■lit i . • I ■ t. ■ Open ditch placed inside extended culverts ■ illy 4 . , ---AdLatikiiiiimiiiiisitutlitrt ._......,._ ... _= _nt . ‘,11 • i 4 . tip. ' .. : ". 4 i $ I ilk 90 Linear Feet Impacted �' 45 Linear Feet Impacted lt._ '�"twia"Q= \ . - I' AI • O • ■ i 5 i ■ = i .i ■ /' p , ■ I� I i1 / ■ ■ Location- ■ Map ■ • 0 200 //\N ■ IINS I Feet North ■ Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement S Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-97 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Mountain View Farm (5LR.11242) 4i Description Location: 5531 E. SH 402, Loveland Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A and C Use of Mountain View Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 4.76 acres, or 3.5%, of the A total of 5.28 acres, or 4%, of the property by incorporation of a 65-foot- property by incorporation of a 60-foot- by 3,200-foot-long strip of farmland by 3,900-foot-long strip of farmland adjacent to I-25 and SH 402 adjacent to I-25 and SH 402 Resource Description The Mountain View Farm is located at 5531 SH 402,just west of the I-25 and SH 402 interchange. The farm was originally patented in 1895 and contains a farmhouse and associated farm buildings. The total acreage of the farm is 136.22 acres. Eligibility Determination This historic farm is significant for its association with early agriculture in Larimer County, including sugar beet cultivation. The farmhouse and associated farm buildings retain good integrity, and are significant examples of agricultural architecture. For these reasons, the Mountain View Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Section 4()Use Package A This historic farm would experience a direct use associated with proposed improvement of the I-25/SH 402 interchange. Package A would realign the I-25 southbound off-ramp west of the existing off-ramp, and would require the acquisition of a 60- to 100-foot-wide strip of cultivated farmland at the east edge of the historic farm property to accommodate the proposed new off-ramp from southbound I-25 to SH 402. Another direct use would occur near the farmhouse as a result of widening along the north edge of SH 402 to add turn and through lanes at the off-ramp. The new width of roadway along SH 402 would convert a maximum of 100 feet of farm property at the intersection with the southbound off-ramp, tapering to a 20-foot wide strip of new transportation right-of-way near the driveway to the farmhouse. The highway overpass and ramp intersections would be approximately 22 feet above the highway at the bridge similar to the existing interchange configuration. However, Package A design necessitates extending the slope from the elevated overpass and ramp intersections westward to the existing grade of SH 402 much closer to the historic farm house than is the case with the existing interchange configuration. No historic buildings would experience a direct use from these transportation improvements. A temporary construction easement may be required along the western edge of the property to allow for haul roads, construction access, and/or staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope construction. No permanent use would be anticipated from this temporary construction occupancy of the farmland property. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-98 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. A total use of 4.76 acres of land would result due to open farmland being converted to paved roadway and fill slopes within the historic farm boundary. This area amounts to approximately 3.5 percent of the 136.22-acre farm. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minim's pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-34 for uses associated with Package A. Packaae B Anticipated direct use of the property under Package B is similar in character and extent to that expected from Package A improvements. A slightly larger portion of the farm would be incorporated into the project as a result of the realignment of the I-25 southbound off-ramp, and would require the acquisition of a strip of farmland. The additional impact over Package A results from the wider footprint required to accommodate the managed express lanes. A total area of 5.28 acres of land would be subject to direct impact. This area amounts to approximately 4 percent of the 136.22-acre farm. No historic buildings would be directly impacted by these transportation improvements. Therefore, it is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-35 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B The farm flanks the existing southbound lanes and off-ramp of I-25 at the junction of SH 402. The increased number of highway lanes included in Packages A and B would require widening of the I-25 footprint and a corresponding expansion westward of the I-25 off-ramp onto SH 402. This would result in an intrusion onto pasture and farmland along much of the I-25 frontage. The overall footprint of this new highway configuration • has incorporated a narrow center median to minimize the impact to the farmland. The ramp configuration is the most compact alignment and roadway width to meet safety and design standards for planned highway speeds. Impacts caused by expansion of SH 402 would result from wider toe slopes at the interchange and overpass. Because of the overpass height, the toe slopes would have a longer reach into the farm property. Retaining walls at the interchange were deemed not a feasible and prudent engineering design solution for this location because of the turning movements at the ramps, maintenance issues, and the non-urbanized setting of the interchange would pose a safety risk. Mitigation Measures for the Mountain View Farm Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-99 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-34 Mountain View Farm Package A Use 111 LEGEND r _ .1 Historical Resources 1 Package A Resource Impact = • Package A ROW Boundary 5LR 11242 Property Boundary - Jr Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails t Roadway Features ... Retaining Wall JParcel Boundaries S....J Guardrails -•,' A i ; J 3, i F t I IP 1 s! • 1111 . , 1. . , :, r i. t i --., Area = 207,442 Sq. Ft 0 Acres = 4.76 14411 . erai 1 - it'll/Alegi?. • � ' t' ti. .44 4I . Ili0 r nerd' . , , '.liar ' fknir,, 4. .. li I: t‘ / 44I till t - L; - -- ) a J I - t,t �, gir • 02 _ 1 ' ' it ____ _ �� - --_ - -� 11r /�. rr ` 1 _ .. fintipti, .... .i_.. oaf, lit ACz .cMtn�MaI ,, lb VN 0 400 0 I Feet North Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-100 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-35 Mountain View Farm Package B Use r r LEGEND , \ Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5LR. 11242 Property Boundary Package B EOP 'U Bridge Guardrails ri Roadway Features F. Retaining Wall WParcel Boundaries SJ Guardrails r :.,\ Iii r • $ • r , f 1 \ t \\ _ . . ._- . . . . .. . ....- • . .. ' . . \ 1 \ , Area = 230, 144 Sq. Ft 11 =Acres 5.28 , '` II`` Il I I4 -. , : \ \ \\\ 11 • � r ras. • 1 • 1111 / ti ;- ` ! 11 , h i, Al 11 / ' _____________r nita a�la_ --'" Location Ma/ ---i: gk, -4-# I., 7-- Map I 0 Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-101 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Bein Farm (5WL.5203) S Description Location: 3766 CR 48, Berthoud Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Bein Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Improvements: B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 17.94 acres, or 6.2%, of the A total of 20.04 acres, or 7%, of the property by incorporation of a 4,600-foot property by incorporation of a 4,600-foot by 150-foot strip of farmland adjacent to by 170-foot strip of farmland adjacent to I- I-25 and an 800-foot by 110-foot strip of 25 and an 800-foot by 110-foot strip of farmland adjacent to SH 60 farmland adjacent to SH 60 Resource Description The Bein Farm is located at 3766 CR 48 near the I-25 and SH 60 interchange. This property was owned by Fred Bein, a pioneer Berthoud stockman and farmer, and one of the most widely-known residents of the Berthoud community until his death in 1933. The property contains a variety of farm buildings constructed in the late 19th century. The total acreage of the farm is 288.45 acres. Eligibility Determination The Bein Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early ranching and farming in the Berthoud area during the late 19th century. Section 4()Use Package A This historic farm is located on the west side of the mainline of I-25, and on the southwest quadrant of the I-25/SH 60 interchange, both of which would be improved under Package A. Package A includes widening of I-25 in this area to accommodate three general purpose lanes in each direction. The proposed wider highway template would require the acquisition and permanent conversion of a 120-foot-wide, 5,600-foot- long strip of cultivated farmland west of the existing southbound I-25 lanes into new highway and slopes, resulting in a direct use. West of I-25, SH 60 would be widened to provide for a safe transition from the interchange ramps to the existing roadway section. The new SH 60 roadway would consist of four general lanes and turning lanes at the interchange, tapering back to two general lanes on the west side of the existing driveway to the farm building complex. The combined I-25 widening along the length of the Bein Farm, realignment of the southbound on-ramp from the SH 60 interchange, and the widening and reconfiguring of a tapered section of SH 60 on the west side of this interchange would cause direct impacts to 17.94 acres along the east and north edges of the property. This comprises approximately 6.2 percent of the historic farm's total 288.45 acres. No farm buildings would be directly impacted. There would be no change to the historic access to this property. The retaining wall along the southbound off-ramp is located on the opposite side of the interchange from the historic farm and would not result in a direct use of the property. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-102 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 111 The direct use of the historic farm building complex along SH 60 would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-36 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Package B calls for the widening of I-25 in this area to accommodate two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The resulting direct impacts from widening of I-25 would be similar to Package A, but Package B would require a slightly longer southbound I-25 on-ramp to better join with managed lanes of I-25 that occupy more land than the shorter Package A on-ramp. Impacts resulting from modifications to SH 60 are the same as Package A. Total direct impacts to the farm would be 20.04 acres along the east and north edges of the property, comprising approximately seven percent of the historic farm's total 288.45 acres. No farm buildings would be directly impacted. Because the direct and indirect impacts to the land within the historic farm building complex along SH 60 that would occur under Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-37 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B • The proposed design is an offset diamond interchange that incorporates southbound off- and on-ramps to and from I-25 that were shifted eastward toward the I-25 mainline in order to avoid use of the gasoline station/convenience store located on the northwest side of the I-25/SH 60 interchange. This configuration also reduces the size of the directly used area on the east edge of this historic farm. Mitigation Measures for the Bein Farm Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-103 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-36 Bein Farm Package A Use 4111 1 LEGEND des`_ -iv . y ` I"iptit‘ isI . \\I Historical Resources � 'k"" /4 t Y!. .. 1 ._ !III y Package A Resource Impact i. , Package A ROW Boundary p ' . _� _ = — ' 60 ' ' - 5WL.5203 Property Boundary -Y t ` I Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails j , ,,, Roadway Features ... Retaining Wall .3 v Guardrails - L. � Parcel Boundaries �� . �' ki I t i i / .. P.. N n i �, . ' r Y Pi /"• t F %7,1 E ! . le tt;,,,,ailater:sAlli 41 1 I�ticArea = 781,428 Sq. Ft Acres = 17.94 A. (LL — r r I - j - �i4 �_._ _ . ., - - I CO � �J ) 'I • , , I iiii ."' t...v «. R S . Location Map j 'Le liar ••. r-. , r • 0 700 t LmENISI Feet 0I I ' North ' • lir Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Ill Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-104 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-37 Bein Farm Package B Use LEGEND I a r k Historical Resources - Package B Resource Impactit "r L 1 _ L Package B ROW Boundary:: .r'" 1 �� 5WL.5203 Property Boundary Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails / Roadway Features �. Retaining Vlfall r 1 Guardrails t i / Parcel Boundaries `�• / v///4/ ? / c * / a ` / ?' i iI �; Area = 873,197 Sq. Ft Acres = 20.04 I I 'i I , . i II L re• A I I ^ ear- I I • 129 ,, , I i .1.6 . • / . 1 I l• i. Location Map ` f , !1 t , o goo I• mi==l Feet North I f. Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-105 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence (5WL.3149) • Description Location: 17820 East I-25 Frontage Road Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Improvements: B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 60 feet, or 2%, of total ditch A total of 60 feet, or 2%, of total ditch length incorporated into an culvert length, incorporated into an culvert extension extension Resource Description The ditch crosses I-25 along the south edge of CR 48 (SH 60) and is conveyed underneath the I-25 ramps and mainline highway lanes inside a 660-foot-long concrete culvert. The ditch confluence is 2,456 feet long, 20 feet wide, earthen, 5 feet deep, with rip-rapped banks. Handy and Home Supply ditches combine to flow into a concrete diversion gate that funnels water under SH 60, west of I-25. The grade drops off steeply eastward from I-25 into 3 drop boxes. Eligibility Determination The entire Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important , association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Segment 5WL.3149.1 fails to support the integrity of the greater site because it has been modified by recent development. Section 4() Use Package A Package A would require modification of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on- ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60 intersection turning radius, resulting in a direct use of the resource. The outfall of the 660-foot-long culvert similarly would require a 50-foot extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60, and modification of 10 feet of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on- ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60, resulting in a direct use of the resource. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 and frontage road, and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effectto the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-38 for uses associated with Package A. Pac/ e B Package B would require modification of 10 feel of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60 intersection turning radius. The outfall of the 660-foot-long culvert similarly would require a 50-foot extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60,resulting in a direct use of the resource. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-106 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of I-25 and the frontage road, and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effectto the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-38 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B The interchange configuration has been designed to provide an adequate level of service (LOS C) for local traffic and local-to-interstate connections by limiting interstate access and providing free-flowing turning access to ramps. Compressing the diamond interchange to move the southbound ramp close to mainline I-25 has reduced the ditch gate modifications to a very minimum impact. This consolidation along the westbound or southbound side has forced the east ramps out, resulting in a minimally acceptable distance (turning vehicles storage) between ramp intersection signals by design standard. Mitigation Measures for the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-107 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-38 Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence Use Packages A and B 1111 \I 1 x LEGEND r '- ." . Y _' . :11;,./tA Historical Resources -ii Packages A & B Resource Impact .y Packages A & B ROW Boundary 5WL.3149.1 Property Boundary : IN } Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert j. i' F, Roadway Features ■..�■ Retaining Wall I IIIa ". I Parcel Boundaries `� Guardrails ' 'fi ■ —, rs 1 , .i al V. , • ' , ; .. P . - • `i i II • Total new culvert New culvert intake grate modification , . would be 720 feet long Ik of approximately 10 feet ■ '' f I / r j . • c __ . i•k_t Olli4Firlillim im ■ 1 . ,. .. I r ,. . . ., _ , .1, .,. t�:. „, + y , Y ■ I • w _ I • i _ Existing culvert GGU feet long Lig. , 1 �_ _l '50 foot long culvert extensioah-An 9/k = 4 i • �. l DOj Y ,;, w • ,� 'f( b i I i NB•. '' ) / /1 . l i' 4,:,j:;f: II. { SB ', I I VI h /,1 Location Map I i I t ` 200 d �� Feet North - , • - , a r Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-108 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Olson Farm (5WL.5198) Description Location: 17820 East I-25 Frontage Road Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Olson Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Improvements: B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 12.74 acres, or 9%, of A total of 12.81 acres, or 9%, of property by incorporation of land from property by incorporation of land from both sides of I-25 both sides of I-25 Resource Description This historic farm is located at 17820 East I-25 Frontage Road near CR 38. The site contains various farm buildings, a reservoir, and farmland used by the Olson family who were early settlers in this area. The Ballinger Reservoir has an early water appropriation date from 1887, making it one of the early irrigation features in the area. The site boundary is based upon the historic boundary of the Olson Farm, and spans I- 25. The boundary encompasses 155.37 acres, although 13.7 acres comprising the existing CDOT I-25 right-of- way is considered a non-contributing portion of the site. • Eligibility Determination The Olson Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agriculture in Weld County. Section 4(t)Use Package A Under Package A, I-25 would be realigned and reconfigured for three general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing I-25 east frontage road would stay in its present alignment, including its crossing of CR 38, but the area needed for the frontage road turning lanes and paved shoulders would be widened along the west edge of the eastern portion of the Olson Farm property. Direct use of this portion of the site would be confined to an 8.75-acre strip of land 2,740 feet long and approximately 110 feet wide at CR 38 at the north end of the property and 30 feet wide at the south end. This impact corresponds to the new toe-of-slope for the east frontage road that would bury the farmland currently located adjacent to the frontage road. A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent any direct use of the Ballinger Reservoir(a contributing feature of the NRHP-eligible farm) that is located mid-way along the east side of the frontage road. A total of 3.99 acres of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to direct impacts under Package A. The total area subject to direct impacts under Package A is 12.74 acres, which comprises approximately nine percent of the total site area of 141.67 acres. Temporary occupancy due to installation of the new bridge across I-25, roadway widening, and the retaining wall at Ballinger Reservoir would likely require a temporary easement on portions of the historic property for equipment access, haul roads, and other construction activities. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-109 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Because of the site's bisection by the wide I-25 corridor, and the lack of direct impacts to the contributing historic farm buildings and reservoir, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effectto the Olson Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-39 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Under Package B, I-25 would be realigned and reconfigured for two general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated lane in each direction. Direct use of the site under Package B would be similar in nature to that associated with Package A. The slightly larger impact associated with Package B is due to the buffer associated with the buffer-separated lanes. An 8.82 acre of direct use would be confined to a strip of land 2,740 feet long and approximately 120 feet wide at CR 38 at the north end of the property and 30 feet wide at the south end. This impact corresponds to the new toe- of-slope for the east frontage road that would bury the farmland currently located adjacent to the frontage road. A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent direct impacts to the Ballinger Reservoir. A total of 3.99 acres of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to direct use under Package B. The total area subject to direct impacts under Package B is 12.81 acres, which would comprise approximately nine percent of the total site area of 141.67 acres. Because is bisected by the wide I-25 corridor, and the lack of direct impacts to the contributing historic farm buildings and reservoir, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Olson Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de Minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-40 for uses associated with Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A and B The proposed design for the I-25 corridor incorporates a small retaining wall placed along the east side of the • east frontage road for the purpose of limiting uses to Ballinger Reservoir, which is a contributing feature on this historic farm. Mitigation Measures for the Olsen Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-110 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 GIs �. information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-39 Olson Farm Package A Use LEGEND , Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary \ ,, t, 5WL.5198 Property Boundary Package A EOP Roadway Features F. Retaining Wall `` IParcel Boundaries `..A Guardrails �' :..y - J -_. _ _ VVCR 38 filillpill I P . ,/ 'A 1, _i ' - Sip . 2:1:4 . I ' .. --1 , . ,I _ :-> Area = 173,764 Sq. Ft / Acres = 3.99 a '' I : A 6+_ I _ I I Area = 381 ,085 Sq. Ft Acres = 8.75 1 ' . ta.it I 1 a� _ I • eis.. , i /.L � - 1 •\ II L 11 34. •-�;I I l / �' / qW ' io ! I e IT `t' i a — u try g r ' 11: :ret ti ♦ tit t, ,I / � 1 S+'r7 Oh r• r _ Location Map _ 1� wit/.. . 7: ' ' _ :_ • 0 400 W , - i 1 ll Feet IIIII1North ---ti •0 Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-111 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-40 Olson Farm Package B Use Il LEGEND \\ \ Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5WL.5198 Property Boundary Package B EOP --.Roadway Features N Retaining Wall IParcel Boundaries AS Guardrails \ \, : . . -,-- ..- WC 38 / - - - - - /.% / . ( r ! �� /�•• /• / ! . `/ .1 rl Area = 384,225 Sy. Ft I = Area = 173,7G6 Sq. Ft Acres = 3.99 �� ' : Acres = 8.82 � • I t• ._ .4, \.... , ..,,, , ,, . t 7.-... •A - - . I I,_________ ....,4 _. . lisacz,-. \ • . .. is iiip- . . L R • 3 j r�1 i L.rs L I I M �� 1 .y . 1 7 f 1- It . . . . . ... .. , ..„..4. .„ I I : f _ *-.,•I . t. , . . • . I -, k Location Map'--}-- r r-. a ' Ni —� el:r 0 400 17"\I 111111 i — -- - il i Feet North �+_ .�. F Jill I �_ �' ter . ,..„.4..: _ ,_ .. ...,....,..- L 3 Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement IIII 4 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-112 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, 5AM.457) Description Location: Runs along I-25 in Broomfield, Adams, and Weld counties Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A and C Use of Bull Canal/Standley Ditch by Package Package A A-H3 GP Highway Widening: Package B SH 60 to E-470 B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: A-T2 Transit Component- SH 60 to E-470 Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to North Metro End-of-Line 120th to Denver Station A total of 908 feet, or less than 1%, of the total A total of 850 feet, or less than 1%, of the ditch length would be placed into three culvert total ditch length would be placed into two extensions culvert extensions Resource Description The entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch is approximately 44 miles long and runs through Adams, Broomfield, and Weld counties. The ditch was originally built in 1907. Several segments of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch are within the APE. • Segment 5WL.1966.1 generally follows a serpentine course adjacent to the east side of I-25 and crosses the highway and the frontage road in multiple locations. The concrete-lined ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under I-25 and the frontage road was altered and conveyed under the roadways in concrete box culverts when the highway was constructed in the 1960s. Segment 5WL.1966.1 is 3,524 feet (0.67 miles) long. Well-developed willow growth exists along the south levee of the ditch in some areas. The surrounding area includes industrial and residential development. Weld County segments 5WL.1966.11 and 5WL.1966.8 cross the APE at the proposed commuter rail alignment. These segments each contain the 60-foot-wide concrete lined channel running through a rural setting. Segment 5WL.1966.8 is a 607- foot-long segment of the Bull Ditch that follows a gently curving alignment from west to northeast through the project area. The Broomfield County portion of ditch within the APE includes 20-foot-wide segments 5BF.72.1, 5BF.72.2, 5BF.72.3, and 5BF.76.2. Each concrete-lined segment crosses under existing I-25 and the frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Segment 5BF.72.1 is 1,439 feet(0.27 mile) long. Sparse riparian growth of large mature trees exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Segment 5BF.72.2 is 1,023 feet(0.2 mile) long with grassy vegetation lining the ditch levees. Segment 5BF.72.3 is 3,392 feet(0.64 mile) long. The latter two segments traverse areas characterized by industrial and residential development. Segment 5BF.76.2 is 2,172 feet long and approaches SH 7 from the northwest until it approaches the west side of I-25, where it turns south crossing both SH 7 and I-25. The ditch, where exposed, is earthen with rip-rapped banks and is about 15 feet wide. The ditch has been extensively realigned by recent commercial development to remove the entire ditch loop north of SH 7 and is now buried in a pipe for its length parallel to SH 7 and crosses south underneath SH 7 via a bridge. This segment of the ditch ends at the foot of the I-25 southbound on-ramp. The Broomfield segments traverse areas characterized by industrial and residential development. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-113 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The Adams County segments include 5AM.457.2, 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8. Segment 5AM.457.2 is approximately 35 feet wide and 3,685 feet (0.7 mile) long. This segment crosses under existing I-25 and the frontage road via modern concrete box culverts. Heavy riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding land now supports mixed development. Remaining segments SAM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8 cross I-25 and the frontage roads inside culverts installed when 1-25 was constructed in the 1960s. Segment 5AM.457.3 runs east of I-25 near the base of the northbound off-ramp for SH 7. The ditch runs underneath I-25 in a 330-foot-long concrete box culvert. The segment appears briefly on the surface at the opening of the concrete box culvert directly east of I-25 and immediately disappears below ground to cross underneath the Larkridge Shopping Center. Segment 5AM.457.4 of the ditch is located west of I-25 and south of West 136th Avenue. Most of the ditch segment has been abandoned and the ditch has been realigned at a point further west of I-25 out of the APE. A portion of the abandoned segment has been obliterated by new commercial construction at the site. Segment 457.8 is no longer functional and has been abandoned. This segment is located east of I-25 near milepost 226.8. This 1,585-foot-long, 26-foot-wide concrete lined looping ditch segment has been abandoned and no longer functions for irrigation. Weeds and rushes fill the abandoned channel floor, and the concrete lining of the bank is cracked and settled in many places. Eligibility Determination The entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch was a part of the ambitious, corporate Standley Lake Irrigation System developed in the early 20th Century. The canal is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado, and under Criterion C as an important example of irrigation engineering in the region. Segment 5WL.1966.11 and 5WL.1966.8 also include good examples of concrete siphons thatrepresent a distinctive method of hydraulic engineering that add to the canal's significance under Criterion C. Segments 5WL.1966.1, 5WL.1966.11, 5BF72.1, 5BF.72.2, 5BF.72.3, and 5AM457.1 within the project APE retain sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Resources 58F.76.2, SAM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8 were found to be modified, and lack sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(9 Use Package A Segment 5WL.1966.1: This historic canal is currently conveyed underneath I-25 and the east frontage road in two locations through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package A, the existing I-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct use of the canal would occur. Segment 5BF.72.1: This historic canal is conveyed underneathI-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package A, the I-25 template would be reconfigured to contain four general purpose lanes in each direction. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package A. Segment 5BF.72.2: This historic canal is conveyed underneathI-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package A, the existing I-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct use of the canal would occur. Segment 5BF.72.3: This historic canal is conveyed underneathI-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. In this area, I-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of four general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-114 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package A. Segment 5BF.76.2: Package A would require putting the 750-foot-long remainder of the ditch located between the SH 7 buried pipe outfall and the existing I-25 concrete box culvert in a buried culvert (see Figure 5-41). Segment 5AM.457.2: This historic canal is conveyed underneathI-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package A, the existing I-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct use of the canal would occur. Segment 5AM.457.3: Package A would result in placing an additional 100 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the I-25 northbound off-ramp (see Figure 5-41). Segment 5WL.1966.11: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast trajectory across this historic ditch segment. The new rail line would closely parallel an existing active rail through this area. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and no culvert extension would be necessary to accommodate the new additional rail line, therefore no direct use would occur. Segment 5WL.1966.8: In the vicinity of this historic ditch, the proposed new commuter rail line would run closely parallel to the east side of an existing active rail line. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and approximately 58 feet of open ditch would be placed in a new culvert extending beneath the proposed new commuter rail line • (see Figure 5-41) resulting in a direct use of the resource. Although the segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. The Bull Canal/Standley Ditch would experience a total direct use of 908 feet of open ditch that would be placed inside a culvert at three locations; at I-25 segments 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3, and along the commuter rail on Segment 5WL.1966.8. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at those locations. No other direct use would occur to the remaining seven segments. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effectto the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Package B Segment 5WL.1966.1: In this area, I-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned farther to the east. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package B. Segment 5BF.72.1: This historic canal is conveyed underneathI-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. In this area, I-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package B. Segment 5BF.72.2: This historic canal is conveyed underneathI-25 and the east frontage road through • modern concrete box culverts. In this area, I-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general-purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package B. Section 4(0 Evaluation 5-115 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. S Segment 5BF.72.3: This historic canal is conveyed underneathI-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. In this area, I-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of four general-purpose lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package B. Segment 5BF.76.2: Package B would require placing the 750-foot-long remainder of the ditch located between the SH 7 buried pipe outfall and the existing I-25 concrete box culvert in a buried culvert (see Figure 5-42). Segment 5AM.457.2: This historic canal is conveyed underneathI-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culvert. Under Package B, the I-25 template would consist of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane. The portion of the ditch that currently crosses under the highway and frontage roads is conveyed inside a concrete box culvert. The new roadway would be contained within the current roadway template and no new disturbance would occur to areas of the ditch located outside the existing culverts. The integrity of that portion of the historic canal to be placed in a culvert has already been compromised by the original construction of I-25 in the 1960s, and no new direct use would occur. Segment 5AM.457.3: Package B would result in placing an additional 100 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the I-25 northbound off-ramp (see Figure 5-42). Segment 5AM.457.4: Highway widening of I-25 resulting from Package B would not result in direct impacts to this ditch. A permanent water quality basin is planned in proximity to the ditch but would not result in a direct impact to this feature. There would be no temporary construction impacts to this feature. . Segment SAM.457.8: Package B improvements do not encroach on the ditch. Temporary construction impacts would be avoided at this site. The Bull Canal/Standley Ditch would experience a total direct use of 850 feet of open ditch that would be placed inside a culvert at I-25 segments 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3, where the ditch has already been highly modified by I-25 construction in the 1960s. Temporary construction activity would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at those locations. No other direct use would occur to the remaining seven segments. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effectto the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A The physical railway template has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-116 Draft EIS NORTH 125 IIISI October 2008 EIS W. information. cooperation. transportation. IIIFigure 5-41 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch — Packages A and B LEGEND i' . ; r 1 I • i Historical Resources t , I` _ Ai a 1 Packages A & B Resource Impact r" i i. :.... � ' I Packages A & BROW Boundary � ' 5AM.457.3 & 5BF.76.2 Boundaries "„ It Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert • , �ix itilt JRoadway Features w.f. Retaining VVall if} 1 f Parcel Boundaries s Guardrails 5f ` p, ; lifr ,,, = .- Existing culvert Mi ;: - t`` under SH 7 .. ` -- �• i , .. � -. MI I _10 --. 9." r +—•.caum 6 �, .:.ZI , a - ---. ...P.r. ferilwr+ H I l �._ i ; ,lief y f ` / I a ' DM a - 1 I kL:. t d 41 i, II 750 linear feet of impact �1 I j r ..u.. f 1'1 , / .�mi. . 0 t #r Existing culverti 330 feet long �. ` s i '-',_ -i * -ii, 4, ]0 New 100-toot-long ' S-474, , culvert extension-474, 0/f _ •sts> . let / A I 141 II( / , lir �• • • t • , i /I/ , °2 .1::\ •\ S,e ` � / r `?. \ */ \ye ili ,i , , - // e Location. Map I/ • 0 't it V.? ''c. ' INIMII Fort North I^, • ?/ . - `11 sf,Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-117 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-42 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch — Package A Commuter Rail _. . Y 1 LEGEND Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.1966.8 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries My Bridge / Culvert , : t �' . i \IIIISk . . * Open ditch would be placed inside an extended culvert; l 58 linear feet impacted ,. .;fir •' 1 ' - _�. . it :`- ' i 4 ktII *SS es -- ...- *Ilk A it Existing culvert ,, l / • I h i 4 n I . a .. Location Map 0 150 0 imml Feet North 1111 tow 2,,_ Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-118 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Colorado and Southern Railway Depot / Loveland Depot (5LR.488) Description Location: 405-409 Railroad Avenue in Loveland Type: Historic train depot Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A and C Use of Loveland Depot by Package Package A Package B A-T1 Transit Component- B-T1 Transit Component/BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver Fort Collins to Longmont A total of 0.03 acres or 7%, of total property No use Resource Description The Loveland Depot is located at 405-409 Railroad Ave. in Loveland. It was built in 1902 by the Colorado and Southern Railway Company which was the successor, in 1898, to the Colorado Central Railroad which originally laid tracks through Loveland in 1877. Loveland, an agricultural community, was dependent on the railroad for its economic survival and the depot was critical for efficient movement of freight and passengers. Eligibility Determination This structure is significant under Criterion A for its role in rail transportation in northern Colorado. It is also architecturally significant under Criterion C as a good example of an turn-of-the-century depot. Section 4(0 Use Package A The historic Loveland Depot is adjacent to the existing BNSF railroad tracks. A concrete station platform (350' long 22'wide) would be built between that depot and the tracks. This platform would be placed adjacent to the west side of the depot. Approximately 0.03 acre of the 0.43 acre historic property would thus be converted from ownership by the BNSF to commuter rail use. Because the use of this parcel was historically for transportation purpose and the proposed modifications would affect a small portion of the historic property, the FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Loveland Depot. See Figure 5-43 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any of this property resulting from Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A In order to reach this de rninimisfinding the segment of commuter rail within the boundary of the historic depot has been reduced to a single track. In this configuration, the use of the Loveland Depot property has been reduced from demolition of the depot building to placement of the station platform along the edge of the depot property. Mitigation Measures for the Loveland Depot • Permanent easement or property acquisition will be completed under Uniform Relocation Act. • • Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped. • Attempt will be made to incorporate the depot into the station platform. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-119 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-43 Colorado and Southern 11 Railway Depot / Loveland Depot LEGEND ill •. i. r. ; ,y, Y(1. •a 11111.11In7nt_ Historical Resources . III Package A Resource Impact -' 5LR 488 Property Boundary f *• inHistoric Depot Budding Footprint r to • - R C Recent Building Addition (not historic) - e ft • I i IIE Commuter Rail Design • ri-' cr , • - raisi Parcel Boundaries I . tl r � -- t A . • > • -_7 . . I t ;ii . _ it , w , !1 iIll- r 74 . C . . . . .. .• .. 1 M� • i S r •a �• .. 'i r■r■� - Area Impacted : 1253 Sq Ft ©' ' 0.03 Acres innase 11 . , _ . 11 - E 5TH ST • , . , . _ • •. - lean 4 S 3 : 4Ill ;; . is tillial ■ . ■ r ■ . t . ■ ll■ ' ' asilarli . . , ,_ , i .1 alt nit f _ _.. . . .... .. . _ . - ■ ki , „. . . .. ._ ... . . ira • . . _ . i-c_ 14 . . . • r t . aa .•• i > r •Lir milli; iallt i - - l� Hilt= -iiiiii. . ■ Total Area: 18,665 Sq Ft 1111 . 0.43 Acres :err .",1 en . t 1IIIt_1, , mai• . - rave �7arN ST _ 4- �. - ,r` r pf _ tr--- ,..re �( Aii4 'fie'! t, .. tii63 . . -. Location M p f . g . , i rte,Ps.a r 4 • re #`0 4 a 1 Z - o a • Val - ' 0 100 Q11 - / _.. , .... . . . t ' Feet North . Jeer Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-120 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Supply Ditch (5BL.3449) Description Location: 100 feet southwest from the CR 21115th Street intersection north of Longmont Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Supply Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-TS Transit Component- B-T1 Transit Component/BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver Fort Collins to Longmont A total of 65 feet, or less than 1%, of total ditch No use length would be placed into an culvert extension Resource Description The entire earthen ditch was constructed in 1861 and is approximately 22 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5LR.3449.2) is 100 feet long and follows its original historic alignment through the project area and is in good functional condition. This segment of the Supply Ditch crosses the active BNSF rail line in a culvert. Both banks are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports • industrial and residential development. Eligibility Determination The Supply Ditch was determined to be NRHP-eligible by OAHP in 1992. The ditch is eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. This segment(5BL.3449.2) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(0 Use Package A The historic Supply Ditch currently crosses the active BNSF railroad line via a culvert. The proposed commuter rail line would be aligned 20 feet north and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment carrying the new tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 65 feet wide. Thus, 65 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert underneaththe new commuter rail line on the south side of the existing rail line. The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the commuter rail line is in close proximity to a pre-existing impacted section (crossing under the active rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 22-mile-long linear resource. Therefore, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Supply Ditch. See Figure 5-44 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-121 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A The physical railway template has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for the Supply Ditch • Permanent easement or property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-122 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-44 Supply Ditch Package A Use LEGEND Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact -• •• - Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary '� - _. . r4 5BL.3449.2 Property Boundary - i al Package A Comm Rail Footprint -•; Commuter Rail Design -9 Parcel Boundaries Existing culvert _Pt f, ,- r , A j 1 "4 " ,.94 . , • i a Y • ♦ - - .. — - i Open ditch would be placed inside extended culvert - 65 Linear Feet Impacted • ' { . 7 I 1 T / i 1 / r I _ , , 1 1 tit iv S. \ ~ /! �' , !�,- 1 t,, Location Map --t - -4 lit 0 200 V. * - I Feet North t ‘ ' 411 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-123 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Rough & Ready Ditch (5BL.3113) Description Location: North of the Main Street/21st Avenue Intersection in Longmont Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Rough&Ready Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T1 Transit Component- B-T1 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins/Greeley to Fort Collins to Longmont Denver A total of 35 feet, or less than 1%, of total ditch length placed into a No use culvert extension Resource Description This segment of the historic earthen Rough & Ready Ditch crosses underneath the active UPRR alignment via a concrete culvert. The entire ditch is approximately 16.5 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3113.67) is 100 feet long. This segment is the oldest portion of the ditch, with water appropriated in 1869. The ditch is 20 feet wide and 6 feet deep, is in good condition, and much of its length follows the historic alignment. At the east side of the railway crossing, the ditch is piped underground beneath a power substation. Well-developed riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The • surrounding area supports rural residential development. Eligibility Determination In 1991, the OAHP officially determined the entire Rough & Ready Ditch (5BL.3113) to be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3113.67) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(t) Use Package A The historic Rough &Ready Ditch currently crosses the active railroad line inside a modern concrete culvert. The proposed commuter rail would be aligned 20 feet northeast and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment supporting the new tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 35 feet wide. Thus, 35 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the new commuter rail line and ballast on the south side of the existing rail line. The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the commuter rail line is in close proximity to a pre-existing impacted section (crossing underneath the active rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 16.5-mile-long linear resource. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Rough & Ready Ditch. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5- 45 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-124 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooreration transportation. • Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A A retaining wall was included in the design on the east side of the proposed tracks to minimize impacts to homes and businesses in the Longmont area. This retaining wall also mitigates the impact to the ditch. A culvert would also be installed. The physical railway template of graded bed, track, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for the Rough and Ready Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHP0 concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-125 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-45 Rough & Ready Ditch Package A Use IB M II q �..j { t LEGEND I 4 ACH0 i 11 ' li , Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact . Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ' 5BL.3113.67 Property Boundary r '4 Package A Comm Rail Footprint '" Commuter Rail Design ! 1 'I 1 IParcel Boundaries '•'•' l c 1, /Sy V i. 4i• }} 'lilts 4 . t ... ES."' • I . , . 11111111 --....„_.‘ \:. . �jIi . '. Existing culverts '),' \vs ‘,.\ . .: ! ./ „ , _ 1 _ , i i i A . 401.., li , . -0:1/4' 1' , V stilt . , ._ •wire= . � ` ' tit . , �IM�� •--...._ �E-.-��r ' u 21ST AV !` Ir. II„ „• rs Open ditch would be placed _� inside new culvert; — + �1 1 / \ 'We , - . ;, • II 35 Linear Feet Impacted w r; i A •- .- , LL .. 4 • M a l rai It. r- w. I 1 w.SS l ' W '" r' �. I -'--�s '�. I .. I ;4 T .- , • j ' tom-• F- \i / ;�' , . lit ..\\ II - 74X 1 /' _i_ • , • a .. .i ' - \:' • lir pi.. Tit 4 • . ,s isik‘ g e . - 't• • '. I\ . IIt '-_ \ - ! -� - t . - .. j �-X •4I, /• ,®r - -• _ � I yea 1 Y /. • i ` . -P %�: . Location Map Pb. ` �! - 1 • vat 0 200 :,y► -.41 ti % • 'MIS'Sr North i Feet I r, ,,. \' 11 • Ad .1s . i i I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-126 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EN information cooperation. transportation. Oligarchy Ditch (5BL.4832) Description Location: T3N/R69W, NE1/4 Sec. 34; T2N/R69W, N1/2 Sec. 12 Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Oligarchy Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-Tl Transit Component- B-T1 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins/Greeley to Fort Collins to Longmont Denver 48 feet placed in culvert extension No use Resource Description The entire earthen ditch is approximately 15.6 miles long. The ditch has been associated with Boulder County irrigation since its first appropriation date of 1861, which is among the oldest in the county. Two segments of the ditch cross the commuter rail corridor. Segment 5BL.4832.28 crosses the active BNSF railway alignment in a culvert approximately 500 feet south of 17th Avenue in Longmont. This segment is 100 feet long, 21 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Both banks of the ditch are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports rural residential development. A second Oligarchy Ditch segment(SBL.4832.26) follows a meandering course through the proposed commuter rail alignment crossing south of SH 119 and Rogers Road intersection. This segment in the project APE is one mile long. Well-developed riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in some areas. The surrounding area supports semi-rural residential development. Eligibility Determination The Oligarchy Ditch is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. The two segments located within the APE retain sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4()Use Package A Portions of Segment SBL.4832.26 of the historic Oligarchy Ditch would pass through the new dedicated commuter rail corridor. The ditch meanders across this area, often running parallel to the planned railroad alignment. A 1,200-foot-long concrete box culvert crosses underneath SH 119. The railway alignment follows a broad sweeping curve, and intersects the irregular course of the ditch at two places. Because the ditch and railroad alignments generally run parallel, a 210-foot-long stretch of the open ditch would be spanned by a new commuter rail bridge, conveying the intact open ditch beneath the new rail line on the west side of SH 119. There would be no direct use of the ditch at this location. The proposed commuter rail would be aligned 20 feet northeast and parallel to the existing railroad and crosses Segment SBL.4832.28 of the ditch. The new embankment supporting the tracks and ballast would require an additional area approximately 48 feet wide. Thus, 48 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new extension of the existing BNSF railroad culvert beneath the new commuter rail line on the south side of the existing rail line. Although the physical integrity of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing a portion of it into a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-127 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. A total of 48 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a new extended culvert at Segment 5LR.4832.28. Temporary construction activity would occur at the site during culvert installation. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would not substantially alter or impact the qualities that render the Oligarchy Ditch historic, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that the Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.4832). See Figure 5-46 and Figure 5-47 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There would be no use of the Oligarchy Ditch resulting from transportation improvements associated with Package B. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm Package A A retaining wall was included in the design on the east side of the proposed commuter rail tracks at Segment 5LR.4832.28 to minimize impacts to homes and businesses in the Longmont area south of 17th Avenue. This retaining wall also mitigates the direct impact to the ditch by shortening the length of open ditch conveyed within a culvert, thus minimizing the loss of historic ditch integrity at this site. No other minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures were possible. The physical railway template of graded beds, rail tracks, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. The new culvert carries the ditch along the shortest distance to cross the railroad footprint. Mitigation Measures for Oligarchy Ditch • • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. ▪ Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. ▪ Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.128 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooreralion transportation. ill Figure 5-46 Oligarchy Ditch Package A Use - / LEGEND 1- "-• ,' I Historical Resources , Ail Package A Resource Impact t Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary , 5BL.4832.26 Property Boundary Yr- r Package A Comm Rail Footprint •r:- Commuter Rail Design :° Parcel Boundaries •—• Bridge / Culvert • ., - larna7 ..5; •G 4•& • .. r. { - i • J y` _ • acv- ' t, „�* .r' ,.--c Ilk : ��• r r! 1� r t•- r� �' . , Existing culvert Or F3ra rialt-p +� r 4 AM la i _ gfre 210 linear feet of open ' j ditch would be placed - "' 119 • 3 under new bridge. o \ r i` 1� . . v I �`. 1- s- /- l yI ..../.-----.1-7, .. . .$0;4,,,, ,„, 118i )1\ _ vcA.. e; : ,.. ,.„!...).e .... - ... -....„. --- . li t. i s -f\--titre .. \ , . . / , a ^,.,KY LIE DR i '� .�L._-_� .tl ) /aNi•I r-__�,-,�_ : i ..�� A ± iJ:t ' - iI 1 ; r p. U;1 !.F-` I� p�� )- 1,,_ ,iitrigi___Li ___ . alatillieir i : I .. PI . - > ^r / Vs� n . N t� t"air allir 11 ' .. y 1 } _ r R �pEstERN DR.. ht. r - .) : L"‘.• i • •- •Location MMa {- I X11.) L, y ajetrejla. ..- • \300 � . `' ...��• , ,-------t l' ' • 1 Lis Feet ,I. North �, .; Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-129 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-47 Oligarchy Ditch Package A Use € II- 1 z'S I � t AHistorical Resources _' / r . i Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail t' �" ° 1 • - g ROW Boundary ; ,yam �,.* �.... . - _ . . .,. i- 5BL.4832.28 Property Boundary I x .I _.. • Package A Comm Rail Footprint 1 bfiE' " Si Commuter Rail Design I :4 � . , . 17TH AV '•• It.:..:1 • K"J : f I Parcel Boundaries I ` gi 1 1' -G j. _ 4 A korai. . IIIIIP 1 i a • _, 1 - _. 4 . Willi \ F. ti ili A ?- , Open ditch would be placed ' ` lel inside an extended culvert - 4.1, 48 Linear Feet Impacted it1- Walk VO -et t a 01 i ' sa I \ • Ado 1 ? GP . ipit > n �� y sr 4 III ,A . ..c.:„. ANNIVERSAR) ! _ .4 �� 1 .... .. _. .. r 1.1 "pe 40041op stiihred�� Existing culvert 4 - ;;: r L \ N� pR i - r ��R5 . Fp s oler(lia41I i \ N - I Jr ' - , ` \I. 4 -- :;: 1 I ,_;" ... ii 41 4 , , , , .- in I U e. Ij t ON ViCt / vxe Pei s� �. 'Olt MPS ,: I I (..) ' \ . <- ...:11111ii Nii )-- • 1 4/1 \A *- r Location Map\ , ii 0 150 - _/ .#� iIli ` iiii} I Feet North IIII �` ' Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-130 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Big Thompson Ditch (5LR.1729) Description Location: Ditch runs east-west across north Longmont area Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Big Thompson Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component- Commuter Rail: BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA A total of 60 feet, or less than 1%, of total ditch length No use placed into a culvert extension Resource Description The entire ditch (5LR.1729) is ten miles long and is one of the oldest in the area. The 2,216-foot-long segment crosses the BNSF RR just north of SH 402 in Loveland. The ditch parallels the railroad for 485 feet before turning east and passing under the railroad in a concrete box culvert. The six-foot-wide ditch is concrete lined and west of the railroad and unlined east of the BNSF. Eligibility Determination The ditch is NRHP-eligible due to its ties to the City of Loveland and the successful development of high plains • irrigation under Criterion A. The ditch has been realigned and concrete lined, compromising the historic integrity within the setting, and is non-supportive of the greater site. Section 4(0 Use PackageA -Under Package A the new commuter rail track would be placed east and adjacent to the existing track. At the existing BNSF crossing, the ditch is conveyed underneath the railway in a 35-foot-long culvert pipe. This pipe would be extended and the ditch realigned 60 feet east to accommodate the new track. Part of this length is to alter the ditch outfall from a perpendicular bend as it exits the railroad crossing to a smoother angled alignment for the purpose of preventing ditch erosion during higher flows. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the BNSF railroad and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA, and COOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Big Thompson Ditch. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHP0 concurrence. See Figure 5-48 for uses associated with Package A. Package B-There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A -The physical railway template of graded bed, track, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for Big Thompson Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHP0 concurrence. • • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to will be employed ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-131 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-48 Big Thompson Ditch Package A Use III i I LEGEND r Historical Resources il Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 1 j 5LR.1729.2 Property Boundary 11.4 1 Package A Comm Rail Footprint 1 . I Commuter Rail Design =iw t' t Parcel Boundaries r . C---1.9- - , iiramErs lea 44 -m_. + u -• litillre —i I-- illig U) i New culvert extension of 60 feet. cc , 1 Total culvert length = 95 feet. IJI eiNp , • r ,i ,, 1 { Existing Culvert = 35 feet long 4 C ... -'�. I / `� IIIMP tl FS4 � - k ) l 7 /, /" 14TH SW ST % FL y • F3., _ . . • / . `\ r Location Map * l 1 Ai 7 00 2000f �i Feet North 1%- , 1 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-132 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Great Western Sugar Factory (5BL.513) Description Location: 11939 and 11801 Sugarmill Road Type: Historic buildings/historic district Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Great Western Sugar by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to DIA Longmont to FasTracks North Metro A total of 0.33 acre, or 9%, of the property No use would be used for pedestrian walkway Resource Description The Great Western Sugar Factory is located at 11939 and 11801 Sugarmill Road in Longmont. This sugar beet processing factory was built in 1903 and operated into the 1970s. The 3.72-acre factory site contains several beet processing buildings, as well as industrial features, including storage silos located north of Sugarmill Road. Eligibility Determination The Great Western Sugar Factory (5BL.513) is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its significant role in the very important sugar beet industry in Colorado, as well as its major contribution to the economic development of the Longmont area. Section 4()Use Package A Proposed commuter rail improvements in the vicinity of the Great Western Sugar Factory site include a station platform, park-&-Ride lots, and a pedestrian walkway from the station platform to the south parking lot. The station platform intrudes slightly into the north edge of the sugar factory site, and the proposed pedestrian walkway extends from the platform through the northwestern corner of the property to access a proposed parking lot that would be located just west of the factory site. These direct impacts amount to 0.33 acres, or approximately'nine percent of the 3.72-acre property. None of the buildings or other standing industrial features that contribute to the property's significance would be affected by these commuter rail facilities. Because the proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-49 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-133 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding • Package A This property is located near the SH 119 and 3r°Avenue intersection. The original proposed commuter rail alignment was designed to run along Sugar Mill Road, through the historic property. To minimize impacts to the property, the alignment was shifted north to the existing Great Western Railroad right-of-way, and parking features were relocated from the historic property. Mitigation Measures for the Great Western Sugar Factory • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-134 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 BS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-49 Great Western Sugar Factory Package A Use LEGEND P • , Historical Resources < litPackage A Resource Impact I ,'�' v.Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 'it, a5BL.513 & 5BL.7606 Boundariesat LlS Package A Comm Rail Footprint Ill Commuter Rail Design 4 a .. " Ii‘ill 1 Parcel Boundariesiii TSI s .' ; - eil Z- 1011 Atli%if 44. - - -:-..4 RODGERS ' ` 4 : .. • 11, LI • . Parking 1 - = n n • o 1 Allirr-i D • 11 0 ' 0j-- ' - -I + R I i �f. { � t. -. ii-i.` r .K 4 I 1 i 411.1111 • _ _ air, i ' • tie NW it! ...j., „*. • _ , _ . _ � 0--t1 � � .� I ' 5BL.7606 . b Novartis Seeds Parking . .: _ „m..,� - -1-. • Area = 10 375 Sq. Ft . rPedestrian access & platform areas. - r . . , ti, ` Acres = 0.33 d _ All features are at-grade except 70-.. 1' ' , .a. overpass for pedestrian crossing. • F tt . �_ ,,. .r }` tit w , I, rt� 5BL513 M mo ,, � � Great Western Sugar Plant 2 ..•., �Q n • ;'' . P. ‘. .r LP ri 4 f . L' o ' { r f f i) ` % , • M , 1, -'7 . Wi t- ; 1 I • - r '0a ; iiii 1:-� I , 1 Sic ti a ,., ,r6,.., ,,.. , 77 e4r a 1 �i<r� lair ` is t�• s .74,-/ - ` ° - • ! %sr 0 ' r Location Mari • .1lrt'>,: r. i ( A . • •• 41 7N . 70. ,.0". 0 300 t I Feet Or . North SIN • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-135 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Sandstone Ranch (5WL.712) • Description Location: T2N/R68W, SH 119 just east of Longmont Type: Historic district Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Longmont Significance: NRHP-listed, Criteria A, B, and C Use of Sandstone Ranch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: 120th to Denver Longmont to FasTracks North Metro A total of 2.17 acres, or less than 1%, of unused land within the historic district used No use for new railroad right-of-way Resource Description The Sandstone Ranch is located on SH 119 just east of Longmont. The ranch is associated with Morse Coffin, one of the early settlers in this area. Morse Coffin settled in Boulder County in 1859 and became a preeminent agriculturalist and co-founder of the first public school district in Colorado. The City of Longmont now owns the ranch property, which is now designated Sandstone Ranch Park. Portions of the former ranch have been altered recently by gravel mining, post-mining reclamation, and multi-use recreational development by the City of Longmont. The only intact ranchland in the northern portion of the property is a riparian corridor • surrounding the Union Reservoir Outlet Ditch/ Coffin Spring Gulch Ditch (5WL.2877.1). Eligibility Determination The ranch was NRHP-listed in 1984 under Criteria A, B, and C. The Sandstone Ranch is eligible under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agricultural development in Weld County. It is also eligible under Criterion B because of its direct association with Morse H. Coffin, an important historical figure, and under Criterion C because of the architectural significance of the Coffin farmhouse. The historic district boundary is currently being evaluated for re-definition to exclude the areas modified by construction of public recreational facilities and areas modified by gravel mining. Section 4(0 Use Package A The proposed commuter rail facilities along SH 119 would necessitate acquisition of new right-of-way within the extreme northern edge of the Sandstone Ranch historic district. This land would be needed to provide space for the new commuter rail bed, tracks, and ballast. The area subject to direct impacts comprises 2.17 acres, or less than one percent, of the entire 337.22-acre historic district. In addition to the small size of the impacted area, the northern portion of the historic district has lost most of its integrity due to recent development of sports fields by the City of Longmont. The historic ranch buildings would be located approximately 0.5 mile from passing trains and, therefore, would not be affected by noise and vibration impacts. The commuter rail tracks would run along the edge of the northern portion of the historic district that has lost nearly all integrity. No indirect effects are expected that would harm the function, setting, atmosphere, or attributes that render this district NRHP-eligible. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effectto the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-50 for uses associated with Package A. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-136 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A A retaining wall was included on the south side of the proposed tracks to mitigate impacts to the park. Otherwise, all railway template widths are reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for the Sandstone Ranch • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. ▪ Retaining walls used to minimize surface use. • Operation of recreational facilities during construction will be maintained. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. ▪ Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-137 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-50 Sandstone Ranch Package A Use IIII LEGEND v.�. II Historical Resources - 1 - _ alli PEAK AVE Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary _ I 5WL.712 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint k„ Commuter Rail Design .,,.. o �� u I Parcel Boundaries t r "•,d 9 b tt,• t„ t '� C ` rlrw, _-.. • «., ., a lei COLORFUL AVE MI Fy, t V r I ' ' isil . _ , . ........ _. . . .,; r - J. r _ _ L _.z - 119 1 1. ": '4 " : /4 i G 4 - . ' -- -- , . — - 1 ":ral. ._ - 1 . . i ‘, . , :- sii I ;', it. Area = 94,337 Sq. Ft 1 4•!.• ''''. 0 7 i Acres = 2.17 � r ailibifillbie ii 7/ . IT - j_ F I 1 l ..1'• �- I . - r L !t7) aIc- Li-- i -Erti 4ip ft 4. I , ) i „ 9 rase/ _ _ Location Map�j _ ` 0 500 »i F' 11 e r VN Y w, ; �� Feet North , I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-138 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Boulder and Weld County Ditch (5WL.5461) Description Location: T2N/R68W, Sec 28 NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 (West end) T2N/R68W, Sec 28 NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 (East end) Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Boulder and Weld County Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 120th to Denver A total of 63 feet, or less than 1%, of open No use ditch would be placed into a new culvert Resource Description The entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch is approximately five miles long and draws water from a head gate on Boulder Creek. The ditch was constructed in 1871 and remains in use, supplying irrigation water for agricultural use. The segment of the earthen irrigation ditch passing through the commuter rail corridor is approximately 684 feet(0.13 mile) long, 20 feet wide, and 6.5 feet deep. The surrounding land is rural in • character. Eligibility Determination The Boulder and Weld County Ditch is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the early development of agriculture in Weld County. The segment of the ditch within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4W Use Package A In the vicinity of the Boulder and Weld County Ditch, the commuter rail alignment closely parallels CR 7, beneath which the ditch crosses in a culvert. The commuter rail design would include a new concrete box culvert to accommodate the historic ditch. Approximately 63 linear feet of the ditch would be directly impacted by being placed in a culvert beneath the commuter rail facility. Construction of the concrete culvert structure would likely require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities, resulting in a temporary occupancy. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. Three FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch. It is the intent of the FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-51 for uses associated with Package A. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.139 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding The physical railway template of grade bed, rail track, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. The new culvert carries the ditch along the shortest distance to cross the railway footprint. Mitigation Measures for the Boulder and Weld County Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.140 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. IIIFigure 5-51 Boulder and Weld County Ditch Package A Use LEGEND Historical Resources - _ °' _.4• "i s Package A Resource Impact t w t . l ; • Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary r 5WL.5461 . 1 Property Boundary + Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design :... -- Bridge / Culvert 7 ' 4. "b.- Parcel Boundaries .--Illr � ��r•'w°� L i _ • p -.-r..` 4 I i itf ya M. ..T‘. . _ _-, . 4 \t.....' : --- -. . o ' ... i,. •_ . . . : _ , , , IIIII 1NOY • j - - - • , 1 I ..e ' -� 63 Linear Feet Impacted/r k_ `\ . 1 I I 1 / , 14 1 LI ,..: location Map ---- , z 'o 0 300 0 '- I Feet North rip . : ii • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-141 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Rural Ditch (5WL.1974) • Description Location: T2N/R68W, SW 1/4 Sec 15, located near CR 7 south of Rinn, CO and 600 feet south of CR 2050. Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Rural Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 120`h to Denver A total of 130 feet, or less than 1%, of open No use ditch would be placed into a new culvert Resource Description The entire Rural Ditch is approximately four miles long. Two segments of the ditch are present within the APE. Segment 5WL.1974.1 crosses I-25 diagonally from southwest to northeast immediately north of SH 119, passing under SH 119 and I-25 in two existing culverts. The segment length is 3,327 feet, and is a 10-foot wide earthen ditch. Segment 5WL.1974.3 of the historic Rural Ditch crosses northwest to southeast within the project area. This segment(5WL.1974.3) intercepts waters of Idaho Creek at the southwest edge of the APE. The excavated 5-foot- deep, earthen ditch segment is 1,253 feet long and 20 feet wide. Both banks of the ditch areas are covered with• grass. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination The entire ditch (5WL.1974) was determined to be not eligible in 1993. The entire Rural Ditch is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado. Segment 5WL.1974.3 follows the original historic alignment of the ditch, and therefore supports the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5WL.1974.1 is modified by adjacent development and road crossings at SH 119 and I-25 and does not support the eligibility of the entire resource. Section 4W Use Package A Segment 5WL.1974.3:The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast trajectory across this historic ditch segment. Approximately 130 feet of open ditch would need to be placed in a culvert beneath the new railroad embankment, ballast, bed, and tracks, resulting in a direct use of the resource. Installation of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities, resulting in temporary occupancy. The ditch would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. Although the segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. Segment 5W1.1974.1: Package A is in a non-improvement zone and results in no impacts. Approximately 130 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert at one segment location (5WL.1974.9). Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effectwith respect to the historic resource SWL.1974 (Rural Ditch). [It is the intent of FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence.] See Figure 5-52 for uses associated with Package A.• Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-142 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Package B Segment 5WL.1974.1: Under Package B, modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new BRT lanes in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway, there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. The ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, and there is no new use expected to result from the installations planned by Package B. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding The physical railway template of graded bed, track, and underlying ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. The new culvert does not alter the historic alignment of the ditch. A perpendicular crossing of the railroad footprint would minimize the culvert length, but adversely affect the historic ditch alignment. Mitigation Measures for the Rural Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Societystandards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-143 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-52 Rural Ditch Package A Use 111 _ _ i, , LEGEND I Historical Resources *ate- .._ t, Package A Resource Impact ` "sue Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary - 4` ,� •: 5WL. 1974.3 Property Boundary . CR 2050 f —I Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design �r IIt it i p��C� Parcel Boundaries �� Y Bridge / Culvert I! I1 Ji ; l ff ) IOW t o . . lie: r. -. . e lap • 41 t� . • 4 1 it l. 1 : y iiilfr ii 11€1 . ___ iOpen ditch would be placed inside of a new culvert; _ �' , e, If 130 Linear Feet Impacted ,� - II / • . a J r r ! 144 - '' - - .. I 1 C to I ' ! i •. ;" - i ' ilir - [ - I ., - ,. . ._ Location Mapes — _ .:y._. _' I VN1 64 0 200 0 . lml 1 Feet North III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-144 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation, • Union Pacific Railroad, Dent Branch (5WL.1317, 5AM.472) Description Location: T1N/R68W, NW 1/4 Sec 24, to T1S/R68W, NE 1/4 Sec 12 Type: Abandoned historic railroad Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of UPRR, Dent Branch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA 4.89-mile abandoned segment modernized for double-track commuter rail operations, No use 200 linear feet impacted Resource Description The Dent Branch is a 39-mile-long section of the UPRR that ran through Weld and Adams Counties. The Weld County segment 5WL.1317.11 of the Dent Branch runs 2.9 miles within the project APE. The railway segment is abandoned, but rails, ties, and the ballasted roadbed remain in relatively good condition. A 3,500-foot freight bypass on the Dent Branch, located south of the Boulder Valley-Dent Branch junction, once consisted • of a multiple-track complex. South of that bypass, the track reverts to a single-track alignment. Segment 5AM.472.1 is a 1.9-mile-long railway segment that follows the original single-track alignment in Adams County. Most of this segment has been abandoned. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination The OAHP has officially declared the UPRR-Dent Branch eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important role in the development of the agricultural economy of the Front Range of Colorado. Although abandoned, these two railway segments retain integrity of location and association, and, therefore, support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(0 Use Package A The proposed new commuter rail would join this existing historic rail line by approaching from the northwest, then crossing over to the east side of the historic railroad, which it would closely parallel and follow southward. The commuter rail would utilize a double-track configuration, using the existing track alignment and adding a parallel track alignment following the historic UPRR Dent Branch (5WL.1317.1 and 5AM.472.1) from the wye at St. Vrains junction southward. Where the new commuter rail line crosses the Dent Branch, there would be direct impacts to as many as 200 feet of track by the replacement of existing "through rail" with switching tracks and associated apparatus(see Figure 5-53). Although one of the new commuter rail tracks would run along the historic alignment, the existing historic bed, ballast, and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. A continuous 4.89 miles, or approximately 12% of the entire linear resource, would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade, and an additional new track, 15 feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new • but compatible rail use and infrastructure elements to the historic setting. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effectto the historic UPRR Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-145 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EUS information cooperation. transportation. Package B • No direct or indirect impacts would occur at any segment locations. Therefore, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT have determined that the Package B commuter rail improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic UPRR Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). It is the intent of FHWA and FTA to make a finding of de minims, pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding No measures to minimize harm were included because the addition of new track in this vicinity would result in additional project costs. Approximately one new mile of track would be needed to avoid this resource, resulting in an additional project cost of$ 2.5 million. In addition, new track parallel to this track would result in additional impacts to wetlands. No additional measures to minimize harm were possible. Mitigation Measures for UPRR Dent Branch Detailed recording of the affected railway, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-146 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-53 UPRR-Dent Branch Package A Use LEGEND , .,. , , iiii Historical Resources •iiii Package A Resource Impact • i Package A Comm Rail ROW BoundaryJ. 5WL.1317.11 Property Boundary nPackage A Comm Rail Footprint ., Commuter Rail Design w+ L� Parcel Boundaries IMF Bridge /Culvert ' )114111111111 I. I RAJ' I- ' r \ non '°acifc r Rai/roaa iltil\ .rh • . . . / . r ' r, i iti �r-.1, N I. 200 Linear Feet Impacted i ( i k LI rf t [ t ig !i I • lT /, ;` / 0 I X l ' \! i ,, / / . P...1, 1 J , 1 r Location Map • 0 300 I Feet A North r• • if Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-147 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. 5.5.2 De minimis for Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife • and Waterfowl Refuge In order to be protected under Section 4(f), public parks and recreation facilities must be considered "significant," as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over them. Section 6009 amended Title 23 USC Section 138 states: "With respect to parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis use only if the Secretary has determined, after public notice and opportunity for public review and comment, that the transportation use or project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection under this section and the finding of the Secretary has received concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge." The Section 4(f) parks and recreational resources were identified based on the process outlined above. A finding of de minimis use may be made when the use of the resource is minimal and does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). (Questions and answers on the Application of Section 4(f) de minimis Impact Criteria, and the 23 CFR 774.) The finding of a de minimis impact on recreational and wildlife resources can be made when: 1. The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, • does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). 2. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA's or FTA's intent to make the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). 3. The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource. Initial agency coordination has begun with the officials having jurisdiction over the properties. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis will be requested during the public comment period for this Draft EIS. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings will be made at the DEIS public hearings. Following this input, the officials with jurisdiction would be asked to provide written concurrence with the proposed FHWA and FTA finding of de minimis. FHWA and FTA would make a de minimis determination only after the public has been provided an opportunity to comment and the official with jurisdiction has submitted its written concurrence. Table 5-6 lists the Section 4(f) properties that are recommended for de minimis determination. Section 4(f) use of the properties has been evaluated based on current preliminary engineering design. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-148 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. . Table 5-6 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Site Resource Package A: Package B: Type of Use Name A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 4.28 acres 5.11 acres De minimis Incidental use of high-activity Incidental use of high-activity (both packages) area and land adjacent to area and land adjacent to Arapaho Bend highway right-of-way; increase highway right-of-way; 1 in overhead shading of Cache increase in overhead Natural Area la Poudre vegetation due to shading of Cache la Poudre bridge deck shading; reclaim vegetation due to bridge and revegetate demolition deck shading; reclaim and area. revegetate demolition area. 0.09 acre 0.14 acre De minimis A total of 0.09 acre, or less A total of 0.14 acre, or less (both packages) Archery than 1% of the property, by than 1% of the property, by 2 Range Natural incorporation of very narrow incorporation of very narrow Area 400-foot-long strip of unused 400-foot-long strip of unused land. No features or amenities land. No features or impacted. amenities impacted. 0.11 acre 0.24 acre De minimis • A total of 0.11 acre, or less A total of 0.24 acre, or less (both packages) than 1% of property, by than 1% of property, by walls used to Big Thompson incorporation of narrow 750- incorporation of narrow 750- minimize impact. 3 Ponds State foot- and 200-foot-long strips foot- and 200-foot-long strips Wildlife Area of land adjacent to 1-25 due to of land adjacent to 1-25 due ramp and land additions. No to ramp and land additions. impacts to features, amenities No impacts to features, or wildlife area. amenities or wildlife area. A-H3 GP Highway B-H3 Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 2.04 acres 2.03 acres A total of 2.04 acres, or 2% of A total of 2.03 acres, or 2% total property, by incorporation of total property, by of 600-foot by 100-foot area incorporation of 600-foot by Little adjacent to the river due to 100-foot area adjacent to the 4 Thompson lane and ramp additions and river due to lane and ramp River Corridor new access. A portion of the additions and new access. trail would be located under A portion of the trail would bridge structure. No impacts be located under bridge to facilities or amenities. structure. No impacts to facilities or amenities. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-149 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-6 De Minirnis Use of Section 4(f) Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and • Waterfowl Refuge (cont'd) Site Resource Package A: Package B: Type of Use Name A-H4 Structure Upgrades: B-H4 Tolled Express E-470 to US 36 Lanes: E-470 to 70th Avenue 1.18 acres De minimis A total of 1.18 acres, or (Package B) Civic Center 6.9% of the property, by 5 Park No use incorporation of a 1,230-foot (Thornton) by 60-foot strip of unused land from park due to lane additions. No features or amenities are impacted. 0.09 acre De minimis A total of 0.09 acre, or 1% of (Package B) entire property, for water quality pond due to lane 6 Grant Park No use addition and associated drainage requirements; small portion of pedestrian trail impacted and would be replaced. A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component- Commuter Rail: BRT:Fort Collins to DIA • Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 2.17 acres No use De minimis A total of 2.17 acres, or less (Package A) than 1%, of entire property. retaining wall Approximately 40 to 60 feet of used to Sandstone sidewalk would require minimize impact. 7 Ranch relocation and replacement. No other features or amenities would be impacted. • Section 4(0 Evaluation 5-150 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Arapaho Bend Natural Area (Map ID Number 1) Description Location: West of I-25, north of Harmony Road, Fort Collins, along Poudre River Size: 278 acres Type: Recreation resource Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Fishing ponds, boating, trails, parking areas. Usage/Patronage: Public, no data available for annual patronage Relationship to Other Resources: Segment of Cache la Poudre River runs through the park. Arapaho Bend is one of 37 Natural Areas in Fort Collins. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Fort Collins Significance: This park is valuable for its natural resources, recreational opportunities, and as a scenic entryway into the city. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Arapaho Bend Natural Area by Package • A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 4.28 acres, or1.5%, of entire 5.11 acres, or 1.8%, of entire property; incidental use of high- property; incidental use of high- activity area and land adjacent to activity area and land adjacent to highway right-of-way; increase in highway right-of-way; increase in overhead shading due to widened overhead shading due to widened bridge deck; demolition area would bridge deck; demolition area would be revegetated and reclaimed; in be revegetated and reclaimed; in addition, bank stabilization along addition, bank stabilization along Cache la Poudre River; no change in Cache la Poudre River; no change activities or use areas in activities or use areas Resource Description This 278-acre, multi-use park along the Cache la Poudre River includes ponds for fishing, trails, and boating, as well as three public parking areas and two gated areas for vehicles with special access. The property was acquired by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas in 1995. See Figure 5-54. Section 4(f)Use Package A Section 4(f) use at this location would result from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north of the existing lot used by CDOT in the northwest quadrant of Harmony Road and I-25. The City of Fort Collins had previously negotiated an easement in this area of 4.03 acres anticipating future expansion of the lot, which would remove this use area from Section 4(f) use. The proposed parking lot expansion, the addition of a new ramp, and improvements to the bridge over Cache la Poudre River would use a total of 8.15 acres, of which 4.03 acres is part of the easement, totaling a net use of 4.28 acres. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Additionally, access off Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out movements only. I-25 is proposed to be widened with both Package A and Package B. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-151 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de minim's impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Package B I-25 is proposed to be widened with both packages; however, Package B is wider than Package A. Other design improvements include ramp reconfiguration to address existing substandard ramp conditions related to safety and traffic operations. Uses at this location would be similar to Package A resulting from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north and the addition of the ramp and the bridge modifications at Cache la Poudre River. The proposed parking lot expansion would exceed the easement, totaling a net use of 5.11 acres. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Additionally, access off Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out movements only. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have dominimisimpact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The proposed ramp improvements are to the minimum standard requirements to minimize right-of-way width and, therefore, minimizing Section 4(f) use of this property. Approximately 2,000-foot-long retaining walls would be included along the Harmony Road/I-25 interchange ramps north of Harmony Road to minimize use. The walls would extend up to the bridge over the Cache la Poudre River to minimize uses at the northern extent of the property. • Mitigation Measures for Arapaho Bend Natural Area • Reclaim and revegetate in-kind the areas where the existing bridges are removed. • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-152 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-54 Arapaho Bend Natural Area Package A & B Uses LEGEND /r� ��: J '., , i - ,y ':-1r > Sty ;; ` • • ' _ ` ' Package A Park Impacts e �O • tG t Package B Park Impacts - ii . , ,., . .. A II Wit'I Fishing Pond err "om_ .*�•,' V '4 ait ' aWr. �C sakiof 4 41 '' �f\ iii 'WIN �a r ` `N. • -N Fishing . ., $ \ r. 1 - � - - ice' YY _ - _ ll Cep -1 V ' lar --4Ilitit, • 1, ". ? '. • ' "' " , • . es. 1::. . j,k\1/4,. _ . - 4. . - , , - dr' i1 '� a • - 't -#4 . 1if % ii C.,,". . i'' ' Ns ..: . • ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA-a; % 4- • - 4 ‘ ItzI ��llllh ' .. ., 4. •_t, , a ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA .tt,sE' �' • `wyr-'•.r.?w?+�< apt- . ' — .�. I. •� 'Tam -ss-',t4`-. �n. } ;_ Y.t�.yY • ,. •,, 0- w . . P _ _ < { , it �.' • Package A `' a • 4.28 Acres ,° { ` }' ................ /. - . - ..��a V 5 ; "i KI. ,..„ . . 4 � ' W 7fir\ Package B • i 1, 1 ". `� 5. 11 Acres • , t - FORT C0LLINS`'x, r `! S ' ai i LARIMER TIMNATH 257 ► , t 4 a ; i WELDt. • ;r-OR f i I44 all _ v' • • . GREELEY .a. . , . , . i • F• tL0VELAND JOHNSTOWN-r=— lJ 'jY .. : . ., <? , r9 't .t 7 VN •200 400 0 / "\ ; r T i F Feet North _ i. :7` r �,'..' � ` ' I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-153 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. Archery Range Natural Area (Map ID Number 2) • Description Location: West of I-25, Fort Collins Size: 50 acres Type: Recreation resource Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Trailhead, parking area, archery circuit station located around natural area. Usage/Patronage: No data Relationship to Other Resources: One of 37 Natural Areas in Fort Collins. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Fort Collins Parks Department Significance: Local site for archery circuit stations. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Archery Range Natural Area by Package A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 0.09 acre, or less than 1% of A total of 0.14 acre, or less than 1% of the property, by incorporation of very the property, by incorporation of very narrow 400-foot-long strip of unused land. narrow 400-foot-long strip of unused No features or amenities impacted. land. No features or amenities impacted. Resource Description This property was acquired by the City of Fort Collins Utility Department in 1983 and transferred to the City of Fort Collins Parks Department. It is primarily used for recreation, with amenities such as an archery circuit trail located around the natural area. The site includes parking areas and other trails. Section 4(0 Use Package A Widening would occur to both sides of the highway in this location and a new frontage road would tie into the entrance into the natural area, resulting in a slight impact of 0.09 acre to the eastern edge of the park. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Access to the natural area would be improved. See Figure 5-55 for Archery Range Natural Area map. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de miniMSimpact. Final de MAIMS determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Package B Improvements in this location would be similar to those associated with Package A, except the impact would be 0.14 acre. The impact is slightly larger because of the addition of a buffer-separated lane. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Access to the natural area would be improved. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-154 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Indirect Impacts In order to minimize direct impacts to the park under both packages, a 300-foot wall, 11 feet to 15 feet in height, is proposed to run along the edge of the park. This has the potential to inhibit the view to the east. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm Impacts to this property have been avoided and minimized by shifting the frontage road adjacent to I-25 and with a barrier separation between the edge of the frontage road and the edge of I-25. Mitigation Measures for Archery Range Natural Area • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be employed for erosion control. • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-155 Draft EIS NORTH I25Mil October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. Figure 5-55 Archery Range Natural AreII a Use LEGEND , . I ` .. ' IA a . • .� „ I ' - Li. ..t-K•T ; �/� LL � S L ' Package A Park Impacts e1 • �" • I � ,,Package B Park Impacts " , } 4 {. R '\ ; . . l • T) » t r .p Package A t ac Acre f -4g S.•' ---724., N'i -• 1\..‘ k 7444\1. . . • ... :•. 1:10. j trail ;.;;a . ,�,"-- .:; tit•'' ` ;, ,•' ' '` a . t . , i Package B fl,ill 14 Acre ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA 4. 4`. . , . I , e 4,4i ! 3#I ,. ., . , ., . _.. _ s. . a . „a, . •.,1 L . , ... . . .. ery Circuit Station • K FORT COLLINS WELD I LARIMER SEVERANCE ! • TIMNATH "let 9 I • � �:I tire..r);Tilb- 1. — WINDSOR •, *�' 1 �y-- V. 8 :' fr IRS se lit Aiet-4 . . `fir. • , 116 0 ); i •. tit . il 4 it. c° $ , k 4.-- • • jFGELE)'' r l,,. - •,. . ' ' ' • a + V 't t ?t . ' 1 , - i,k \ • 0 200 400 t ,ta +i ! ik . • _r �I. Feet North , t • �+;. r rte= I Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-156 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area (Map ID Number 3) Description Location: Larimer County East of Loveland on Highway 402 on I-25 Frontage Road Size: 51 acres Type: Wildlife refuge: Hunting (rabbit, dove, waterfowl), warm water fishing, picnicking and wildlife viewing. Access: Public must have wildlife stamp, which is a $10 annual fee. Public access restricted one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise daily except when fishing. Usage/Patronage: Average 20/30 people/day, summer 100 people/day Relationship to Other Resources: Big Thompson River runs through property Ownership/Jurisdiction: Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Significance: Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area (SWA) is one of 20 SWAs in Larimer County. The Park provides recreation in the forms of hunting, fishing, as well as wildlife viewing. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area by Package • Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 0.11 acre, or less than 1% A total of 0.24 acre, or less than 1% of property, by incorporation of of property, by incorporation of narrow 750-foot-long and 200-foot- narrow 750-foot- and 200-foot-long long strips of lane adjacent to I-25 strips of lane adjacent to I-25 due to due to ramp and lane additions. No ramp and land additions. No impacts to features, amenities or impacts to features, amenities or wildlife area. wildlife area. Management Plan&Resource Description The management plan, created in 1984, focuses on warm water fish species, including bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black croppie (Pomoxis n/gromacu/atus) and channel catfish (Icta/urus punctatus). These species are monitored every one to two years via population sampling using trap nets. State Wildlife Areas are properties owned or managed by the CDOW for the benefit of wildlife and wildlife-related recreation. CDOW properties not only protect wildlife habitat, but also provide the public with opportunities to hunt, fish, and watch wildlife. This property is intensively used by both anglers and those hunting waterfowl. Section 4(0 Use Package A Use at this location would result from the addition of the general purpose lane and the auxiliary lane on the west side of I-25, as well as the transition of the ramp from the US 34 interchange south onto I-25. The combined improvements would use the easternmost edge of the wildlife area. Walls were placed in this area in • order to minimize use, and the area used was reduced to 0.11 acre. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the wildlife area would not be diminished in utility. Permanent right- of-way and Section 4(f) use includes a maintenance easement. See Figure 5-56 for uses associated with Package A. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-157 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de 1771171.17715 impact. Final de minimisdeterminations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and CDOW has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Package B Use at this location would result from the addition of the two barrier-separated tolled express lanes on the western side of the general-purpose lanes. These lanes would also accommodate the BRT. The combined improvements would affect the easternmost edge of the wildlife area. Walls were placed in this area in order to minimize impact and the acreage used was reduced to 0.24 acre. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de MAIMS impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and CDOW has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Indirect Effects For both packages, indirect effects include noise impacts to portions of the park, which exceed CDOT's noise abatement criteria (NAC). Although the noise level impacts are above the level required for NAC, they will not substantially impair the activities or features that qualify the wildlife area for Section 4(f) protection. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6, Noise and Vibration. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The design includes retaining walls. The Section 4(f) use cannot be entirely avoidedbecause the retaining walls require a 10-foot easement for CDOT maintenance activities. Retaining walls have been included on the east side of I-25 to minimize impacts. Retaining walls would be extended on Package A south of the bridge to minimize impacts to the Big Thompson River. The retaining walls would not impede wildlife movement and would redirect wildlife to use the crossing under the highway. Mitigation Measures for Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. • Disturbed area will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be replaced as appropriate. • Easement acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-158 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ill Figure 5-56 Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area Use E LEGEND - CaPackage A Park Impacts i h 1$ I . it CZ las • ' 11 i 4.# Package B Park Impacts rglir R ` y �`� •d < ,, •'�._ 1- - 0.' + ` J . ' Its t I, • lit t t ..r^r Package A1 4'711 , �, .. : • ' . ' 0. 11 Acre tie . . _ . :1 j ' : 4 . . as. , . .1 ilf,,,e,.7. ' Package B ' ` • i f; k +,. I R,. 0.24 Acre f . 1 , J• *el 1-• kr 3 i 1.4 at,Ef a. . r r ii t < i IRia, •• { • • _ it- - F IRT y.p1 # :t i'.k.$'�`? • '• 1 • r '-'fit i� COLLINS - .�. r• _-v I Alf , BIG THOMPSON PONDS SWA' '- L ,, +, • •I _ ,... '& GREELE LARIMER '� , q ' - - 4,1 „ n r i 0 \ .... • I kg 60 ,�► _ -• I ._ +. i lite • WELD 56 BERTHO ` UD • "'r • r+ • • 0 200 400 S 6111=11=IIII Feet North , 4. as -- ID Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-159 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. Little Thompson River Corridor (Map ID Number 6) Description Location: Adjacent to I-25, Berthoud Size: 100.92 acres Type: Recreational resource Access: Public Facilities/Amenities: Trails alongside Little Thompson River Usage/Patronage: Data on patronage not available Relationship to Other Resources: Provides a physical and visual buffer between high- and low-intensity land uses. Ownership/Jurisdiction: Town of Berthoud Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Little Thompson River Corridor by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Highway B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 2.04 acres, or 2% of total A total of 2.03 acres, or 2% of total property, by incorporation of a 600- property, by incorporation of a 600- foot by 100-foot area adjacent to the foot by 100-foot area adjacent to the river due to lane and ramp additions river due to lane and ramp additions and new access. A portion of the trail and new access. A portion of the trail would be located under bridge would be located under bridge structure. No impacts to facilities or structure. No impacts to facilities or amenities. amenities. Resource Description This recreation area is included in the Town of Berthoud I-25 Sub Area Draft Land Use P/an, 2001. The purpose of this area is to provide recreation opportunities while linking nearby residential land uses. Section 4(0 Use Package A Uses at this location would result from the addition of the general-purpose lane and auxiliary lane on the west side of I-25, as well as the transition of the southbound ramp at the newly configured SH 56 interchange. A portion of the trail along Little Thompson River would be located under the new bridge. Trail access would be maintained for the additional lane and ramp. Current access to the recreation area would be removed and replaced with a new access from the south, ending at a cul-de-sac at the recreation area. The new right-of- way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp, and the new access would require 2.04 acres of land adjacent to the west side of the highway. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the recreation area would not be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-57 for uses associated with Package A. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de m/n/m/c impact. Final de minimis determinations would be S completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the Town of Berthoud has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-160 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Package B Improvements include the addition of one buffer-separated lane in each direction, for a total of four general- purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. Bus Rapid Transit would share the tolled express lanes. Uses at this location would result from the right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp, and the new access to the area. Total acreage used would be 2.03 acres adjacent to the highway on the west side. From the new access and a portion of the trail under the new bridge, none of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the recreation area would not be diminished in utility. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de m/nimisdeterminations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the Town of Berthoud has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Indirect Effects Indirect effects would be the same for Package A and B. West side property access would be maintained, except for the northwest park road connection to the service road. This connection would be severed, but access would still be available to the south. East side property access would be modified so that recreationists would use the new service road. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm CDOT would develop the new access before the existing access is closed. The trail extends for several miles perpendicular to the highway at this location. There are also several wetlands located on either side of I-25. Shifting to the east to avoid impacts to wetlands and the trail on the west would also have impacted wetlands and trails; therefore, no additional measures to minimize harm could be identified. Mitigation Measures for Little Thompson River Corridor • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by transportation improvements. • CDOT will develop the new access before the existing access is closed. Alternate routes will be identified and adequate detour signing will be provided. • Work with Berthoud to reseed disturbed with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-161 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-57 Little Thompson River Corridor Use for Packages A & B LEGEND L _ _ ¶ . !: I. CZ Package A Park Impacts c. 1 1 '"` =' s ti ir IlL Package B Park Impacts •5; - \ • 11*- : 1 ' • 1. ; .' '' Package A \t 2.04 Acres .� .----. - :\ .E -, \ it . .. LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER CORRIDOR Al . Package B \ ' ., . , - 2.03 Acres is • ,•t _ r`_ - LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER CORRIDOR r - ,,. �; New Access ' • , IF r . �. 'St- tli i t" 1 LOVELAND - r yr r M .d�.' ..._ GREELEY f""'' K . c; ' ii + _ ... 4. ri* LARIMER • :; �' . , `j' = �� ' i \MILLIKEN '' yG. 1 t ''41 i0 „ ' -A: � O l \\.` r' 24 • i ,w. -... 1 ,..,ma��y I •.t H }i 56 - JOHNS, �i 4) , __�1 1'Y ri , ` }I� BERTHOUD f .%, 1'� ! , I' 1 ' Iw1) , �, V, .1 - t T r' ` ' ' , ,II)'i tat r ' - ,- •'fir ' . , r :. -,. ; \s' ‘ 9•MEAD I /• r , _4- 7, • h,, tig),,,,; .: - .:,, -it,f1 , ,i0 BOULDER1 - _': ie — I 66 ' LONGMONT �. C 1 �`� ." ;m y 0 200 400 n {�■� Feet North ''. aill > :r r _ • 1 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-162 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 US information. cooperation. transportation. • Civic Center Park (Thornton) (Map ID Number 4) Description Location: North of Thornton Civic Center Plaza Size: 17 acres Type: Park Access: Public Facilities/Amenities: Lake, recreational trail, benches and grass area Usage/Patronage: Data on annual patronage not available Relationship to Other Resources: Adjacent to Thornton Civic Center Plaza Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Thornton Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Civic Center Park(Thornton)by Package Package A Package B A-H4 Structure Upgrades: B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to 70th Avenue • A total of 1.18 acres, or 6.9% of the property, by incorporation of No use a 1,230-foot by 60-foot strip of unused land from park due to lane additions. No features or amenities are impacted. Resource Description The park is included in the City of Thornton Parks and Open Space Master Plan, 2003 as a park adjacent to Civic Center Plaza in Thornton. Section 4(f)Use Package A There are no direct park uses associated with Package A. Package B Improvements between E-470 and US 36 include the addition of one buffer-separated lane in each direction, for a total of six-general purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. BRT would share the tolled express lanes. Section 4(f) use would result from the addition of the one buffer-separated tolled lane that accommodates the BRT. The combined improvements would use the westernmost edge of the park. Total acreage used would be 1.18 acres. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-58 for Civic Center Park uses associated with Package B. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de m/n/m/s impact. Final de minimisdeterminations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Thornton has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-163 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Indirect Effects • Indirect effects are the same for Package A and B. Portions of Civic Center Park would experience noise impacts, which exceed CDOT's noise abatement criteria (NAC). Although the noise level impacts are above the level required for NAC, they will not substantially impair the activities or features that qualify the park for Section 4(f) protection. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6, Noise and Vibration. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The highway adjacent to Civic Center Park is in a physically constrained location with one park directly adjacent to northbound lanes and a water storage facility adjacent to the northbound lanes. The median has been reduced as much as possible with a concrete barrier and minimum shoulders. No other measures were available to minimize harm. Because the area is tightly constrained, no measures to minimize harm could be identified at this location. Mitigation Measures for Civic Center Park • Noise mitigation recommendations would be consistent with the commitments made in the DEIS noise barrier analysis. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted land used by transportation improvements. S s Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.164 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. coopera:ion. transportation. III Figure 5-58 Civic Center Park Package B Use , t ' i a 4 • . I ... LEGEND ' - 3 • �-7 ses. s •.,r. . t.... I •• a ..,r T. .. ir CZ Package B Park Impacts ; { , :i �� a' • ail, • . at i «r 1 • ,. • g. •• t I t ' elk it IL ., w '{ e�' .1 ''� - - • • -c , " ..• Ile''` Sir s" r• • � ' •, 4.4- • OP' ••:' tit .. is as,- et •at allek Ilk .4 . . ' • ;Se ; , i (1\04 .).4410 -44 11 . a, ' lars: •„:r--4-cc:If k 4 i •••• •••• i '- "L .. ' - ce...it . a .,... . # . . ,k -..,.. .. r . .t, .., . 1, ,... . , , , .. \,. • . • . . ,� . zi '�- -*•- •9 i • - - - - - . . il ' 4: \ A\ ' s _ Package B �� t441, -. •1l�} r ` 1 . 18 Acres l r . 41 2 4 It. \, . • is, i 4 74 •1/4\ CIVIC CENTER PARK (THORNTON) . - L `. 1FAYETTE 7 CO ., r '."r- tom- -- _ . .Z. Si.: A . JBOULDERLit E 4 7 0 ..: ,.__,,, 4.7 \N\ • '�4 \ y�, & 00MF1Er1 ) TH6RNT0N lilT. • •I BRIGHTON I ) i ADAMS NORTHGLENN �4 • . - \-lit WESTMINSTER ` j s r •c NOT COUNT t d',:,{r ,v -- i , i ♦ rif''t t {a. • -,..,1/4.\\_.I • i ; 4. , 4 get .3,, ,S.- ' : ' ISO 7 ,i.,,s _..: ti.,.. s. i \FEDERAL HEIGHTS r . lk ®JEFFERSON - " " ARVADA !' 270 :: r ' 1 + t i - '7 i •,COMMERCE CITY- . re.• I. 4 .r f. , !ca .....•44. +A At LAKESIDE i " , ' ' ? , a �, , .11 EAT RIDGE DENVER "' w t • • PA sit I . DENVER ' , -, 1"' EDGEWATER t:• alt • 1 ili. , • ` f 1 V\I it t 0 200 400 f +it . :` • �. i. . , I I 1Feet North , 4Ij •i ► " , t� : I ,�' . `t if 4.ill - - -- tior ____e--- Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-165 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. S Grant Park (Map ID Number 5) Description Location: Adjacent to I-25, south of 104th Avenue, Northglenn Size: 14 acres Type: Park Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Trail, picnic area, detention/drainage Usage/Patronage: Public, patronage unknown Relationship to Other Resources: Provides a recreational connection to residential areas. One of 23 parks in the City of Northglenn. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Northglenn Significance: City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, 2005. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Grant Park by Package Package A Package B A-H4 Structure Upgrades: B-H 4 Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to 70th Avenue 0.09 acre, orl% of entire property, for water quality pond due to lane No use addition and associated drainage requirements. A small portion of pedestrian trail would be impacted and will be replaced. Resource Description Grant Park is a publicly owned and accessible neighborhood park with a trail system and drainage feature. Section 4(0 Use Package A No direct park uses are associated with Package A. Package B Section 4(f) uses would result from the addition of one buffer-separated tolled express lane that would be added in each direction, for a total of six general-purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. Bus Rapid Transit also would travel exclusively in the tolled express lanes. In order to accommodate drainage associated with the proposed improvements, two water quality ponds would be constructed. One pond would be located north of Grange Hall Creek, entirely in Grant Park, and one pond would be located south of Grange Hall Creek, partially in Grant Park and partially in the CDOT right-of-way. There would be 50 feet of encroachment, and the total used area in Grant Park for both ponds would be 0.09 acre. The property that would be converted is at the westernmost edge of Grant Park. A short portion of the pedestrian trail would be impacted. None of the other features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the park would not be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-59 for Grant Park uses associated with Package B. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.166 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooreration transportation. • FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Northglenn has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm Several options were explored to contain water in this area. One option would result in the loss of four homes in the subdivision to the north of Grant Park. At a meeting held in March 2007, the City concurred that impacting nearby homes was not acceptable. The same option also impacted a nearby shopping area. The team coordinated with the City on design and placement of the ponds in order to minimize impacts to Grant Park and its users. CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. Mitigation Measures for Grant Park • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. • Two water quality ponds would be constructed to accommodate drainage associated with construction. • A new sidewalk will be constructed as replacement for the portion impacted by the land acquisition. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. S S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.167 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-59 Grant II Park Package B Use LEGEND � Ot` it ' , .: 6._. . ° . • t, �• 1141::::::::: C satAg 4 >jt-r !1] •f�"`�.��; '" • tiV ' .1 _Slit 44F7 liciii. •. I ' `-elt • .. -� ` • q I i ! 64 Crni i, tr r • .,. '' ' ';• ' � III ('�� c/• o .. • di • • ' . A • • 111 .� * • .�; lite , les • ... y lip • ... , • . .., . . 4 _ J: i- • AY T 7 # , et ^-t fi�_ •0` .yF.- 'mil. ir- ' t. 7 :, • . + IN ` . •! _'� / ` = Package B ste •M► /A\.' N 1:: 2. r• . .� , '-• .... „:- I ' i :. I k r Picnic Area ' +,*_ 'Atilt T , 4. ( f . 11 for .1 •ill,II CI lt_75.t.I 1 1 k-. .. : WELD i • �: v . �,, �♦ �C >lEi � j`: Irv*• °LAFAYETTcn7 7 \..0t- c-'. {-Th I rs •-h 1± •::•;1- BOULDER - - �� .... Irak .. . _ _ ' - _ BROOMFIELD THORNTON r - ` ja l - y ' I. '1 BRIGHTu' . i - b. joti t I • , wi---±rb JAi �.. _ ADAMS NORTHGLENN wi » s��d• - • �- s ', ' y�� \W jSTMIN�TER N - el: .. 7 •o NOT COUNTY FEDERAL HEIGHTS • 2 a. - - �4•4ti I 1 • 1er j k :• le I - 4r. - ••• • -• •,a ,to •• 1 '9'l 1 • ♦r. I 1 _ r +1' ' r COMMERCE CITY ',�j s +, 'L'} _ 1 - = d - _ R \ t :.r. I s. br I- . ARVADA ' ,J ' i -,, I Ilt -;.. 7. 27 r • r— 1. - iiioaits, - .�.� r . :« _ II • 'k 4 et •CZ LAKESIDE—"-DENVER I I `}_�. :. - r� "e• , , � t', r ' cc i WHEAT RIDGE _"DENVER ,• ,J-.»• f•t ;,; .. . S a �' I ,t,>rvAr1 r - ! , ( v\i it i 0 200 400licimigil ! ' Ira•; ,v. ; _ aR n _ i K. Feet North - ° , `, = .. _ IP1.c t' r ears .rte- y -• _Z a . ....l. North J. • It ... III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-168 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. S Sandstone Ranch (Map ID Number 8) Description Location: West of I-25, south of SH 119 Size: 313 acres Type: Park Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Softball fields, soccer fields, trails, picnic tables, playground, skate park, restrooms, BBQ grills, concession stand Usage/Patronage: 10,000/year Relationship to Other Resources: In September 2000, Longmont designated the house at Sandstone Ranch as a local landmark on the State and National Historic Registers. In addition, a management plan has been completed for the Sandstone Ranch Park with the goal to protect habitat and wildlife in the area. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Longmont Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important • role in meeting those objectives. Use of Sandstone Ranch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to DIA Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 2.17 acres,or less than 1% of entire property, 40 to 60 feet of trail would require No use relocation and replacement. No other features or amenities would be impacted. Resource Description Sandstone Ranch Park is a 313-acre City of Longmont park. Active use areas include ball fields, soccer fields, playground, multi-sport fields, and a skate park in the northern portion of the site. Passive use areas include picnic area, concessions, shelters, and parking. Other passive uses include open space for trails and wildlife viewing. The .1998 Sandstone Ranch Final Master Plan also calls for construction of additional ball fields south of the existing ball fields in the northwestern portion of the site. Section 4W Use Package A Package A use at this location would result from the new commuter rail line proposed to run south of SH 119 to connect from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line station in Thornton. The commuter rail line track would use 2.17 acres at the northernmost edge of the park, adjacent to SH 119. A small portion of the trail in the northwest corner of the park would be used due to 40 feet to 60 feet of encroachment but none of the other features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the park would not • be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-60 for detail of park impacts associated with Package A. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-169 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. FHWA and FTA propose that this use would have de minimisimpact. Final de minimSdeterminations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Longmont has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Package B There are no direct impacts associated with Package B. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm A retaining wall was included on the south side of the proposed tracks to mitigate use of the park. Otherwise, the railway footprint is reduced to the minimum width required to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for Sandstone Ranch • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. ▪ CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. • Property will be acquired consisted with the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Program. S S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-170 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 h15 information cooperation. transportation• . Figure 5-60 Sandstone Ranch Package A Use LEGEND 1. ; Package A Park Impacts ?i is . �,1 �& i r. Package A t . 4 2. 17 Acres I • I • ff • •. r k. . \} ' • �.- z� 'I:: Lighted Sports Fields _ . t ,. ! ,. i OFiel•s 1 Parking �� Un• r%lie\4P fr' ; .. - iC Area I •• Field p , .... i _ I R. ..m •' IcAroa r , • q _ J .,. _ __. .. . -r_ .._. SANDSTONE RANCH witro_ „ • ~ - LARIMER: I 4 ' 41, t MEAD . ` o Tr aq • LONGMONT , _.. t ..--- , :.i. -WELD FIRESTONE �4, 1. I �F '` s i BOULDER ,-0 ' ` i 4 1 • '` I Y,. 8 FREDERICK b :: { ` 52 - - - DACONO • `'LAFA." --. c- •; BROOMFIELD �! 1` ERIE BR v ,...LD d .,„ I , 7PN :,.. ; 0 200 400 /\ ti 1Feet NorthAIL - . I- ' "VMS III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-171 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 5.6 LEAST HARM ANALYSIS Section 4(f) mandates that if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that avoids the use of a Section 4(f) resource, that alternative must be selected. If all alternatives use land from a Section 4(f) resource, then an analysis must be performed to determine which has the least overall harm to the Section 4(f) resource. The least overall harm is determined by balancing factors such as: • The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property; • The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualifies each property for protection; • The relative significance of each property; • The views of the official with jurisdiction over the property; • The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; • The magnitude, after mitigation, of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f); and • Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. In several cases, the uses of Packages A and B would have the same context and intensity (see Table 5-7). Twenty of the resources that would be impacted (used) by both packages are recommended for de minimis determination. The context and intensity of the uses described as • de minimis would be similar between the alternatives despite very minor differences in the encroachments between the alternatives. Enhancements would be equivalent to the degree of impact. By definition, de minimis impacts have no adverse effects to the activities, features, and attributes of the park, or no adverse effects on historic sites. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-172 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-7 Recommended De Minirnis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H1 Safety B-H1 Safety Improvements: Improvements: SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 5LR.8932 An 83-foot culvert An 83-foot culvert • Use: Increase in culvert length Larimer County Ditch extension; no extension; no due to widening of 1-25. adverse effect. adverse effect. Mitigation: • Perform Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. • Maintain operation of ditch during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Ressed disturbed areas with native grasses. • 5LR.11396 1.76 acres, or less 1.76 acres, or less • Use: Acquisition of land along the Einarsen Farm than 1% of than 1% of farm's western edge due to property, by property, by realignment and widening of the incorporation of incorporation of east frontage road. 1,600-foot 50-foot 1,600-foot 50-foot Mitigation: strip of farmland strip of farmland • Property acquisition will be into project; no into project; no completed under the Uniform adverse effect. adverse effect. Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Reseed disturbed areas with native grasses. s Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-173 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.1139311409 A total of 0.27 acre, A total of 0.40 acre, • Use: Acquisition of the Rudolph Farm or less than 1% of or less than 1% of farm's west edge due to property by the propertyby highway widening. incorporation of a incorporation of a Mitigation: 2.5-foot by 1,247- 10-foot 1,247-foot • Fair compensation for foot strip of strip of farmland property acquisition will be farmland and a and a 0.13-acre completed under the 0.13-acre portion of portion of the Uniform Relocation Act. the farmland for farmland for a new new driveway driveway access; • Maintain operation of farm access; no adverse no adverse effect. during construction. effect. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Reseed disturbed areas with native grasses. Arapaho Bend 4.28 acres, or 1.5% 5.11 acres,or 1.8% • Use: I-25 widening & Natural Area of entire property; of entire property; carpool parking lot incidental use of incidental use% of expansion uses park. high-activity area high-activity area • Reclaim and revegetate in- and land adjacent and land adjacent kind the areas where the to highway right-of- to highway right-of- existing bridges are way; increase in way; increase in removed. overhead shading overhead shading Mitigation: Alternate routes and due to widened due to widened adequate detour signing will be bridge deck; bridge deck; provided during bridge demolition area will demolition area will reconstruction. be revegetated and be revegetated and reclaimed; in reclaimed; in addition, bank addition, bank stabilization along stabilization along Cache la Poudre Cache la Poudre River; no change in River; no change in activities or use activities or use areas. areas. s Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-174 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended De Minirnis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.11409 A total length of 85 A total length of 85 • Use: Placement of an open Cache la Poudre feet of open ditch, feet of open ditch, ditch inside culvert due to Reservoir Inlet or 1% of total or 1% of total widening of I-25. and length, in culvert length, in culvert Mitigation: Lake Canal extensions; no extensions; no • Detailed recording of the (5LR.995.4) adverse effect. adverse effect. affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. • Maintain operation of inlet during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • 5LR.2160 A total of 137.5 A total of 137.5 • Use: Placement of an open Boxelder Ditch feet, or less than feet, or less than ditch inside culvert due to 1% of total ditch 1% of total ditch widening of 1-25 and frontage length,incorporated lengthincorporated roads. into a new 62.5- into a new 62.5- Mitigation: foot-long new foot-long new • Detailed recording of the culvert and a 75- culvert and a 75- affected ditch, in accordance foot-long culvert foot-long culvert with the Colorado Historical extension; no extension; no Society. adverse effect. adverse effect. • Maintain operation of ditch during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-175 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooFeration. transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 Archery Range 0.09 acre, or less 0.14 acre, or less • Use: New frontage road Natural Area than 1% of the than 1% of the would tie into the entrance property, by property, by into the natural area. incorporation of incorporation of • Mitigation: BMPs will be very narrow 400- very narrow 400- used to avoid or minimize foot-long strip of foot-long strip of construction-related unused land. No unused land. No nuisances in affected areas features or features or from noise, dust, light/glare, amenities amenities etc. impacted. impacted. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be employed for erosion control. • Property acquisition will be • completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. 5LR.503 A total of 70 feet, or A total of 70 feet, or • Use: Placement of an open Loveland and less than 1% of less than 1%, of ditch inside culvert due to Greeley Canal total ditch lengthin total ditch length in widening of 1-25. culvert extension; culvert extension; Mitigation: no adverse effect. no adverse effect. • Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. • Maintain operation of canal during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be re- seeded with native grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-176 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.8928 A total of 2,539 A total of 2,539 • Use: Placement of an open ditch Farmers Ditch linear feet, or 3% of linear feet or 3% of inside five extended culverts due the total ditch the total ditch to widening of 1-25 and length, would be length would be interchange ramps. placed inside placed inside Mitigation: culvert extension; culvert extension; • Detailed recording of the affected no adverse effect. no adverse effect. ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. • Maintain operation of ditch during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • 5LR.11209 A total of 6.61 A total of 7.0 acres • Use: Acquisition of land along the Schmer Farm acres, or 5.3% of or 5.6% of the total farms western edge due to the total acreage of acreage of the realignment and widening of the the historic farm historic farm east frontage road. subject to direct subject to direct Mitigation: use, including an use, including an • Fair compensation for property approximately approximately acquisition will be completed 1,800-foot by 124- 1,800-foot by 134- under the Uniform Relocation foot strip (5.09 foot strip (5.48 Act. acres) of farmland acres) of farmland incorporated into incorporated into • Coordinate with SHPO during new elevated and new elevated and final design to formulate at-grade ramps, at-grade ramps, acceptable aesthetic treatment of and 1.52 acres for and 1.52 acres for highway ramps and flyways construction of new construction of new (facades, pier treatments, access from US 34 access from US 34 elevation changes, landscaping, to the frontage road to the frontage road etc.). leading to the leading to the • Maintain operation of farm during Schmer farmhouse Schmer farmhouse construction. and businesses on and businesses on • Employ appropriate erosion and the southwest the southwest sediment control BMPs to ensure corner of the corner of the protection of resource during interchange; no interchange; no construction. adverse effect. adverse effect. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-177 Draft EIS NORTH 1-27 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended De Minirnis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.850 A total of 170, feet, A total of 240 feet, • Use: Replace the existing Great Western or less than 16% of or less than 16% of railroad bridge under 1-25 Railway total railroad total railroad due to 1-25 widening. A length, length, section of railroad will be incorporated into a incorporated into a temporarily realigned to new bridge; no new bridge; no cross 1-25 north of the adverse effect. adverse effect. existing railroad bridge to maintain rail service. Mitigation: • Permanent easements or acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain rail operations during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs • to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbedareas will be reseeded with native grasses. s Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-178 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.11382 A total of 2.1 acres, A total of 2.2 acres, • Use: Acquisition of land along Hatch Farm or 2% of total or 2% of total the farm's western edge due to property, by property, by widening of 1-25, retaining wall incorporation of incorporation of construction, and installation of narrow 850-foot narrow 850-foot 2 water quality basins. and 450-foot strips and 450-foot strips Mitigation: of farmland and of farmland and • Fair compensation for property two water quality two water quality acquisition will be completed ponds into the ponds into the under the Uniform Relocation project; no adverse project; no adverse Act. effect. effect. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Big Thompson Ponds 0.11 acre, or less 0.24 acre, or less • Use: Highway widening and State Wildlife Area than 1% of than 1% of permanent wall easement. property, by property, by Mitigation: incorporation of incorporation of • CDOT will investigate the narrow 750-foot- narrow 750-foot- suitability of land acquisition for longand 200-foot- long and 200-foot- replacement of impacted lands long strip of land long strip of land used by the transportation adjacent to 1-25 adjacent to 1-25 improvements. due to ramp and due to ramp and • Disturbed area will be reseeded lane additions. No lane additions. No with native grasses. impacts features, impacts features, • Native shrubs will be replaced as amenities or wildlife amenities or wildlife appropriate. area. area. • Easement acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-179 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended Fk Miniinis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources ! Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.8927 A total of 135 feet, A total of 135 feet, • Use: Placement of an open Hillsboro Ditch or 6% of total ditch or 6% of total ditch ditch inside culvert due to length, would be length, would be widening of 1-25 and installation incorporated into incorporated into of retaining walls. culvert extensions; culvert extensions; Mitigation: no adverse effect. no adverse effect. • Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. • Maintain operation of ditch during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. 5LR.11242 A total of 4.76 A total of 5.28 • Use: Property acquisition due to Mountain View Farm acres, or 3.5% of acres, or 4% of the interchange ramp realignment the property, by property, by and SH 402 widening. incorporation of a incorporation of a Mitigation: 65-foot- by 3,200- 60-foot- by 3,900- • Fair compensation for property foot-long strip of foot-long strip of acquisition will be completed farmland adjacent farmland adjacent under the Uniform Relocation to 1-25 and SH 402; to 1-25 and SH 402; Act. no adverse effect no adverse effect • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.180 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-7 Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H3 B-H3 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 5WL.5203 A total of 17.94 A total of 20.04 • Use: Property acquisition Bein Farm acres, or 6.2% of acres, or 7% of the due to highway widening the property, by property, by and SH 60 widening. incorporation of a incorporation of a Mitigation: 4,600-foot by 150- 4,600-foot by 170- • Fair compensation for foot strip of foot strip of property acquisition will be farmland adjacent farmland adjacent completed under the to 1-25 and an 800- to 1-25 and an 800- Uniform Relocation Act. foot by 110-foot foot by 110-foot strip of farmland strip of farmland • Maintain operation of farm adjacent to SH 60; adjacent to SH 60; during construction. no adverse effect. no adverse effect. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be • reseeded with native grasses. 5WL.3149 A total of 50 feet, or A total of 50 feet, or • Use: Placement of an open Handy/Home Supply 2% of total ditch 2% of total ditch ditch inside culvert due to Ditch Confluence length, length, widening of 1-25 and incorporated into incorporated into installation of retaining an culvert an culvert walls. extension; no extension; no Mitigation: adverse effect. adverse effect. • Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. • Maintain operation of ditch during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(0 Evaluation 5-181 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources • Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H3 B-H3 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 Little Thompson River 2.04 acres or, 2% 2.03 acres, or 2% • Use: Property acquisition Corridor of total property, by of total property, by due to highway widening. incorporation of a incorporation of a Mitigation: 600-foot by 100- 600-foot by 100- • CDOT will investigate the foot area adjacent foot area adjacent suitability of land acquisition to the river due to to the river due to for replacement of impacted lane and ramp lane and ramp lands used by transportation additions and new additions and new improvements. access. A portion access. A portion • CDOT will develop the new of the trail would be of the trail would be access before the existing located under located under access is closed. Alternate bridge structure. bridge structure. routes will be identified and No impacts to No impacts to adequate detour signing will facilities or facilities or be provided. amenities. amenities. • Work with Berthoud to reseed disturbed with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added • as appropriate. 5WL.5198 A total of 12.74 A total of 12.81 • Use: Property acquisition of Olson Farm acres, or 9% of acres, or 9% of land due to highway property, by property, by widening and installation of incorporation of incorporation of retaining walls. land from both land from both Mitigation: sides of I-25; no sides of I-25; no • Fair compensation for adverse effect. adverse effect. property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-182 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. Table 5-7 Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Summarized by Context and Intensity (cont'd) Resource ID/ Package A Package B Context and Intensity of Uses Resource Name A-H3 B-H3 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 5WL.1966, 5BF.72, A total of 908 feet, A total of 850 feet • Use: Placement of an open 5BF.76, 5AM.457 or less than 1% of or less than 1% of ditch inside culvert due to Bull Canal/Standley the total ditch the total ditch widening of 1-25 and Ditch length, would be length, would be installation of commuter rail placed into three placed into two tracks. culvert extensions; culvert extensions; Mitigation: no adverse effect. no adverse effect. • Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society • Maintain operation of ditch during construction. • Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during • construction. • Disturbed areas will be re- seeded with native grasses. Summary of Recommended De Minimis Findings of Section 4(f) Resources Package A Package B Totals 7 Historic farms: 46.18 acres 7 Historic farms: 49.49 acres 9 ditches 9 ditches 1 Railroad 1 Railroad 4 Parks: 6.52 acres 4 Parks: 7.52 acres The above resources are recommended for a de minimis finding. Mitigation and enhancements have already been considered in the intention to make such a finding. Since the impacts are trivial by nature, a comparison of the resources does not contribute to a difference in harm between the alternatives. Final determinations regarding de minimis will be made only after the public has been provided with an opportunity to comment and the official with jurisdiction has submitted its written concurrence. There are no differences in intensity and value between Package A and Package B for these resources recommended for de minimis findings. The following resource, listed in Table 5-8, has identical uses in intensity and value for both packages. This resource does not contribute to any differentiation or least harm conclusion for the two build packages. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-183 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation transportation. Table 5-8 Section 4(f) Resources—Identical Use for Both Packages A and B S Resource Id Package A Package B Identical Uses In Value and Intensity A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements: Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH 14 to SH 60 McWhinney Hahn 1.21 acres 1.21 acres • Use: Property acquisition due to Sculpture Park (approximately (approximately 875- interchange, highway and local 875-foot by 60- foot by 60-footstrip roadway widening. foot strip of land), of land), or 27% of • Use: Function of park is lost. or 27% of park, park, used for used for placement of new placement of new ramps; includes ramps; includes impacts to impacts to sculptures, trails, sculptures, trails, and access. Serves and access. as gateway for city. Serves as gateway for city. Notes:%=percent 5.6.1 Parks and Recreation Resources There are three parks or recreational resources, and a wildlife and waterfowl refuge with different uses between the two packages. One of these park or recreational resources would be • used by Package A and is awaiting a de minimis finding. Mitigation and enhancements have already been considered in the intention to make such a finding. Two parks or recreational resources would be used by Package B and both are awaiting a de minimis finding. The impacts to narrow strips of 1-25 frontage did not utilize important habitat, trail, or activity areas, but reduce by small increments the buffer between the highway and the park or recreational area. The Package A uses occur within the commuter rail components between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station, and consist of placement of the commuter rail alignment along the northern frontage of the historic recreation area under Package A (see Table 5-9). The Package B uses occur from impacts caused by general widening associated with component B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes between E-470 to 70th Avenue. Meetings with the local jurisdictions were held to describe the project, the alternatives analysis, and the nature and intensity of uses to affected resources. Mapping of facilities associated with affected properties were also verified. After impacts were determined associated with each of the packages, coordination began with jurisdictions that could be potentially affected by use of Section 4(f) resources. General mitigation strategies were discussed with a commitment to explore these strategies in more detail after identification of the Preferred Alternative. Coordination meetings have been held to date with Fort Collins, Northglenn, Loveland, and Boulder County. Coordination will continue to occur throughout the remainder of the NEPA process. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-184 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-9 Public Parks and Recreation Areas Resource Use and Mitigation under Use and Mitigation under Package A Package B A-H4 B-H4 Structure Upgrades: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to 70th Avenue Grant Park No use • Use: 0.09 acre. • De minimis finding being sought. • Enhancement: Two water quality ponds would be constructed to accommodate drainage associated with construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses and shrubs as appropriate. Civic Center Park No use • Use: 1.18 acres. (Thornton) • De minimis finding being sought. • Enhancement: Noise mitigation recommendations would be consistent with other commitments made in the DEIS noise barrier analysis. Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses and shrubs as appropriate; BMPs will be employed for erosion control. A-T2 B-T2 Transit Component: Transit Component-BRT:Fort Collins to Commuter Rail:Longmont to N. DIA • Metro Sandstone Ranch • Use: 2.17 acres. No use Park • De minimis finding being sought. • Enhancement: Retaining wall included on south side of commuter rail tracks to minimize impacts. Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses and shrubs as appropriate; BMPs will be employed for erosion control. Public Parks and Package A Package B Recreation Areas • 1 park(2.17 acres)—de minimis • 2 parks (1.27 acres)—de minimis findings Totals finding being sought. being sought. 5.6.2 Historic Resources There are 16 historical resources with different uses between the two packages. Fifteen of these historic resources would be used with Package A within the commuter rail line improvements, eleven of which are awaiting a determination of de minimis. Mitigation and enhancements have already been considered in the intention to make such a finding. Two of the properties used under Package A constitute a total property acquisition and demolition of the resources. Package B would result in a use to one ditch. See Table 5-10, Table 5-11, and Table 5-12. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-185 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Table 5-10 Summary of Non-De Minitnis Historic Property Uses Resource Use and Mitigation Use and Mitigation under Package A under Package B A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Improvements: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.8930 • Use: 316 linear feet of open ditch • Use: 357 linear feet of open Louden Ditch placed inside new (90 feet)and ditch placed inside new (87 extended existing (225 feet) feet)and extended existing culverts. (270 feet) culverts. • Mitigation: • Mitigation: — Detailed recording of the — Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance affected ditch, in with the Colorado Historical accordance with the Society. Colorado Historical — Maintain operation of ditch Society. during construction. — Maintain operation of ditch — Employ appropriate erosion and during construction. sediment control BMPs to — Employ appropriate ensure protection of resource erosion and sediment during construction. control BMPs to ensure — Disturbed areas will be protection of resource reseeded with native grasses. during construction. — Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native • grasses. S Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-186 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-10 Summary of Non-De Minimis Historic Property Uses (cont'd) Resource Use and Mitigation Use and Mitigation under Package A under Package B A-T2 B-T2 Transit Component: Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Longmont to N. Fort Collins to DIA Metro 5BL.1245 • Use: 0.85 acre; demolition or No use Old City Electric Building relocation of historic building. • Mitigation: — Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. — Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. — Evaluate relocation of historic structure: Engineering feasibility study of relocation of historic building, identification of a new site for relocation of the historic building, and requires sponsor • to maintain relocated building. — Detailed recording of the building, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation. 5BL.1244 • Use: 0.51 acre and demolition or No use Colorado and relocation of historic building. Southern/BNSF Depot Mitigation: — Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. — Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. — Evaluate relocation of historic structure: Engineering feasibility study of relocation of historic building, and requires sponsor to maintain relocation building. — Detailed recording of the building, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-187 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-10 Summary of Non-De Minirnis Historic Property Uses (cont'd) • Resource Use and Mitigation Use and Mitigation under Package A under Package B A-T2 B-T2 Transit Component: Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail:Longmont Fort Collins to N. Metro to DIA 5WL.5263 • Use: A total of 7.34 acres, or 9%, of No Use Hingley Farm unused land and demolition or relocation of the historic farmhouse. • Mitigation: — Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. — Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. — Evaluate relocation of historic structure: Engineering feasibility study of relocation of historic building, identification of a new site for relocation of the historic building, and requires sponsor to maintain relocated building. • — Detailed recording of the building, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation. 5WL.1969, 5BF.130 Denver • Use: 2.9-mile abandoned segment No Use Pacific/Kansas modernized for double-track Pacific/UPRR-Denver and commuter rail operations. Two Boulder Valley Branch contributing wooden trestle bridges would be demolished to upgrade existing drainage crossings to carry structural load. • Enhancement: — Detailed recording of the affected railway, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-188 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-11 Summary of Historic Property De Minimis Uses Resource Use and Mitigation Use and Mitigation under Package A under Package B A-T1 B-T1 Transit Component: Transit Component: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins—Longmont BRT:Fort Collins/ Greeley to Denver 5LR.488 • Use: A total of 0.03 acres or 7%, of total property No use Colorado • De minimis finding being sought. and • Enhancement: Southern — Permanent easement or property acquisition will be Railway completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. Depot/ — Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped. Loveland — Attempts will be made to incorporate the depot into the Depot station platform. 5BL.3449 • Use: A total of 65 feet, or less than 1% of total ditch length, No use Supply Ditch would be placed into an culvert extension. • De minimis finding being sought. • Enhancement: — Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. — Maintain operation of ditch during construction. — Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. — Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Rough 13 • Use: A total of 35 feet, or less than 1% of total ditch length, No use Rough & placed into an existing extension. Ready Ditch • De minimis finding being sought. • Enhancement: — Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. — Maintain operation of ditch during construction. — Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. — Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. A-T2 B-T2 Transit Component: Transit Component- Commuter Rail: Longmont to N. Metro BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 5LR.1729 • A total of 60 feet, or less than less than 1% of total ditch length, No use Big placed into an culvert extension. Thompson • De minimis finding being sought. Ditch • Enhancement: — Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. — Maintain operation of ditch during construction. — Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. — Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses . • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-189 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-11 Summary of Historic Property De Minimis Uses (cont'd) Use and Mitigation Use and Mitigation Resource under Package A under Package B A-T2 B-T2 Transit Component: Transit Component- Commuter Rail: Longmont to N. Metro BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 5BL.513 • Use: A total of 0.33 acre, or 9% of the property, would be used No use Great for pedestrian walkway. Western • De minimis finding being sought. Sugar • Enhancement: — Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. — Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. — Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped. 5WL.712 • Use: A total of 2.17 acres, or less than 1% of unused land within No use Sandstone the historic district, used for new railroad. Ranch • De minimis finding being sought. • Enhancement: — Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. — Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. — Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped. • 5WL.5461 • Use: A total of 63 feet, or less than 1% of open ditch, would be No use Boulder& placed into a new culvert. Weld County • De minimis finding being sought. Ditch Enhancement: — Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. — Maintain operation of ditch during construction. — Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. — Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. 5WL.1974 • Use: A total of 130 feet, or less than 1% of open ditch, would be No use Rural Ditch placed into a new culvert. • De minimis finding being sought • Enhancement: — Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society. — Maintain operation of ditch during construction. — Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. — Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-190 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-11 Summary of Historic Property De Minimis Uses (coned) Resource Use and Mitigation Use and Mitigation under Package A under Package B A-T2 B-T2 Transit Component: Transit Component- Commuter Rail: Longmont to N. Metro BRT: Fort Collins to DIA 5WL.1317, • Use: 4.89-mile abandoned segment modernized for double- No use 5AM.472 track commuter rail operations. Denver • De minimis finding being sought. Pacific/ • Enhancement: Kansas — Detailed recording of the affected railway, in accordance Pacific/UPR with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II R-Dent Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO Branch concurrence. — Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. 5WL.1966.8 • Use: A total of 58 feet, or less than 1% of the total ditch length, No use Bull Ditch would be placed into an culvert extension. segment of • De minimis finding being sought for entire resource. the Bull • Enhancement: Canal/ — Detailed recording of the affected ditch, in accordance with Standley the Colorado Historical Society. • Ditch — Maintain operation of ditch during construction. — Employ appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to ensure protection of resource during construction. — Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Table 5-12 Historic Resources Least Harm Analysis Resource Use and Mitigation Use and Mitigation under Package A under Package B Historic Package A Package B Resources • 1 ditch: 316 linear feet—Adverse effect • 1 ditch: 357 linear • 1 railroad: 2.9 miles—Adverse effect 2 properties: 1.36 acres feet—Adverse (full acquisition)—Adverse effect effect Summary • 1 property: 7.34 acres—Adverse effect • 3 properties: 2.53 acres—De minimis* • 7 ditches: 459 linear feet—De minimis • 1 railroad: 4.89 miles—De minimis *sandstone Ranch qualifies as a public park and historic property.Use quantities appear under parks and historic categories. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-191 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 5.6.3 Summary • The Least Harm Analysis has included the de minimis properties with similar use and intensity identified in Table 5-7, properties with identical use shown in Table 5-8, park and recreation resources identified in Table 5-9, and historical resources identified in Table 5-10 and Table 5-11. Table 5-13 summarizes all of the Section 4(f) uses broken down by package and component, including those with similar uses and intensity. Table 5-13 Least Harm Analysis Summary Resource Type Package A Package B A-H1 B-H1 Safety Improvements: Safety Improvements: SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 Park and recreation area • No use No use Historic • 1 property: 1.76 acres—De minimis • 1 property: 1.76 acres—De • 1 ditch— De minimis minimis • 1 ditch—De minimis A-H2 B-H2 GP Highway Improvements: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 Park and recreation area • 3 parks: 4.48 acres—De minimis • 3 parks: 5.49 acres—De minimis • 1 park: 1.21 acres • 1 park: 1.21 acres Historic • 4 properties: 13.74 acres—De • 4 properties: 14.88 acres —De • minimis minimis • 6 ditches—De minimis • 6 ditches—De minimis • 1 ditch—Adverse Effect • 1 ditch—Adverse Effect • 1 railroad—De minimis • 1 railroad—De minimis A-H3 B-H3 GP Highway Improvements: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 Park and recreation area • 1 park: 2.04 acres—De minimis • 1 park: 2.03 acres—De minimis Historic • 2 properties: 30.68 acres—De • 2 properties: 32.85 acres—De minimis minimis • 2 ditches—De minimis • 2 ditches—De minimis A-H4 B-H4 Structure Upgrades: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to 70th Avenue Park and recreation area • No use • 2 parks: 1.27 acres—De minimis Historic • No use • No use A-T1 B-T1 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: Transit Component-BRT: Fort Collins to Longmont Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver_ Park and recreation area • No use • No use Historic • 3 ditches—De minimis • No use • 1 property: 0.03 acres—De minimis • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5.192 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 5-13 Least Harm Analysis Summary (cont'd) Resource Type Package A Package B A-T2 B-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA Park and recreation area • 1 park: 2.17 acres—De minimis` • No use Historic • 2 properties: 1.36 acres (demolition • No use and full acquisition)—Adverse Effect • 1 property: 7.34 acres—Adverse Effect • 2 properties: 2.5 acres—De minimis' • 4 ditches—De minimis • 1 railroad—De minimis • 1 railroad—Adverse Effect Totals Package A Package B Historic • 2 properties: 1.36 acres (full • 7 properties: 49.49 acres—De acquisition)—Adverse Effect minimis • 1 property: 7.34 acres—Adverse • 9 ditches—De minimis Effect • 1 railroad—De minimis • 10 properties: 48.71 acres—De • 1 ditch—Adverse Effect minimis` • 16 ditches—De minimis • • 1 ditch—Adverse Effect • 2 railroads—De minimis • 1 railroad—Adverse Effect Park and recreation area • 1 park: 1.21 acres • 1 park: 1.21 acres • 5 parks: 8.69 acres—De minimis* • 6 parks: 8.79 acres—De minimis `Sandstone Ranch qualifies as a public park and historic property. Use quantities appear under parks and historic categories. Package A and Package B transportation improvements within the regional study area are composed of three primary transportation corridors: the I-25-centered improvements, Fort Collins to FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station commuter rail improvements, and Greeley to DUS bus transit improvements. Feeder bus transit improvements are incorporated into all the corridor improvements. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, each corridor has been subdivided into transportation components, which define more detailed design options at a more local geographic basis. Impacts to Section 4(f)-protected resources along each of these corridors have been tabulated and quantified in the preceding Table 5-6 through Table 5-10. Analyses of these tables elicits the following trends among the corridors and Section 4(f) use. The Package A and Package B roadway designs, although different in transportation modes and lane configurations, have been developed with consideration of the same existing highway, frontage and local roadway infrastructure, within the same engineering design and safety standards, and with the same physical constraints dictated by environmental resource impacts, existing and planned development, land use, and community social and economic • factors. The common goal of minimizing impacts outside the existing right-of-way resulted in compact design layouts that often utilize the same space for different transportation improvements. Thus, this consolidation of improvements to similar footprints between packages has resulted in similar uses of Section 4(f) resources along the 1-25 corridor. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-193 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooreration. transportation. 1-25 Corridor Components • The overall use of Section 4(f) resources along the 1-25 corridor, including components for Package A highway improvements and Package B highway, TEL, and BRT improvements as described in Table 5-13, 1-25 corridor components are so similar between Package A and Package B that there is no substantial difference in intensity or type of use. The number of historic ditches and railroads, the acreage of impact to parks, recreational areas and historic properties, and the nature of the intrusions involving these Section 4(f)-protected resources as summarized in Table 5-13 is slightly skewed toward Package B (more impacts). In most areas, even if the actual component improvement was different, the intensity of the impacts caused by each package component was similar if not identical. Therefore, there is very little discernable difference between the I-25-centered portions of Packages A and B. Bus Rapid Transit The Greeley/Fort Collins to DUS/DIA transportation improvements are primarily associated with Package B Bus Rapid Transit components and improvements to local bus stops parking facilities, and a maintenance yard, and also include feeder bus connections in common with Package A. None of these improvements result in use of Section 4(f)-protected resources, and, therefore, have little influence upon the least harm analysis. Use of other environmental resources is relatively minor and would not change the intensity of impacts associated with this component of Package B. Commuter Rail The Fort Collins to FasTracks North Metro commuter rail components connect with the planned FasTracks North Metro transit facilities. Although a portion of this corridor shares a portion of the BNSF freight rail corridor between Fort Collins and Longmont (A-T1), the • commuter rail would be a new transit element between Fort Collins and the FasTracks linkages of the Denver metropolitan area. The commuter rail (Component A-T2) would occupy a new and independent rail corridor between Longmont and the FasTracks North Metro terminus. Because the commuter rail traverses an underdeveloped rural landscape, many more historic properties are encountered along its alignment than the more urbanized and transportation-oriented corridors of US 85 between Greeley and Denver and 1-25. Component A-T1 could be considered a stand-alone component of the commuter rail piece of Package A, connecting to the Northwest Rail FasTracks corridor. Summary The following captures the component distribution of use: A-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 De minimis use B-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 De minimis use A-H2: GP Highway Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 De minimis& Direct Use B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 De minimis& Direct Use A-H3: GP Highway Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 De minimis use B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 De minimis use A-H4: Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 No use B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to 70th Avenue De minimis use A-T1: Transit Component-Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont De minimis use B-T1: Transit Component-BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver No use A-T2: Transit Component-Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro De minimis & Direct Use • B-T2: Transit Component-BRT: Fort Collins to DIA No use Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-194 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • Pursuant to Section 774.3(c)(1), the following text provides information that FHWA and FTA will use to determine which package or component (if these are redistributed within a package after the DEIS public review period) causes the least overall harm in light of the statute's preservation purpose. It should be noted, as detailed on Table 5-13, that the only components within a package that have no Section 4(f) uses associated with them are the structural upgrades associated with Package A (A-H4), the Package A commuter rail component from Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver (B-T1) and the Package B BRT component (B-T2). None of these three components would meet the project purpose and need by themselves; however, it is possible that, after the public review period for the DEIS, they may be combined with other components that collectively would meet purpose and need. Since the analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, as described in Sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 of this chapter, concludes that there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative available [from among the remaining alternatives that use Section 4(f) property], the text below provides information that will be used to determine which of the two build alternatives would cause the least overall harm. Package A (Component A-T2) would result in more use (in terms of acres) to more historic Section 4(f) properties than Package B, due primarily to the greater uses of properties associated with the commuter rail components. The four historic properties with adverse effects associated with Package A that are not used with Package B are the three with buildings to be acquired: Hingley Farm, the Old City Electric Building, the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Railroad Depot; and fourth resource: the Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific/Denver and Boulder Valley Railroad branch. In all four cases, the ability to mitigate the adverse effects • associated with the uses is strong. For the three historic buildings, the possibility of moving the building either to another location onsite or to a location that would be incorporated into the planned commuter rail station would substantially mitigate the adverse impact to each of these three properties and consequently substantially reduce any remaining harm (after mitigation) to the protected attributes and features of these three properties. For the railroad, even though two wooden trestle bridges would be demolished and 2.9 miles of abandoned railroad bed would be modernized, this modernization is entirely consistent with the original use of the railroad right- of-way as a train corridor. Both packages use land from the same six park and recreational resources, although Package B uses more acreage. In addition, Package A uses property from one park that is not used by Package B (Sandstone Ranch), while Package B uses land from two other parks (Thornton Civic Center Park and Grant Park) that are not used by Package A. Grant Park is also a Section 6(f) resource. Even though Package B would use more acreage of park property and would use more property from more total parks, after mitigation, the remaining park property would not be diminished in utility and none of the features or attributes of the parks would be negatively impacted. The one exception to this is at McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park, where the two packages have identical uses and where the protected park attributes and features would be lost. For the remaining historic property uses (all of which have been determined to be not adverse in nature), Package A also would result in two more historic property uses and seven more historic ditch uses, all of which have been determined to be de minimis. By definition, even though • there are more total properties used, the de minimis nature of these uses illustrates the minor nature of the harm. In addition, the remaining harm to these properties is minimal. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-195 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. The relative significance of the Section 4(f) historic properties that are used is as follows: • ► Both the Colorado & Southern / BNSF Railroad Depot and the City Electric Building are important elements of infrastructure necessary for the development of this region. The depot served a key role in providing rail transportation service to early settlers. The electric building in Longmont was one of the first municipally owned electric generation plants. ► The Hingley Farm and Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific/Denver and Boulder Valley Railroad branch would have less significance because there were many farmsteads on the Plains with multiple farmsteads remaining intact, and many railroad tracks still evident on the Plains in this region. The significance of the historic ditches can be most appropriately viewed in a context of the nature of the regional study area, which is a historic agricultural area with hundreds of agricultural ditches. The views of the officials with jurisdiction are, in almost all of the cases of Section 4(f) property use, not such that they would contribute to a discussion of relative harm. The officials with jurisdiction in general were supportive of the project and did not feel that the proposed property use was a significant effect to the attributes, activities, or features of the remaining property. The one exception to this was expressed by the officials with jurisdiction over the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. This view is that the effects to the park property from blocking the views of the sculpture park from US 34 and from users of the park to the Rocky Mountains are such that the activities, attributes, and features of the park could no • longer serve the original intended use as a gateway to Loveland, and a replacement property that would substitute for the park would likely be the most appropriate mitigation. The degree to which Package A meets the purpose and need for the project (as compared with Package B) is: ► Would provide faster vehicle time than Package B by seven minutes. ► Would provide more travel lanes for the general-purpose highway user, so would attract more highway users. ► Would more noticeably reduce travel on parallel arterial streets. ► Would produce 3,400 more transit riders per day. By contrast, Package B would result in more reliable, uncongested travel for users of the tolled express lanes. Package B would provide greater automobile travel time savings compared to Package A; 64 minutes in the tolled express lanes compared to 101 minutes for Package A. Package B would also provide more travel time savings for transit users from Greeley and Fort Collins, a savings of 21 minutes from Fort Collins and 32 minutes from Greeley (when compared to Package A commuter rail.) After reasonable mitigation, the adverse impacts to other resources as a result of Package A would include impacts to established communities and business areas primarily in the Longmont area as a result of 35 more residential and 17 more business displacements. Even though this is a noticeable difference in residential and business relocations, the availability of • replacement housing and business sites would not indicate that this remaining adverse impact would be of high magnitude. In addition, an adverse effect after mitigation would Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-196 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • result from the addition of commuter rail that will operate on a much more frequent basis than the freight rail along the same corridor (with the addition of a second set of tracks) and the addition of commuter rail along the alignment between Longmont and the FasTracks North Metro corridor, where no rail service currently exists. In these locations, the commuter rail service would serve to either create a new barrier between communities or to exacerbate the barrier created by the existing freight rail service. As a comparison, after reasonable mitigation, the adverse impacts as a result of Package B would include 75.73 additional acres of direct removal of threatened, endangered, state sensitive, and protected species habitat and traffic noise impacts (after mitigation) to 624 receivers as compared to 570 receivers with Package A. In addition, even after mitigation, the 239 additional acres of impervious surface associated with Package B would continue to result in a greater quantity of stormwater runoff. Other greater impacts to terrestrial and aquatic habitat and wetlands are able to be satisfactorily mitigated so that the remaining adverse effects are minimal. Package A is $426 million more expensive to build and $23 million more expensive to operate than Package B. This would be considered a substantial cost difference. In summary, the factors presented on the previous pages provide information that FHWA and FTA will use (when combined with feedback from the Draft EIS public review process) to determine which of the two build packages (and components of the two packages if they are recombined into a new package) would cause the least overall harm in light of the statute's preservation purpose. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-197 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 2 This chapter presents the results of project 3 cost estimates (capital as well as operating 4 and maintenance [O&M]), a review of What's In Chapter 6? 5 existing funding sources that are available Chapter 6 Financial Analysis 6 to fund the project, and a discussion of the 6.1 Capital Costs 7 likely funding gap. The information provided 6.2 Operating & Maintenance (O&M) 8 in this chapter is intended to provide Costs 9 sufficient context to allow decision-makers 6.3 Revenue Projections 6.4 Annual Cash Flow Assessment 10 to understand the need for a long-term 6.5 Summary of Funding Shortfall 11 funding strategy. The focus of this Draft EIS 12 is on the corridor-level improvement 13 packages. A specific funding strategy that addresses anticipated More detailed discussions 14 about specific design concepts and costs will continue as the project advances through future 15 planning phases. funding shortfalls will be developed as part of this project's future planning 16 phases. This is required prior to the final completion of the federal agency decision, 17 documented in the Record of Decision (ROD). 18 6.1 CAPITAL COSTS 19 This section presents a summary of capital costs for the two build packages. Detailed 20 descriptions of package components, which provide a basis for the cost estimates, are . 21 found in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Cost estimates are based on the latest unit cost 22 information available for the types of construction and procurement items, and are in 23 accordance with industry accepted procedures. These costs are inclusive of contingencies, 24 utilities, engineering and right-of-way acquisition. 25 After this Draft EIS, a preferred alternative will be developed which could include certain 26 components of one package combined with certain components of the other package. This 27 would obviously alter the capital and operating costs of the preferred alternative as 28 compared to the two build packages. 29 6.1.1 Package A Costs 30 Package A components include new 1-25 general purpose (plus auxiliary) lanes, new US 85 31 and E-470 commuter bus service, and new commuter rail service. Table 6-1 provides 32 Package A capital cost estimates, which are presented in 2005 dollars. S Financial Analysis 6-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 6-1 Package A Capital Cost Estimate (2005 dollars) • Item I-25 General US 85/E470 Commuter Total Purpose Lanes Commuter Bus Rail Construction $896.1M $7.8M $743.0 M $1,646.9M Utilities $26.9M 0.2M $22.3M $49.4M Engineering $277.8M $2.4M $230.3M $510.5M Right-of-Way $88.0M $5.8M $42.0M $135.8M Legal Insurance N/A N/A $14.9M $14.9M Vehicles N/A $12.0M $63.0M $75.0M Total Package Cost $1,288.8M $28.2M $1,115.5M $2,432.5M to=million NA=Not Applicable 2 6.1.2 Package B Costs 3 Components of Package B include new 1-25 tolled express lanes from SH 14 to 84th Avenue and 4 new bus rapid transit (BRT) service on 1-25, E-470, US 34 and Harmony Road. The tolled 5 express lanes would be managed through a toll pricing strategy. There are two variations that are 6 being considered. The base case assumes two-direction, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes to 7 84th Avenue. Option "B2" assumes reversible HOT lanes from 84th Avenue to 120th Avenue. 8 Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 provide capital cost estimates for the two Package B scenarios, which 9 are presented in 2005 dollars. 10 Table 6-2 Package B Capital Cost Estimate (2005 dollars) Item I-25 Tolled Express Bus Rapid • Total Lanes Transit Construction Items $1,315.4M $83.2M $1,398.6M Utilities $39.4M $2.5M $41.9M Engineering $407.7M $25.8M $433.5M Right-of-Way $101.2M $2.9M $104.1M Vehicles N/A $28.3M $28.3M Total Package Cost $1,863.7M $142.7M $2,006.4M Includes feeder bus M=million N/A =Not Applicable 11 Table 6-3 Option B2 Capital Cost Estimate (in millions) Item I-25 Tolled Express Bus Rapid Total Lanes Transit Construction Items $1,327.2 M $83.2 M $1,410.4 M Utilities $39.8 M $2.5 M $42.3M Engineering $412.5M $25.8 M $438.3M Right-of-Way $101.2M $2.9M $104.1M Vehicles N/A $28.3 M $28.3 M Total Package Cost $1,880.7M $142.7M $2,023.4M Includes feeder bus M=million N/A =Not Applicable ill Financial Analysis 6-2 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation• . 1 6.1.3 Current Allocated Funding 2 There are limited existing funding sources that are available to help fund construction for the 3 North 1-25 corridor transportation improvements. Sources that have been identified from the 4 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and other sources are as follows: 5 ► 7`h Pot Commitment. A total of$255.3 million has been identified for highway 6 improvements for the North 1-25 corridor from CDOT's 7th pot program. 7 ► Highway Improvements. A total of$13.2 million has already been identified from the RTP 8 for highway improvements along SH 14. A total of$37.4 million has already been approved 9 for highway improvements along SH 7. 10 ► Transit Improvements. A total of$12.9 million has been identified for railroad crossing 11 improvements at LeMay and Vine, $5.1 million for railroad corridor preservation, $700,000 12 for new regional transit service between Greeley and Loveland, and $8.5 million for the 13 Mason Transportation Corridor project. These improvement projects were also identified 14 from the RTP. 15 Table 6-4 summarizes known funding sources for each package and identifies the 16 remaining unfunded balance. As Table 6-4 shows, only 13.7 percent of Package A, 17 15.7 percent of Package B, and 15.6 percent of Option B2 can be funded with known and 18 committed existing available funds. • 19 Table 6-4 Available Existing Funding Sources/Funding Gap (2005 dollars) Project Component Package A Package B Option B2 Package Capital Cost $2,432.5M $2,006.4M $2,023.4M SH 14 $13.2M $13.2M $13.2M SH 7 $37.4 M $37.4 M $37.4M 7th Pot $255.3 M $255.3 M $255.3M Regional Transit—Greeley to Loveland $0.7 M $0.7M $0.7M Mason South Transit Center $8.5 M $8.5 M $8.5M Railroad Corridor Preservation $5.1 M n/a n/a Railroad Crossing—(LeMay &Vine) $12.9 M n/a n/a Total Available Funding 333.1M $315.1M $315.1M Remaining Amount Unfunded $2,099.4M $1,691.3M $1,708.3M M=million • Financial Analysis 6-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 6.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS • 2 6.2.1 Transit O&M Costs 3 Transit O&M costs include the costs associated with providing and maintaining a certain 4 level of bus or rail service. A large percentage of these costs are for salaries/wages and 5 fringe benefits for drivers, mechanics, and administrative staff. Other items include 6 fuel/lubricants, materials/supplies, utilities, and insurance. 7 In accordance with industry accepted procedures, annual O&M cost estimates were 8 developed based on unit costs for three types of service; local and feeder bus service, 9 premium bus service, and rail service. For modifications to local bus service and for feeder 10 bus services using conventional buses, an hourly service cost was applied based on a 11 "blended" hourly rate of North Front Range operators. For premium bus service which was 12 assumed for regional commuter bus or BRT services, a higher hourly service cost was 13 applied, based on RTD's hourly rate for similar bus services. For rail service, O&M costs are 14 based on a commuter rail cost model, developed primarily with Virginia Railway Express 15 (VRE) reported cost data for 2003. All costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. 16 O&M cost estimates are broken by type of service. Costs for local route service include 17 costs for additional local feeder bus routes. Premium corridor bus service costs include the 18 new commuter bus service in Package A and the new BRT service in Package B. 19 Commuter rail service is only included in Package A. Table 6-5 provides anticipated annual 20 transit O&M costs. • 21 Table 6-5 Annual Transit O&M Cost Estimates for 2030 Conditions (in 2005 dollars) Component Package A Package B New Local Route Service $5.4M $3.8M Premium Bus Service $4.7M $8.4M Commuter Rail $28.2M $0.0 Total Transit O&M Cost $38.3M $12.2M M=million 22 6.2.2 Highway O&M Costs 23 Annual O&M costs for highway improvements were estimated by assuming an average cost 24 of$14,150 per new lane-mile (2005 dollars). This is based on actual maintenance costs for 25 the 1-25 corridor from M.P. 243 to M.P. 269 for the years 2001 through 2005. Package A 26 includes approximately 81 new lane-miles of roadway. Package B includes approximately 27 129 new lane-miles of roadway. O&M costs for revenue collection from the tolled portion of 28 the managed lanes were determined for this project on the basis of tolled express lane 29 traffic forecasts. Table 6-6 presents projected annual highway O&M costs for the project's 30 Horizon Year (2030). Annual O&M cost estimates are presented for the two variations of 31 Package B. The base alternative reflects reversible HOT lanes to 84th Avenue. A variation 32 is also being considered with reversible HOT lanes to 120th Avenue (Package B2). • Financial Analysis 6-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 6-6 Annual Highway O&M Cost Estimates for 2030 Conditions 2 (in 2005 dollars) Component No Action Package A Package B Package B2 Highway Lane Maintenance $4.146M $5.292M $5.971M $5.971M Tolled Express Lanes O&M $0.0 $0.0 $1.811M $1.795M Total Hwy O&M Cost $4.146M $5.292M $7.782M $7.766M Incremental Cost Over No-Action N/A $1.146M $3.63M $3.620M M=million 3 For the purposes of the cash flow assessment in Section 6.4, annual O&M costs for the 4 tolled express lanes were also estimated for this project for the year 2015 (assumed 5 Opening Year). Those costs are estimated to be $1.591 million for the Base Case 6 alternative (reversible HOT lanes to 84th Avenue) and $1.584 million for the package 7 variation (Package B2). O&M cost estimates for 2015 are less than for 2030 because of 8 lower HOT lane vehicle utilization projections. 9 6.3 REVENUE PROJECTIONS 10 6.3.1 Transit Farebox Revenues 11 Potential farebox revenues were estimated by determining the projected increase in transit • 12 riders for each package component (as compared with the No-Action Alternative), and 13 applying fare assumptions. Average blended fares in the regional travel model were 14 estimated by examining RTD's actual fare recovery by boarding. As with many transit 15 agencies, the fare recovery can differ significantly from the posted, walk-up fares. This 16 difference is attributable to discounts such as monthly passes, senior tickets, and employer- 17 subsidized programs such as RTD's Eco Pass. 18 For this analysis, the relevant fare service categories for the bus mode were $1.74 for 19 SkyRide (or airport) service, $1.71 for regional service, $1.10 for express service, and 20 $0.36 for Longmont/ North Front Range local service. A distance-based fare structure was 21 assumed for rail modes in the travel model. For rail trips from 0 to 8 miles in distance, 22 a local fare of $0.46 was assumed. From 8 to 18 miles, an express fare of $1.10 was 23 assumed. Finally, for rail trips in excess of 18 miles, a regional fare of$1.71 was assumed. 24 All bus and rail fares were originally estimated in 1996 dollars in the travel model. For 25 consistency with other costs, fares were inflated to 2005 dollars using an inflation of 26 24.69%. This rate is based on the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI)for the Denver- 27 Boulder-Greeley region (1996 to 2005). 28 Currently, there is no regional agency that provides interurban transit service between the 29 North Front Range and the Denver Metro Area. Without an existing entity in place, RTD's 30 fare structure was considered to be a reasonable proxy for fares that might be charged for 31 long, interurban transit trips. In addition, the transit operations plan for Package A assumes 32 the extension of RTD's North Metro commuter rail line up to Fort Collins. Hence, the use of 33 the distance-based fare structure for the rail mode was considered a reasonable option. • 34 Resulting farebox revenue projections for 2030, and resulting farebox recovery ratios 35 (farebox revenues divided into annual O&M costs) are provided in Table 6-7. Financial Analysis 6-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 6-7 Potential Annual Farebox Revenues and Recovery Ratios • (2005 dollars) Component Package A Package B Annual Farebox Revenue $4.303M $3.644M Farebox Recovery Ratio 11.2 % 29.9 % M=million 1 6.3.2 Tolled Express Lane Toll Revenues 2 Traffic and potential toll revenues are based on an estimate of the amount of traffic willing to 3 pay a toll of$X to save Y minutes. As traffic shifts to the lanes, the travel time in the general 4 purpose lanes (and therefore, the amount of time savings offered by the tolled express 5 lanes) will change. Initial toll rate assumptions ranged from $0.05 to $0.50 per mile. Toll rate 6 assumptions were then modified up to $1.75 per mile to reduce demand in congested "hot 7 spots". Resulting annual toll revenue projections for the tolled express lanes are shown in 8 Table 6-8. Table 6-8 Potential Tolled Express Lane Annual Toll Revenues (2005 dollars) Component Package B Package B2 2015 Toll Revenues $1.861M $1.787M 2030 Toll Revenues $4.534M $5.649M • M =million • Financial Analysis 6-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 6.4 ANNUAL CASH FLOW ASSESSMENT 2 Annual O&M costs and revenue projections presented in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 were 3 used to complete an annual cash flow assessment. 4 6.4.1 Transit Cash Flow Assessment 5 As noted in Section 6.3, Package A farebox revenues are anticipated to cover only 6 11 percent of annual transit O&M costs in the Year 2030, based on this project's projected 7 ridership and annual O&M cost estimates. Farebox revenues are projected to cover 8 30 percent of annual transit O&M costs for Package B. Transit forecasts were not 9 completed for 2015 (Opening Year) or any other interim years. Thus, it is not possible to 10 evaluate farebox revenue projections and anticipated O&M cost-funding shortfalls on an 11 annual basis. 12 6.4.2 Highway Cash Flow Assessment 13 Package B toll revenue projections were compared to projected highway O&M costs 14 (additional maintenance costs for new lane miles and tolled express lane O&M). Year 2015 15 and 2030 toll revenue forecasts and tolled express lane O&M costs have been developed 16 for this project, for both tolled express lane scenarios (to 84th Avenue versus to 120th 17 Avenue). An annual cash flow assessment was completed between 2015 and 2030 by 18 assuming straight line growth in revenues and costs. Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 illustrate • 19 the annual cash flow assessment for Packages B and B2 respectively. 20 As shown in these figures, Package B revenues steadily climb, but never exceed projected 21 additional highway and tolled express lane O&M costs. In 2015, toll revenues cover 22 50 percent of the annual O&M costs, increasing to 87 percent by 2030. Over the course of 23 15 years (2015 to 2030), toll revenues are anticipated to cover 72 percent of the cumulative 24 additional highway-related O&M costs. Package B2, however, has projected toll revenues 25 that exceed additional highway and tolled express lane O&M costs by 2027. Package B2 26 toll revenues start with covering 48 percent of O&M costs in 2015, increasing to 109 percent 27 by 2030. Over the course of 15 years (2015 to 2030), toll revenues are anticipated to cover 28 84 percent of the cumulative additional highway-related O&M costs. • Financial Analysis 6-7 Draft EIS NORTH 125 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Figure 6-1 Package B Tolled Express Lane Annual Cash Flow Assessment1 2 3 $6,000,000 - $5,000,000 — y� 4 $4,000,000 ------- ] 5 1 - -♦— Revenues $3,000,000 6 —a-- Costs $2,000,000 — — 7 $1 ,000,000 — — — 8 $0 C 1 9 ,�h N1 N°� �►\ ti� ti '1 tiO) �O �O qO Cl,O �O �O �O �O 10 11 12 Figure 6-2 Package B2 Tolled Express Lane Annual Cash Flow Assessment $7,000,000$6,000,000 --- I $5,000,000 $4,000,000 -- -- —a— Revenues $3,000,000 —s-- Costs $2,000,000 -- - - $1 ,000,000 $0 tiO�h `LO,\1 Cl,ONO `1O�►\ 12 (19 `LO�h cyO�1 `1O�O I Financial Analysis 6-8 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 6.5 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SHORTFALL 2 The analysis of current funding conditions presented in this chapter identifies a significant 3 shortfall in funding for both construction and annual O&M costs for both transportation 4 improvement packages that are being considered. Projected funding shortfalls are as follows: 5 ► Known existing capital cost-related funding sources are estimated to cover only 14 percent 6 of Package A capital costs and 16 percent of Package B capital costs. 7 ► Transit farebox revenues are anticipated to cover only 11 percent of Package A annual 8 transit O&M costs and only 30 percent of Package B annual transit O&M costs. 9 ► Tolled express lane toll revenues have the potential of generating sufficient income to 10 cover up to 87 percent of additional highway-related annual O&M costs for Package B 11 (by 2030). Potential toll revenues for Package B2 are anticipated to exceed additional 12 highway-related annual O&M costs for Package B2 (by 2030). 13 Since there are insufficient funds available to construct either of the two build packages and 14 because the project included in the final decision must be capable of being financed, it is 15 likely that the project in the Record of Decision will be a logical first phase of the preferred 16 alternative. In this manner, the preferred alternative would be broken into a series of 17 projects and phased with a series of Records of Decision, each of which would have a 18 source of funding and could be constructed and utilized independently. 19 The availability of transportation funding is increasingly problematic for communities across 20 the country. New funding strategies for transportation are being discussed at the national, 21 state, and local level. Traditional funding mechanisms no longer provide the level of funding 22 required to maintain the existing transportation system or build new projects being planned 23 to meet increasing demands. 24 The US Congress is currently debating the issue, as is the State of Colorado. Governor 25 Ritter has formed the Colorado Transportation Finance and Implementation Panel, a blue 26 ribbon task force that is leading a statewide conversation about the future of Colorado's 27 transportation system. The panel's mission includes examining Colorado's transportation 28 funding mechanisms and the process by which transportation projects are prioritized. The 29 panel will also identify possible long-term, sustainable revenue sources. Two of Colorado's 30 primary transportation revenue streams, the gas tax and Highway Users Trust Fund 31 (HUTF), are not keeping up with rising maintenance and construction costs. 32 State and federal transportation funding has been relatively stagnant over the last several 33 years, while construction costs have escalated substantially. The cost for construction has 34 increased approximately 40 percent between 2002 and 2006 alone. Maintenance costs are 35 also increasing, taking a larger portion of the transportation dollar to preserve the existing 36 infrastructure. 37 Traditional sources of transportation funding for highways have depended upon highway 38 trust funds established by Congress and the states to collect taxes on gasoline and other 39 motor fuels. Nationally, it has been estimated by the US Department of Transportation 40 (USDOT) that the purchasing power of the gas tax is about one-third less than it was in the 41 1960s. In Colorado, HUTF was worth only about 30 percent of its original value in 1992, the 42 last time gas taxes were increased. Financial Analysis 6-9 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 In Colorado, the HUTF provides approximately 40 percent of state funds for highway • 2 improvements. General fund revenues also are available from year to year to supplement 3 transportation funding. Federal funds are apportioned to the state and some discretionary 4 funding from federal sources is obtained by CDOT for specific projects. In 2006, federal 5 funds made up approximately 30 percent of the state's transportation budget. 6 Traditional sources of transit funding come from federal funding, regional sales taxes, and 7 farebox revenues from patrons. Federal funds, including a mix of federal gas tax and 8 general fund moneys, are provided to transit agencies on a formula basis for rolling stock 9 and some operating expenses. These projects need to be cost effective; that is, with 10 relatively high ridership and relatively low costs. 11 The information provided in this document reflects the funding sources presently available. 12 Future revenue sources could come from both highway and transit programs and would 13 need to be programmed through the normal DRCOG and NFRMPO planning process. • • Financial Analysis 6.10 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter summarizes the evaluation of alternatives pursuant to FTA (New Starts) What's in Chapter 7? guidance and procedures. The two build Chapter 7-Evaluation of Alternatives packages, including specific modal and 7.1 Evaluation Framework area components of each 72 Trade-Offs geographic P 7.2.1 No-Action versus Build Packages package, are described in detail in 7.2.2 Package A versus Package B Chapter 2 Alternatives. The purpose of 7.2.3 Highway Components versus Transit this chapter is to provide clear information Components 7.2.4 General Purpose Lane Components versus about trade-offs that would occur if Tolled Express Lane Components different choices are made between 7.2.5 Rail Transit Components versus Bus Rapid packages or components of modal and Transit Components areas. Information is provided 7.2.6 Rail Transit Component from Fort Collins to geographic Longmont versus from Fort Collins to in terms of their ability to meet the Thornton purpose and need criteria presented in 7.3 Summary of Evaluation Chapter 1, key environmental and other impacts described in Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts(including both adverse impacts and benefits), as well as project costs, which are described in Chapter 6 Financial Analysis and Chapter 2 Alternatives. 7.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK • Factors used to evaluate the No-Action Alternative and Packages A and B include: ► Effectiveness in improving mobility and accessibility ► Effectiveness in improving safety ► Effectiveness at replacing aging highway infrastructure ► Effectiveness at expanding transportation modes of travel ► Environmental consequences ► Costs (both capital and operating) 7.2 TRADE-OFFS This section compares the No-Action Alternative to the Build Packages, the two Build Packages to each other and various components of the Build Packages to other components of the Build Packages. 7.2.1 No-Action versus Build Packages Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the Build Packages best address the purpose and need for the project. The Build Packages both improve mobility and accessibility, improve safety, replace aging highway infrastructure, expand transportation modes of travel and • respond to local agency plans for economic growth. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the Build Packages both would provide faster travel times (10% to 45% faster), improved level of service on 1-25, reduced accident rates on 1-25, Evaluation of Alternatives 7-1 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. replacement of aging bridges and drainage structures, and expansion of transportation modes to include rail transit and/or bus transit. Both Build Packages would also slightly increase vehicle miles traveled, although this travel would occur at a slightly higher speed. Both Build Alternatives would be consistent with the policy goal of the North Front Range MPO to "provide a multi-modal transportation system." The No-Action Alternative would maintain the status quo with respect to the transportation and development trends currently being experienced in the North Front Range. The dependence on the single occupant vehicle for travel would continue and would thus detract from the region's transportation and air quality goals. Over time, travel times and congestion would increase, accident rates would continue to grow, and aging infrastructure would deteriorate. Compared to the Build Packages, the No-Action Alternative would result in very little physical impact to existing social and environmental resources. Air pollution related to traffic congestion would grow and noise impacts from increased traffic would also grow. The Build Packages would have greater impacts as a result of residential and business relocations, and greater impacts to natural resources, such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, threatened or endangered species, historic resources, parks, and other resources. The Build Packages would provide increased transit ridership, enhanced mobility, and a positive influence on economic development in the regional study area. Overall, the benefits derived from the Build Packages would outweigh the adverse environmental impacts associated with their construction. Although there would be minimal capital cost associated with the No-Action Alternative, ($57 million), there also would be • minimal benefits to the traveling public. The Build Packages would include new highway and transit facilities and service for capital costs ranging from $2.0 billion to $2.4 billion and annual operating costs ranging from $20 million to $43 million. 7.2.2 Package A versus Package B Package A would provide three different modes of travel (commuter rail, bus service, and general purpose lanes) on three different north/south corridors (US 287, 1-25, and US 85) while Package B would concentrate travel improvements primarily on 1-25 in two different modes (tolled express lanes and bus rapid transit). From a highway mobility perspective, in 2030, Package A would provide faster vehicle travel time than Package B (seven minutes faster than Package B) just from SH 1 to E-470. Package A would provide more travel lanes for the general purpose highway user, which would attract more general purpose lane users. Package A would provide more modal options for travelers. Package A would more noticeably reduce travel on parallel arterial streets, resulting in 4 percent to 10 percent more reduction in traffic than Package B. From a transit ridership perspective, Package A would produce 10,850 riders per day (3,400 more riders than Package B), including those using the rail system, commuter bus routes, and feeder bus routes. Package A feeder routes account for the difference, as they attract 8,000 daily riders compared to 1,600 daily riders on Package B feeder routes. Package A would result in fewer traffic noise impacts (from 1-25), fewer acres of encroachment on floodplains, fewer water quality impacts, fewer wetland impacts, fewer impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and fewer impacts to parks and recreational properties. • Evaluation of Alternatives 7.2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Package B would result in more reliable, uncongested travel for users of the tolled express lanes over time. Package B would provide greater travel time savings compared to Package A, 64 minutes in the tolled express lanes compared to 101 minutes for Package A. This would be 37 minutes faster than with Package A. Package B also would provide noticeable savings in travel time for transit users from Greeley and Fort Collins, to DUS, a savings of 21 minutes from Fort Collins and 32 minutes from Greeley when compared to Package A commuter rail. In comparison to Package A, Package B would result in fewer relocations of residences and businesses (35 fewer residences and 17 fewer businesses), impact 4 fewer historic properties, and result in no noise or vibration impacts from commuter rail. Package B is $426 million less expensive to build than Package A and has operating costs that would be $23 million less expensive annually. 7.2.3 Highway Components versus Transit Components The highway related components of both packages would clearly provide the most benefit from a mobility perspective, while transit components would provide a clear choice for the traveler and more reliable travel that is less affected by congestion, weather, and incidents. Improvements to 1-25 would provide the most highway travel time savings and the greatest capacity for user trips, address existing highway safety problems, and replace aging highway infrastructure. Improvements to 1-25 also would serve the longer distance interstate traveler better and would be more responsive to the needs of the trucking industry. Bus or rail infrastructure improvements would be most responsive to the need to provide a • choice of transportation modes and would be consistent with the NFRMPO goals to provide a multi-modal transportation system. Bus or rail improvements would provide a viable alternative for those people who are dependent on transit because they do not own a private automobile or are elderly or disabled. Bus or rail improvements also can be more supportive of certain land use goals (related to inducement of transit oriented development) and goals related to reducing energy consumption. Bus or rail components of the two packages would have less of an impact on wetlands, water resources, floodplains, park properties, farmland, residences, businesses, and floodplains compared to the 1-25 widening components. Rail transit improvements would provide generally safer operations. National data show that passenger rail systems result in noticeably fewer annual injuries per 100 million passenger miles traveled than highway facilities. Commuter rail had an average of 18 annual injuries over a 4-year period (from 2002 to 2006) while highways resulted in an average of 59 injuries. Bus facilities have similar statistics to highways. In Package A, highway components account for about half the capital cost of the package, $1.29 billion, while Commuter Rail would cost about $1.10 billion and Commuter Bus about $0.03 billion. In Package B, highway components account for the majority of the capital cost of the package, about $1.86 billion, while BRT components would cost about $0.12 billion. However, highway components of the two packages would have a much lower cost per user than transit components, as operating and maintenance costs are lower, and a far greater number of travelers use the highway. • Evaluation of Alternatives 7-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. 7.2.4 General Purpose Lane Components versus Tolled Express • Lane Components Package A would provide additional general purpose (plus auxiliary) lanes to 1-25 while Package B would provide additional capacity in the form of tolled express lanes intended to be used by buses, carpools, and vanpools, as well as single-occupant vehicles willing to pay a toll. Initially, the general purpose lanes in Package A would be less congested than those in Package B, as more lanes that are free to all travelers are provided, and the Package B tolled express lanes depend on a certain level of congestion in the adjacent GP lanes before they attract travelers. However, over time, travel time reliability in Package A would deteriorate as the general purpose lanes filled up. Meanwhile, Package B would always provide a more reliable, faster travel time in the tolled express lanes as the numbers and type of vehicles in those lanes would be managed by regulation and pricing. Package A would provide more relief to parallel arterials than Package B, resulting in reductions of traffic volume that would be 4 percent to 10 percent greater than with Package B. This would reduce road maintenance and improvement responsibilities allocated to local governments. Package A also would result in slightly less congestion in the general purpose lanes of 1-25. Because the pavement width for Package A is smaller than Package B (due to the barrier and shoulders needed for the TEL lanes), impacts to many environmental resources would be less. Package A highway costs would be substantially (about $575 million) lower than Package B highway costs. In addition to providing more travel reliability over time in the tolled express lanes, Package B would offer the following advantages: ► Ability to jointly use the tolled express lanes for BRT and vanpools. ► Ability to provide travel time savings for carpools and vanpools. ► Slightly less total regional and freeway VMT. ► Slightly less freeway VHT. ► Slight reduction in daily volumes on the southern arterials. ► Slightly lower auto travel time, including that on the tolled express lanes. ► More improvement to interchange operations south of E-470. 7.2.5 Rail Transit Components versus Bus Rapid Transit Components Rail transit would serve the population centers of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont, while bus rapid transit would serve the population centers of Greeley and Fort Collins, as well as destinations along 1-25 and DIA. Commuter bus would serve destinations along US 85 and also would provide access to DIA along E-470. Both rail and bus would have feeder bus service that generally follows east-west streets to rail or BRT stations. Considering the main regional transit routes, BRT would have faster travel times and result • in about the same number of riders per day as commuter rail and commuter bus combined. Bus (including BRT) transit is generally more flexible than rail, so that routes could be altered as land uses change. BRT would have lower capital costs and operating costs per Evaluation of Alternatives 7-4 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • passenger mile than commuter rail. BRT would have fewer impacts to most environmental resources than commuter rail since it is not on a separate alignment. Buses would be more subject to weather delays and incident delays. Commuter rail would provide a more comfortable ride, with typically larger seats, more leg room, and more space per passenger. Rail would be more reliable because it has less potential to be affected by weather, less potential to be affected by congestion, and is on an exclusive guideway. Rail would have greater maximum capacity because trains could easily be added as ridership demands increase. Rail tends to be more of a catalyst for transit oriented development and would be more consistent with community plans to revitalize the downtown areas of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. Rail tends to be better supported in public opinion polls in the North Front Range area. Rail would serve more households within a half mile of stations than bus rapid transit (9,050 compared to 7,650) and would provide access to more community centers and facilities than bus rapid transit. Commuter rail also has typically fewer (41) injuries per 100 million passenger miles traveled per year than bus transit (averaged over 4 years). Commuter Rail is the most expensive transit alternative to build, as well as to operate and maintain. BRT, while attracting about the same number of users as Commuter Rail and Commuter Bus combined, would have the lowest cost per user, about 88 percent lower than Commuter Rail, and about 28 percent lower than Commuter Bus. 7.2.6 Rail Transit Component from Fort Collins to Longmont • versus from Fort Collins to Thornton The two different commuter rail components could stand alone. The component from Fort Collins to Longmont could connect directly to the Northwest Rail corridor, which is a part of the FasTracks system. Rail Transit from Fort Collins to Thornton (components A-T1 and A-T2) could stand alone as a piece of rail that would connect Fort Collins to the North Metro FasTracks corridor. Component A-T1, from Fort Collins to Longmont, would produce most of the transit ridership (77%) for 58% of the cost. This component would clearly have fewer impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional waters, fewer relocations of residences and businesses, fewer Section 4(f) impacts, cause noise and vibration impacts to fewer residences, and result in fewer effects to wildlife habitat. 7.2.7 Evaluation of Commuter Rail Maintenance Facilities Seven sites for the proposed rail maintenance facility were identified throughout the corridor using a set of screening criteria that assessed the sorts of impacts that may be exacted by implementation and construction. Initial screening included consideration of size, configuration, property impacts, environmental impacts, operational efficiencies, and stakeholder input. Through initial screening efforts, two proposed rail maintenance facilities were selected under Package A, one located at E. Vine Dr. and N. Timberline in Fort Collins and one at the southwest corner of US 287 and LCR-46 in Berthoud. Only one of these sites will be selected. The proposed rail maintenance facility would service trains that run between • Fort Collins and the proposed North Metro FasTracks corridor. The proposed maintenance facility in Berthoud would result in an increase of activity and visual impacts to the single-family residential subdivision adjacent to the BNSF rail line in the Evaluation of Alternatives 7.5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 ElS information cooperation transportation. northernmost portion of Berthoud. The maintenance facility would magnify the presence of rail and introduce an industrial component to the neighborhood. The site has been identified by the City of Berthoud for development of an Industrial Area. Berthoud Elementary School is located within 0.25 mile of the proposed Berthoud maintenance facility. Frequency of trains would result in minor delays and out-of-direction travel for patrons of the school. There would be visual impacts for students playing outside in the school yard. This maintenance facility would, however, be closer to the metro area depending on how the commuter rail service is phased. Access to this facility would require less deadhead mileage if a first phase began in Longmont, limiting operational inefficiencies. In contrast, the proposed Fort Collins maintenance facility would have fewer effects to residential areas but would be farther north. Both maintenance facilities would have a moderate visual effect to their surrounding neighborhoods, because both facilities would be visible to the surrounding neighborhoods and change the visual character of the area. Both rail maintenance facilities are expected to generate the same number of auto trips for employees and visitors. The resulting traffic impacts would be minimal because auto trips would typically occur outside of peak periods. When comparing the results of the criteria screening, only the Fort Collins site met all of the criteria established through the screening process. The Berthoud site differed in that it would not help to limit non-revenue travel, because it is not located at the end of the line, and it would not limit the number of additional layover sites that may be needed to help with operational efficiency. • 7.2.8 Evaluation of Bus Maintenance Facilities Eleven preliminary sites for the proposed commuter bus/BRT maintenance facility were identified throughout the corridor using site screening criteria similar to that used for the rail maintenance facility. Additional criteria were applied to limit viable sites. These criteria included: • Is there an alternate site available in the immediate area? • Is the site within 5 miles of the end-of-line station? • Is the site not in a rapid developing urban growth area? • Does the site have any known environmental impacts? • Does the site have strong support from committees and stakeholders? Two sites for the potential maintenance facility sites were selected through the second screening, one at US 34 and US 85 in Greeley, one in Fort Collins at Portner Road and Trilby Road. Only one site will be selected. The maintenance facility would service the commuter bus fleet associated with Package A or the bus rapid transit (BRT) fleet associated with Package B. The commuter bus maintenance facility is expected to generate the same number of vehicle trips for employees, visitors, and bus trips. The BRT maintenance facility will generate approximately 10% more vehicle trips than the commuter bus facility. The resulting traffic impacts would be minimal because these trips would typically occur outside of peak travel periods. • Evaluation of Alternatives 7-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Both proposed maintenance facilities would have a moderate visual effect on the surrounding neighborhoods, because each would be visible to the surrounding neighborhood, changing the visual character of the area. The bus maintenance facility site proposed at US 34 and US 85 can be employed regardless of which bus transit mode is chosen. It is located close to the end-of-line station, which would cause little or no environmental impacts. The site at Fortner Road and Trilby Road in Fort Collins can be used in conjunction with Package B only. It is located adjacent to an existing transit center and other uses for the site are unlikely. The site has strong support from city staff. 7.3 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION Table 7-1 summarizes information about the relative responsiveness of the three alternatives to the factors used in this evaluation as shown in Section 7.1. Not all environmental factors are included, rather just those that show a clear difference among alternatives. Section 3.28 of this DEIS includes a summary of all impacts. The Federal Transit Administration has established a grant program called the New Starts (Section 5309) program. This program evaluates and rates candidate transit projects for FTA funding. FTA uses two major categories of rating a project: Project Justification and a Financial Rating. The Project Justification criteria are: • ► Mobility improvements ► Environmental benefits ► Cost effectiveness ► Transit-supportive existing land use, policies, and future patterns ► Other factors including economic development The Financial Rating includes the local financial commitment and an assessment of the capital and operating financial plan for the project. At this point in time, the North I-25 project does not appear to be a candidate for New Starts funding, for the following reasons: ► Projected bus and rail transit ridership (at 4,300 for commuter rail and 5,650 for BRT) is relatively low. As a comparison, three FasTracks corridors that are planned for New Starts funding have the following estimated daily ridership: • West Corridor: 29,698 • Goldline: 20,100 • East Corridor: 30,000 to 35,000 ► Lack of local financial commitment and lack of a capital and operating financial plan for • the project. Evaluation of Alternatives 7.7 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Table 7-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation • I No-Action Alternative I Package A I Package B Improving Mobility and Accessibility Regional Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) 48.68 million 49.15 million 49.12 million ✓ Regional Vehicle hours of travel (VHT) 1.53 million 1.53 million 1.53 million Freeway VMT 15.7 million 16.6 million 16.1 million ✓ Freeway VHT 325 thousand 330 thousand 327 thousand V Average speed 31.8 mph 32.2 mph V 32.1 mph Transit ridership N/A 5,850 5,850 (commuter services) Transit market share <1% 55% ✓ 50% (to downtown Denver) Highway travel time 128 minutes (GPL) 118 minutes (GPL) 113 minutes (GPL) (AM peak hour, SH 1 to 20th Street) 112 minutes (TEL) 101 minutes (TEL) 65 minutes (TEL) Transit travel time (Fort Collins South 130 minutes (bus in 93 minutes (rail) 72 minutes (BRT) Transit Center to DUS) GPL and TEL where ✓ available) Congested miles on 1-25 (PM peak hour) 53 miles 22 miles ✓ 22 miles V Interchange ramp terminals operating at 20 ramp terminals 3 ramp terminals 2 ramp terminals ✓ LOS E or F (AM) Improving Highway Safety N/A 3,466 crashes 3,410 crashes V Transit Safety(annual injuries) N/A 18 ✓ 59 24 minor rehabilitations 84 new structures 96 new structures Replacing Aging Infrastructure 2 major rehabilitations 13 modifications of 23 modifications of existing structures existing structures • 2 major 0 major rehabilitations ✓ rehabilitations 6 minor 1 minor rehabilitations V rehabilitation Expansion of Transportation Modes Does not expand Commuter rail, BRT and feeder of Travel commuter bus, and bus added feeder bus added Responsiveness to Economic Not responsive Responsive to Responsive to Development needs along 1-25 needs along 1-25 and BNSF V Environmental Consequences Relocations None 59 residences 24 residences 33 businesses 16 businesses V Traffic noise sites impacted 626 sites 623 sites ✓ 756 sites Transit noise sites impacted N/A 167 residences None ✓ Vibration sites impacted N/A 87 residences None V Wetlands and jurisdictional waters None 19.34 acres ✓ 20.38 acres impacted Water Quality: acres of impervious None 1,946✓ 2,001 surface area Floodplains impacted None 12.8 acres ✓ 13.5 acres Historic and archaeological properties None 5 1✓ adversely affected • Evaluation of Alternatives 7-8 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 US information. cooperation transportation_ • Table 7-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation (cont'd) No-Action Alternative I Package A I Package B Environmental Consequences (cont'd) Parks and recreational properties None 7 ✓ 8 impacted 2.01 acres 2.35 acres terrestrial terrestrial Wildlife and aquatic species habitat None 1.82 acres 2.25 acres aquatic aquatic/ Threatened, endangered, state sensitive None 283.35 acres ✓ 358.98 acres &protected species habitat affected Cost(2005 dollars) Capital cost $57 million $2.43 billion $2.00 billion ✓ Annual operating cost $4 million $43 million $20 million ✓ Annualized cost per user per trip $0.03 $0.76 $0.58 ✓ ✓= Build alternative that performs better N/A= Not Applicable • • Evaluation of Alternatives 7-9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • CHAPTER 8 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 8.1 INTRODUCTION NEPA and its implementing regulations requires What's in Chapter 8? "early and continuing opportunities for the public to be involved..." and that "public involvement shall be Chapter 8-Comments and Coordination proactive and provide complete information, timely 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Coordination public notice, full public access to key decisions and 8.3 Comments and Responses opportunities for early and continuous involvement." 8.4 Future Public Involvement Activities The North 1-25 EIS provided ample opportunity for frequent and meaningful public feedback during the process. The project team fostered open communication and was responsive to all groups and individuals interested in this study. The project team communicated and collaborated with federal, state, and local government officials; regional transportation planning entities; community groups; civic and professional organizations; businesses, and residents during the EIS process. The public involvement process provided information, timely public notice, access to key decisions, public comment opportunities, and outlets for early and continuing participation. This chapter describes elements of the North 1-25 EIS public involvement process and specific activities conducted to date with the public; federal, state, and local agencies; and residential • populations in the project area. 8.2 COORDINATION 8.2.1 Agency Coordination Agency coordination was conducted to ensure a timely flow of project information, to solicit input from local agencies, and to obtain regulatory-related information and involvement from state and federal agencies. Agency involvement began with the Notice of Intent, which was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2003. Cooperating agency letters of invitation were sent to the USACE, RTD, and the Federal Railroad Administration. Agency response to these letters of invitation was received and is included in Appendix B. The USACE and State Historic Preservation Officer participated in a merged process. This merged process was conducted in accordance with provisions of the January 2005 NEPA/Clean Water Act Section 404 Merger Process and Agreement for Transportation Projects in Colorado, as well as with Section 800.8(c) provisions for merging the Section 106 review process with the NEPA process. State and federal agencies who were involved included: ► State Historic Preservation Officer ► Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ► Colorado Division of Wildlife ► U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ► U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • ► U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ► Federal Railroad Administration Comments and Coordination 6-1 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. ► Regional Transportation District • Consulting parties related to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act included: ► Berthoud Historic Preservation Commission ► Broomfield Historic Landmark Board ► Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission ► Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board ► Greeley Historic Preservation Commission ► Longmont Historic Preservation Commission ► Loveland Historic Preservation Commission ► Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board Local agencies involvement included representatives from 32 cities and towns in the project area, seven counties, and four regional organizations. These are shown below: City/Town County • Ault • Greeley • Adams County • Berthoud • Johnstown • Boulder County • • Boulder • LaSalle • Broomfield County • Brighton • Longmont • Denver County • Broomfield • Louisville • Jefferson County • Burlstone • Loveland • Larimer County • Commerce City • Mead • Weld County • Dacono • Milliken • Denver • Northglenn Regional • Erie • Platteville • DRCOG • Evans • Severance • RTD • Firestone • Thornton • NFRMPO • Fort Collins • Timnath • UFRRPC • Fort Lupton • Wellington • Frederick • Westminster • Gilcrest • Windsor • Comments and Coordination 8-2 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 8.2.1.1 REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE The Regional Coordination Committee was organized to provide high-level, policy-related input to the project team. The committee (56 members) is composed of policy-level elected officials or their designated representative and provides observations and feedback for communities in the regional study area. The Regional Coordination Committee has met 18 times since January 2004, as listed in Table 8-1. 8.2.1.2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE A Technical Advisory Committee was established to gain input on technical issues. The committee (97 members) included representatives of local government and public sector agencies along the corridor, along with CDOT, DRCOG, FHWA, FTA, NFRMPO, and RTD. The Technical Advisory Committee met 26 times since February 2004, as listed in Table 8-1. 8.2.2 Technical Coordination 8.2.2.1 TRAVEL FORECAST WORKING GROUP In order to gain community understanding and acceptance of the travel demand forecasting model, a working group of technical representatives was established to oversee the development of the EIS model. The group consisted of technical modeling members of NFRMPO, DRCOG, CDOT Region 4, CDOT Division of Transportation Development, RTD, and the City of Fort Collins. Besides members of the local consultant team, the Travel Forecast Working Group also • included two travel model experts with extensive national experience combining models and performing transit forecasting. This group met seven times over a 15-month period as the EIS model was developed. 8.2.2.2 LAND USE EXPERT PANEL Indirect land use impacts, in particular induced growth, were evaluated through the use of a local expert panel. The panel consisted of municipal planners from Dacono, Firestone, Fort Collins, Frederick, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Mead, and Windsor. Also on the panel were representatives from two large developers with projects in the area, as well as agency representatives from CDOT, DRCOG, FHWA, and NFRMPO . The panel convened in October 2006. At that meeting, current induced growth research was described as well as any current drivers of growth. The panel then provided input on potential induced growth patterns for each corridor based on the three alternatives. 8.2.3 Public Coordination 8.2.3.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Public input was an important component of the North 1-25 EIS process. Public feedback helped to shape the options and alternatives considered for the project. Public input also helped to ensure that the best possible transportation improvements will be made, and that the improvements will meet the challenges faced by Northern Colorado residents and travelers both now and in the future. A full and complete record was kept of public comments and feedback obtained throughout the process. • Comments and Coordination 8-3 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. The project team was committed to providing opportunities for frequent and meaningful public • input at every step of the process. Team goals included fostering open lines of communication, developing mutually beneficial relationships, and acting in a responsive manner to all groups and individuals interested in this process. 8.2.3.2 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS As a part of the North 1-25 EIS, the National Research Center, Inc. was contracted to conduct a household travel survey of residents within the study area. While some transportation information existed that encompassed the study area, transportation planners felt that more information was needed about "special trips" and "long trips" made by residents in the corridor. The survey primarily focused on determining residents' trip-making behavior for such types of trips. A random sample of 10,000 residential mailing addresses from zip codes in the regional study area was selected for the North 1-25 EIS Household Travel Study. Of the 9,536 eligible households, 3,152 households completed the survey, providing a response rate of 33 percent. Results of the survey include the following points. ► Residents take approximately 2 trips per year on average to sporting events in the Denver Metro Area. All other destinations for sporting events are less than 1 trip per year. ► Residents take approximately 8 trips per year on the weekdays to DIA and approximately 3 trips per year to DIA on the weekends. ► Approximately 95% of residents report using 1-25 for at least 1 trip in the previous year. ► 35% of residents travel a significant distance (5 miles or more) on 1-25 for a work or school commute. • ► 46% of residents reported avoiding travel on 1-25, with 82% of these identifying "too much congestion" as the reason, and 46% did not "feel safe" on 1-25. 8.2.3.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS Public meetings provided an opportunity to solicit and collect comments to provide input to CDOT, FHWA, FTA, the project management team, and representatives from the local jurisdictions. The goals were to inform the public about project progress, to identify any concerns, and, where needed to discuss any concerns or ideas in one-on-one and group formats. The project team presented relevant information and gave the public the opportunity to talk about the study with resource analysts. Public meetings were hosted at key points during the North 1-25 EIS project. Multiple avenues were used to notify the public about upcoming meetings. ► Project newsletters, meeting notification postcards, and e-mail were distributed to the project contact list. ► Meeting information was posted on the project web site. ► English and Spanish meeting notification flyers were distributed within the study area in high- traffic areas including libraries, government offices, businesses, and senior centers. ► English and Spanish meeting notification advertisements appeared in newspapers throughout the study area. ► News releases were distributed to media. • ► Meeting information was distributed to city and county public information officers to facilitate informing their constituents. Comments and Coordination 8-4 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • ► Flyers were given to members of the Technical Advisory Committee and Regional Coordination Committee to distribute in their communities. In February 2004, three public scoping meetings introduced the project and determined the issues of concern that would be addressed. The meetings took place: ► February 3, 2004 at the Greeley Recreation Center, Greeley (37 recorded attendees). ► February 5, 2004 at the Southwest Weld County Building, Longmont (32 recorded attendees). ► February 10, 2004 at the Lincoln Center, Fort Collins (179 recorded attendees). Comment trends included: ► Support for a rail component ► Support for improvements to US 85 highway maintenance ► Support for converting current intersections along US 85 to interchanges ► Support for improvements to 1-25 and 1-25 interchanges including additional lanes, and upgrading interchanges ► Safety concerns on 1-25 regarding speed, congestion, and traffic directly accessing the frontage road from the interstate ► Various environmental concerns were expressed with an emphasis on air quality, land use and • wildlife. At the end of June 2004, four public meetings took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. The meetings took place: ► June 22, 2004 at the Evans Recreation Center, Evans (14 recorded attendees). ► June 24, 2004 at the Loveland Museum, Loveland (36 recorded attendees). ► June 29, 2004 at the Margaret W. Carpenter Recreation Center, Thornton (12 recorded attendees). ► July 1, 2004 at the Lincoln Center, Fort Collins (78 recorded attendees). Comment trends included: ► The project should utilize available resources such as CDOT right-of-way and existing rail corridors. ► Widening 1-25 to three lanes in each direction is desired ► Preference for multi-modal options In October 2004, the project team hosted four public meetings to introduce the types of technologies and alternatives being consider during Level One Screening, share information on criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level Two Screening, and outline the environmental data collection process. The meetings took place: • ► October 19, 2004 at the Commerce City Recreation Center, Commerce City (2 recorded attendees). Comments and Coordination 8-5 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. ► October 21, 2004 at the McKee Conference & Wellness Center, Loveland (22 recorded attendees). • ► October 26, 2004 at the Lincoln Center, Fort Collins (58 recorded attendees). ► October 28, 2004 at the Greeley Recreation Center, Greeley (17 recorded attendees). Comment trends included: ► Concerns that transit options will encourage development and increase sprawl ► Transit development concerns ► Interest in exploring alternative fuel options such as light rail and hybrid buses ► Support stronger for rail than BRT when considering multi-modal options ► Options should focus on encouraging higher speed and lower travel times ► Concerns regarding lack of funding to meet costs associated with alternatives In June 2005, four public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. The meetings took place: ► June 14, 2005 at the Greeley Recreation Center, Greeley (14 recorded attendees). ► June 16, 2005 at the Lincoln Center, Fort Collins (62 recorded attendees). ► June 21, 2005 at the Loveland Police and Court Building, Loveland (24 recorded attendees). • ► June 23, 2005 at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, Longmont (27 recorded attendees). Comment trends included: ► Interest in convenient and direct travel to DIA. ► Strong support for commuter rail along US 287/BNSF line. ► Interest in a commuter rail spur from the US 287/BNSF line to Greeley. ► Interest in implementing the access control plan on US 85. ► Noise concerns with rail and the widening of 1-25. ► Interest in the impacts of increasing the cost of gas on travel and rail projections. ► Concern that the Front Range Toll Road will not be able to pull traffic off 1-25 if it is built and that it should not be a consideration during the North 1-25 EIS. Throughout January and February 2006, twelve town hall meetings took place to present the eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The meetings took place: • Comments and Coordination 8-6 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. ► January 23, 2006 at the Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins (64 recorded attendees). ► January 24, 2006 at the Windsor Community Center, Windsor (39 recorded attendees). ► January 25, 2006 at the Frederick Town Hall, Frederick (26 recorded attendees). ► January 26, 2006 at the Thornton City Hall, Thornton (12 recorded attendees). ► January 30, 2006 at the Gilcrest Valley High School, Gilcrest (8 recorded attendees). ► January 31, 2006 at the Mead Town Hall, Mead (17 recorded attendees). ► February 1, 2006 at the Longmont Museum, Longmont (42 recorded attendees). ► February 2, 2006 at the Loveland Public Library, Loveland (32 recorded attendees). ► February 6, 2006 at the Greeley Recreation Center, Greeley (19 recorded attendees). ► February 7, 2006 at the Harmony Library, Fort Collins (49 recorded attendees). ► February 15, 2006 at the Southwest Weld County Building, Longmont (28 recorded attendees). ► February 16, 2006 at the Milliken Town Hall, Milliken (18 recorded attendees). Comment trends included: ► Interest in connecting rail options to planned FasTracks lines • ► Concerns for lack of funding to meet cost associated with alternatives ► Concerns regarding improvements being implemented behind demand ► Interest on toll operations including usage fees, how tolled lanes work with HOV, what the money from fees will fund, utilizing transponders and enforcing toll fees ► Support for multi-modal transit including a combination of rail and highway improvements ► Questions regarding wildlife and habitat impacts In November 2006, two public meetings introduced the addition of the NorthMetro Rail Connection that would connect the proposed rail alignment in Package A from the Longmont Sugar Mill site to the FasTracks North Metro line. The meetings took place: ► November 13, 2006 at the Northglenn Recreation Center, Northglenn (10 recorded attendees). ► November 15, 2006 at the Southwest Weld County Building, Longmont (27 recorded attendees). Comment trends included: ► Concerns surrounding the type of impacts to wetlands ► Noise impact concerns ► Concern that there will not be ample parking at station locations • ► Support for the North Metro Rail connection component added to Package A Comments and Coordination 8-7 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8-1 Regional Coordination Committee/Technical Advisory Committee Meetings • Date Group Jan 28, 2004 Regional Coordination Committee Feb 12, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Mar 11, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Apr 08, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee May 13, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Jun 09, 2004 Regional Coordination Committee Jun 10, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Jul 08, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Aug 12, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Aug 26, 2004 Regional Coordination Committee Sep 09, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Oct 14, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee and Regional Coordination Committee Nov 18, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Dec 09, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Jan 13, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Feb 24, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Feb 24, 2005 Regional Coordination Committee Apr 21, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee &Regional Coordination Committee May 19, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee May 19, 2005 Regional Coordination Committee June 2, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee & Regional Coordination Committee Jul 21, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee • Aug 18, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee & Regional Coordination Committee Oct 11, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Nov 10, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Dec 15, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Jan 12, 2006 Regional Coordination Committee Mar 09, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Mar 09, 2006 Regional Coordination Committee April 13, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee May 11, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee& Regional Coordination Committee June 8, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Jul 13, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Sep 14, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Sep 14, 2006 Regional Coordination Committee Oct 12, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Nov 09, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Nov 09, 2006 Regional Coordination Committee Jan 11, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Jan 11, 2007 Regional Coordination Committee Mar 08, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Mar 08, 2007 Regional Coordination Committee May 10, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee May 10, 2007 Regional Coordination Committee Jul 12, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Jul 12, 2007 Regional Coordination Committee . Sep 13, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Sep 13, 2007 Regional Coordination Committee Nov 08, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Comments and Coordination 8.8 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. • Study team members periodically reviewed public comments to identify recurring comments and common concerns. These were addressed in project newsletters and added to the project web site. Table 8-2 provides a list of public meetings by date, meeting purpose, location, and number of attendees. 8.2.3.4 TRANSIT STATION WORKING GROUPS As part of the North I-25 EIS, CDOT developed another forum for community members to become involved in the study process by creating Transit Station Working Groups. Three transit alternatives were evaluated as part of the North 1-25 EIS: commuter bus, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit. The working groups were organized to allow members of the community to discuss and share ideas regarding transit station locations, bike and pedestrian connectivity, and maintenance facilities. Table 8-3 summarizes information regarding Transit Station Working Group meetings. 8.2.3.5 INTERCHANGE WORKING GROUPS From February 2006 through January 2007, 43 interchange working group meetings were conducted with a total 241 public and civic participants. In addition, several one-on-one meetings took place with property owners. During these meetings, participants interacted with project engineers to determine interchange designs, right-of-way impacts, property impacts, and future traffic patterns. The designated interchange working groups were: • ► Group 1 — US 36, E-470, and SH 7 ► Group 2 — SH 7 and WCR 8 ► Group 3—WCR 8 and SH 52 ► Group 4- SH 119, SH 66, and WCR 34 ► Group 5 — SH 56, SH 60 East, LCR 16, and SH 402 ► Group 6 — SH 402, US 34, Crossroads, and SH 392 ► Group 7 — Harmony, Prospect, SH 14, SH 392, and SH 1 • Comments and Coordination 8.9 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8-2 Public Meetings • Date Purpose/Topic Location No. of Attendees Feb 03, 2004 Scoping Meeting Greeley 37 Feb 05, 2004 Scoping Meeting Longmont 32 Feb 10, 2004 Scoping Meeting Fort Collins 179 Jun 22, 2004 Purpose and Need Evans 14 Jun 24, 2004 Purpose and Need Loveland 36 Jun 29, 2004 Purpose and Need Thornton 12 Jul 01, 2004 Purpose and Need Fort Collins 78 Oct 19, 2004 Level One Screening Commerce City 2 Oct 21, 2004 Level One Screening Loveland 22 Oct 26, 2004 Level One Screening Fort Collins 58 Oct 28, 2004 Level One Screening Greeley 17 Jun 15, 2005 Level Two Screening Greeley 14 Jun 17, 2005 Level Two Screening Fort Collins 62 Jun 21, 2005 Level Two Screening Loveland 24 Jun 23, 2005 Level Two Screening Longmont 27 Jan 23, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Fort Collins 64 Jan 24, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Windsor 39 Jan 25, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Frederick 26 Jan 26, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Thornton 12 Jan 30, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Gilcrest 8 • Jan 31, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Mead 17 Feb 01, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Longmont 42 Feb 02, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Loveland 32 Feb 06, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Greeley 19 Feb 07, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Fort Collins 49 Feb 15, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Longmont 28 Feb 16, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Milliken 18 Nov 13, 2006 Interchange Update and Southern Connectivity Northglenn 10 Nov 15, 2006 Interchange Update and Southern Connectivity Longmont 27 Table 8-3 Transit Station Working Group Meetings Date Group Attendees Oct 18, 2005 Frederick 9 Oct 19, 2005 Loveland 19 Dec 05, 2005 North 1-25 15 Dec 08, 2008 US 287 3 Dec 12, 2005 South 1-25 5 Dec 15, 2006 US 85 2 Mar 20, 2006 North 1-25/US 85 11 Mar 23, 2006 South I-25/US 287 7 • Comments and Coordination 8.10 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • 8.2.3.6 SPECIALIZED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE OUTREACH In an effort to ensure that everyone residing in the North 1-25 regional study area receives project information and is afforded the opportunity to provide input, special outreach efforts were conducted to reach low-income and/or minority communities within the regional study area. These populations have been historically underrepresented in public processes. Potential environmental justice populations were identified using 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data and through local community and agency contacts. Outreach activities were conducted in identified locations for low-income and/or minority environmental justice populations in Brighton, Greeley, Fort Collins, Gilcrest, Longmont, Loveland, and Thornton. The public involvement team prepared supplementary copies of project newsletters, fact sheets, and meeting announcements, which were translated into Spanish. English and Spanish project materials were distributed during other outreach efforts and to frequently visited locations in the identified areas for posting where visible to the general public. The public involvement team conducted outreach to businesses by going door-to-door and distributing bi-lingual project information and surveys for potentially affected business owners in the identified areas. The project team contacted approximately 42 Hispanic/Latino community and church leaders throughout the project. Hispanic/Latino community leaders were offered information about the project and the opportunity for small group meetings. Small group meetings were held with the groups shown in Table 8-4. • Outreach to low-income and/or minority populations will continue through the course of the EIS process. The project team will continue to widely disseminate information in areas of common use before key project milestones to supply additional information and seek input. In addition, the project team will continue to be attentive and responsive to any environmental justice needs, issues, or concerns that may arise. • Comments and Coordination 8-11 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. Table 8-4 Specialized Outreach Meetings • Date Name of Group Location Nov 04, 2004 Loveland Housing Authority Loveland, CO Aug 06, 2005 Greeley Farmers' Market Greeley, CO Aug 13, 2005 Greeley Farmers' Market Greeley, CO Jul 28, 2005 Windsor Farmers' Market Windsor, CO Jan 23, 2006 Aztlan Fort Collins Town Hall Meeting Fort Collins, CO Mar 14, 2006 Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision Larimer County, CO Sep 21, 2006 El Comite de Longmont Longmont, CO Sep 21, 2006 A New Image, LLC Brighton, CO Oct 25, 2006 Templo Betel Fort Collins, CO Nov 11, 2006 Agua Viva Baptist Church Loveland, CO Nov 19, 2006 Holy Family Catholic Church Fort Collins, CO The project team also identified and attended local cultural and community events to distribute information about the project, answer questions, and gather comments. Fifteen events were attended between 2004 and 2006 (Table 8-5). These include: Table 8-5 Specialized Outreach Events • Date Name of Event Location Jun 05, 2004 Berthoud Day Berthoud, CO Aug 07, 2004 Loveland Art in the Park Loveland, CO Aug 24, 2004 Frederick Miners Day Frederick, CO Sep 11, 2004 Celebrate Lafayette Lafayette, CO Sep 18, 2004 Greeley Fiesta Greeley, CO Dec 01, 2004 Colorado HUG Banquet and Expo Greeley, CO Aug 05, 2005 Greeley Farmers Market Greeley, CO Aug 13, 2005 Loveland Art in the Park Loveland, CO Aug 13, 2005 and Milliken Beef-n-Bean Day Milliken, CO Aug 14, 2005 Sep 10, 2005 Celebrate Lafayette Lafayette, CO Sep 17, 2005 Frederick Miners Day Frederick, CO Sep 16, 2006 Mexican Independence Day Longmont, CO Sep 30, 2006 Bridging the Immigration Divide Longmont, CO Sep 30, 2006 Community Development Resource Fair Adams County, CO • Comments and Coordination 8.12 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Input received through specialized outreach centered on community needs and concerns regarding the proposed improvements. Participants indicated repeatedly that transit service was needed between Longmont, Loveland, Denver, Boulder, and southwest Weld counties. Congestion on 1-25 was seen as limiting access to businesses and participation in cultural events in Metro Denver. Most residents from Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, and Loveland would be willing to drive to access transit service to Denver. Participants expressed general concern about the cost of the alternatives and how alternatives would be funded. Participants disagreed about the impacts of tolling. Some felt that public transportation should be open to all and that tolling would exclude citizens. Others preferred tolling because it provided funding for construction and maintenance and would ease congestion. Participants indicated a need for transit options to reach important community facilities (local schools and churches), regional employment centers (DIA and the Denver Technical Center), and commuter cities (Cheyenne, Denver, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, and Loveland). It also was pointed out that many minority community members do not work typical business hours and may hold multiple jobs. For transit to be effective, it should be flexible, affordable, accommodate persons with disabilities, accommodate persons with bicycles, and operate on weekends and evenings. In a meeting held in Brighton, attendees indicated that there were negative feelings toward transit because it is unreliable, provides limited service, and requires lengthy wait times. In addition, transit was not deemed feasible for those with construction jobs who are required to be in several • locations throughout the day. While some suggested that bus service should be provided along US 85, most felt that more lanes are needed on US 85, SH 7, and 1-25. Other than Brighton, participants generally felt that transit alternatives would enhance employment opportunities and increase access to shopping, cultural events, and services for minority and low-income populations throughout the Front Range. Many participants also preferred transit to highway widening because they considered it a cheaper, safer, and a less stressful option. Most participants felt that existing transit does not adequately serve minority and low-income communities. Some underserved locations identified by meeting participants include the OUR Medical Center (Longmont), new development east of SH 119 in Longmont, the Casa Vista residential subdivision (Longmont), St. John's Church (Longmont), Casa Esperanza (Longmont), Bill Reed middle school (Loveland), Centerra (Loveland), and the Holy Catholic Church (Fort Collins). Participants preferred options that included transit to these destinations. Participants also identified key community facilities, minority and low-income neighborhoods, and minority-owned businesses throughout the study area. These include the Pullman Center (12th and Garfield in Loveland); Wal-Mart (Loveland); Loveland Lake Park; Wynona Elementary School (Loveland); the Hispanic neighborhoods of Cherry Street, Buckingham, La Colonia, Andersonville, Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park, and Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park (Fort Collins); Hispanic businesses along US 287 north of Cherry Street in Fort Collins; and Hispanic businesses along US 34 east of US 287 in Longmont. Participants also preferred options that included transit to these destinations. Participants were concerned about immigration policy. Hispanic or Latino populations may not • use public transit if they have to show identification or are distrustful of authority. Some also indicated that they avoid using 1-25 because they feel that Hispanic/Latino drivers are pulled over more frequently by the Colorado State Highway Patrol. Comments and Coordination 8.13 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. Input received through specialized outreach helped the project team to understand what • community resources are important to minority and low-income communities. Meeting participants identified key community facilities, neighborhoods, businesses, underserved areas, and important relationships between communities (social, familial, employment). These resources will be given special consideration throughout the impact analysis. 8.2.3.7 LOCAL GROUP AND ORGANIZATION MEETINGS Project team members conducted localized group and organization meetings that provided the opportunity to present detailed project information in a very personalized manner to a larger number of individuals. Through targeted outreach, the team contacted neighborhood associations, business associations, and civic groups to offer briefings. Forty-one meetings took place with individuals, businesses, and organizations as listed in Table 8-6. All information gathered from these meetings was documented in HIRSYS, the comment tracking database, and shared with the project team. 8.2.3.8 PROJECT WEB SITE The project web site (http://www.cdot.info/northi25eis/) went online in May 2003. The web site serves as an educational and information-sharing tool providing the most up-to-date project information. This integral part of the public outreach program provides the public with access to past project information documents and the latest project information including: • • Calendar of events • Community-specific information • Maps • Purpose and need • The EIS process • Newsletters • Public meeting boards and records • Final technical reports • Project schedule • FAQs • Opportunities for public involvement In addition to sharing information, the project web site provides the public with opportunities to share input, request a speaker, or request to be added to the project distribution list through the contact form. Key project information is also displayed in Spanish. 8.2.3.9 MEDIA OUTREACH Periodic news releases and media advisories were prepared and sent to the local media in advance of public meetings. News releases and media advisories were sent in January 2004, June 2004, October 2004, June 2005, January 2006, November 2006, and September 2007. News releases and media advisories also were translated into Spanish and distributed to Spanish-language news media in the Denver Metro Area. The project team conducted two rounds of media tours during which the project manager and public involvement manager met with reporters and editors of the newspapers with the largest circulation in the study area. The team visited the Fort Collins Coloradoan, Loveland Reporter-Herald and the Greeley Tribune. Additionally, the public involvement team prepared media kits, which were distributed to reporters who attended public meetings. The content of these kits varied slightly for each meeting but typically. included the most recent meeting notification news release, frequently asked questions, and graphics of alternatives being considered by the project team. Comments and Coordination 8-14 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 8-6 Local Group and Organization Meeting Date Group No. of Attendees Apr 05, 2004 Northern Colorado Public Communicators 23 Apr 23, 2004 Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs 25 Committee Apr 23, 2004 Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs & 30 Transportation Committee Apr 26, 2004 Fort Collins Board of Realtors 25 May 04, 2004 Fort Collins Lions Club 15 May 11, 2004 Erie Lion's Club Small Group 12 May 12, 2004 Loveland Commercial Realtor Association. 25 May 12, 2004 Windsor Chamber 12 May 18, 2004 Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation 20 May 19, 2004 Ft. Lupton Chamber of Commerce 30 May 20, 2004 PEDAL— Loveland Bicycle Group 15 May 21, 2004 Rodarte Center Seniors 40 May 24, 2004 Johnstown/Milliken Lions 10 May 27, 2004 Eaton Lion's Club Small Group 24 Jun 11, 2004 Johnstown/Milliken Rotary 20 Jun 15, 2004 Loveland Rotary Club 120 Jun 24, 2004 Brighton Chamber of Commerce 84 Jul 12, 2004 City of Greeley 12 • Jul 14, 2004 Longmont Kiwanis Club 15 Jul 15, 2004 Broomfield Econ. Development Corporation 25 Jul 20, 2004 Longmont Rotary Club 125 Aug 10, 2004 Loveland Connection Club 20 Sep 02, 2004 Broomfield Transportation Commission 7 Sep 08, 2004 Loveland Kiwanis 40 Sep 08, 2004 Westminster Transportation Commission 10 Sep 20, 2004 Commerce City Development 5 Oct 02, 2004 ColoRail 45 Oct 11, 2004 Larimer County Engineering 15 Nov 04, 2004 Housing Authority of Loveland 20 Nov 08, 2004 League of Women Voters of Larimer County 40 Nov 14, 2004 Riders For Justice 25 Nov 16, 2004 Weld County League of Women Voters 20 Dec 13, 2004 Longmont Transportation Advisory board 10 Jan 10, 2005 Johnstown/Milliken Lion's Club 10 Jan 13, 2005 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Northern 8 Colorado Chapter Jan 18, 2005 City of Greeley Community Outreach Staff 2 Jan 17, 2007 Mulberry Corridor Owners Association 23 Feb 06, 2007 Downtown Loveland Association 11 Mar 14, 2007 Mason Corridor Open House 15-20 Mar 13, 2007 Colorado Rail Association 2 Apr 10, 2007 US 36 Commuting Solutions 30 • Comments and Coordination 8-15 NORTH 1-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. 8.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES S The study team developed a protocol for responding to public comments to comply with NEPA suggestions for an interactive and comprehensive public involvement process. The process encouraged interested parties to provide comments and developed processes for responding to comments or incorporating community concerns into project informational materials. Public comments were received through a variety of means, and by many people on the project team. Comments were evaluated, and if necessary, responded to in the following manner: ► HIRSYS / Hotline Comments — Comments received via web entry or hotline call that requested information were routed through the appropriate project team members for a response. ► Routine Comments and Questions — Frequently asked comments or questions were handled by public involvement representatives using prepared responses. ► Web Entries or Hotline Messages — Information from web entries or persons leaving individual contact information was added to the project contact database. ► Verbal Notes from Meetings — Comments received through verbal communication at meetings were added to the project database. ► Specific Requests — Specific requests requiring follow-up by a project team member were addressed by the individuals receiving the comment. • ► Public Meeting Comment Forms (received at the meetings) — Comments received via comment forms submitted at the meeting were added to the database. ► Public Meeting Comment Forms (mailed after public meetings) — Comments received via comment forms mailed to project representatives after public meetings were added to the database. ► Hard Copy Documents — Letters received via regular mail from interested parties were routed through the appropriate project team members for a response, if necessary. Comments offering suggestions for the project team, but not requesting information or answers to questions were reviewed and addressed through the project process, where possible. These documents were scanned and added to the project database. Comment summaries were reviewed by project team members to analyze public concerns and needs. Action on specific outstanding questions or comments was taken where needed. Common questions were answered in the "frequently asked questions" section on the project web site, and distributed at public meetings. The HIRSYS database of public comments contains 5,040 records. Comments that are the most common or that reflect trends are summarized below. Please see Appendix A for a complete list of all public comments received by the project team. 8.3.1 Transit There is significant support among members of the public for transit, especially rail. People 5 mentioned the public stigma attached to bus service. The general sentiment is that rail service would attract more people to transit than bus service would. Comments received relative to transit are summarized below: Comments and Coordination 8.16 NORTH I-25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information.cooperation. transportation. • ► A significant number of comments were received in support of a train or rail alternative. ► Support was given for rail service that would use existing rail lines in order to reduce the cost to riders and facilitate quick implementation of service. ► Bus service was seen in some ways as being the most economical, but concern was expressed that it would add to congestion on already stressed highways. ► It is perceived that mass transit would not help to relieve highway congestion. ► Bus rapid transit, with fast and timely supporting local service, was seen to be the most affordable option. ► Links to DIA were considered important. ► Bus stations are needed at major intersections. Bus stations with protected shelters are needed to attract riders and buses should run 24 hours-a-day. Bus shelters/stations are critical to shifting travelers from automotive to mass transit. Private enterprise would work best. Also most people consider bus service as a third-class mode of transportation. Mass transit needs to be made more attractive to help change people's attitudes towards it. ► There is interest in locating stations and rail lines near larger population areas. There is interest in placing rail near the "Tri-town" area of Frederick, Dacono, and Firestone, determining the type of driver who would be willing to drive to reach the station and how far those riders would be willing to drive, for eliminating the need for feeder buses from east, and for locating a station at WCR 7 and SH 52 to service high-traffic volume on SH 52. • ► Most towns along the western alignment were built along rail. Developments tend to occur along transportation routes. 1-25 could have the same kind of appeal and resulting economic development impacts should be considered. 8.3.2 Highway The general sentiment is that highway improvements are already overdue. There were many comments regarding safety and the deteriorating condition of bridges and interchanges. The public understands and agrees that the highway will require improvements regardless of what transit service is provided. Comments received relative to highway improvements are summarized below: ► Support was given for upgrading 287 and/or US 85 to expressways to compete with the speed and convenience of 1-25. It was felt that US 85 needs major improvements and upgrades as part of the solution. ► Support was given for using tolls to finance highway improvements. ► Interest was expressed for only improving existing roads and not building new roads. ► It was felt that toll roads would 'cater' to higher-income portions of society and a public transportation system should be accessible to the entire community. ► There is a perception that if the highway were widened and traffic was no longer stop-and-go, people would use the highways. • ► It was felt that if 1-25 were to be widened through Weld County, it would result in heavy congestion. Pressure to develop that area is high and an eight-lane highway would expedite development and exacerbate congestion. Comments and Coordination 8.17 NORTH I--25 Draft EIS EIS October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. 8.3.3 Environment • Concern for the protection of the natural environment was strong. Diminishing air quality and loss of wetlands along 1-25 were of special concern. Comments received relative to the environmental resources are summarized below: ► Support was given for putting the environment, especially air quality, above the needs of development. "After air quality, the river corridors and wetlands should take precedence." ► Transportation improvements should be placed where they won't affect open space or degrade views. Open space and important views should be saved. ► Alternative fuels should be considered. ► Regarding noise impacts, it was felt there were problems with current noise levels and additional lanes would cause property owners to be unable to hear anything but 1-25 in their yards. There is a preference for higher noise walls, even if that would result in losses to residents' view of the mountains. 8.3.4 Other Comments ► Package A offers a lot of support for current transportation needs. Northern Coloradans make a lot of short trips and Package A would have a positive impact on their ability to make such trips by allowing people to take advantage of other modes of transportation. ► Package B lacks an east-west connection, which would not be beneficial for persons traveling from Loveland to Greeley. . ► The business community was supportive of either of the Draft EIS build packages moving forward. ► A 20-year timeframe was felt to be too short. It would be better to use a time frame that looks 50 years and beyond. ► Regarding safety, increased law enforcement is needed to counter an increase in accidents between 1991 and 2001. ► 1-25 should not be a barrier to bicyclists (and pedestrians). Many safe crossings should be provided to accommodate people who will use modes other than automobiles to cross 1-25. 8.4 FUTURE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Following the Public Hearing and 45-day comment period for the Draft EIS, all comments received will be considered before identifying a Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative will be identified in the Final EIS. The Final EIS will be advertised and available for public comment. A 30-day public comment period will be provided for review of the Final EIS. Following review of the comments received, and after funding has been identified for the first phase of construction, the FHWA will issue a Record of Decision, documenting the decisions made for the North 1-25 EIS. S Comments and Coordination 8.18 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 1 CHAPTER 9 LIST OF PREPARERS 2 The primary consultant for this project is Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). FHU used two 3 major subconsultants (Jacobs and Vladimir Jones) and various other specialty 4 subconsultants to provide technical expertise. These specialty subconsultants included: 5 ► Centennial Archaeology: archaeological surveys 6 ► Clarion Associates: land use 7 ► Connetics: transit operations planning 8 ► ERO: wildlife and endangered species 9 ► GEOCAL: geologic and soils 10 ► Goodbee and Associates: utilities 11 ► Hermsen Associates: historic property surveys 12 ► H.C. Peck and Associates: right-of-way 13 ► HMMH: transit noise and vibration analysis 14 ► Hartwig and Associates: highway design • 15 ► Flatirons Marketing & Communications: document editing 16 ► Maintenance Design Group: maintenance facilities design 17 ► Wilbur Smith Associates: tolled express lane operations 18 ► Two Hundred: public involvement 19 Table 9-1 lists the representatives of the agencies and firms responsible for preparation of 20 this Draft EIS, with their project responsibility, education, and experience. • List of Preparers 9-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 9-1 List of Preparers Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration Experience FHWA BS, Geological Engineering Monica Pavlik MS, Environmental Science and 14 years preparing and reviewing Document Reviewer Engineering environmental documents PE (Colorado) FTA David Beckhouse BS, Political Science 12 years preparing and reviewing Document Reviewer MPA, Public Administration environmental documents BA, History Susan Martin MA, History, 24 year legal compliance for NEPA Document Reviewer AA, Criminal Justice documents JD, Law CDOT Carol Parr BS, Biology 25 years biological sciences CDOT Project Manager MS, Natural Science 10 years NEPA analysis David Martinez BS, Civil Engineering 25 years transportation engineering CDOT Project Engineer PE (Colorado) Bob Garcia BS, Civil Engineering 22 years transportation engineering Region 4-South PE (Colorado) Program Engineer Myron Flora HS, Registered Prof. Land 20 years construction engineering, CDOT Planning and Surveyor surveying & design, planning & • Environmental Manager environmental Sharleen Bakeman BA, English (emphasis on 25 years environmental management CDOT NEPA Program Manager scientific editing) Lee Dong BA, General Engineering 37 years transportation and CDOT NEPA Specialist environmental Long Nguyen BS, Civil Engineering 16 years transportation engineering PE1/Project Manager PE (Colorado) Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Bob Felsburg BS, Civil Engineering 34 years transportation engineering Project Director MS, Civil Engineering PE (Colorado) Tom Anzia BS, Civil Engineering 26 years transportation engineering Project Manager MS, Civil Engineering PE (Colorado) Holly Buck MS, Civil Engineering 13 years transportation planning Purpose and Need BS, Engineering Management Alternatives, Traffic PE (Colorado) Todd Frisbie BA, Economics 10 years traffic and transportation Traffic Analysis BS, Civil Engineering analysis MS, Civil Engineering PE (Colorado) Jennica Hartman AD, Civil Engineering 6 years design and plan preparation Roadway Design/Planning Technology Jeff Ream BS, Civil Engineering 17 years traffic and transportation Traffic Analysis PE (Colorado) analysis Jeanne Sharps BS, Civil Engineering 20 years structural engineering • Engineering Manager PE (Colorado) 3 years engineering management List of Preparers 9-2 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 9-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration I Experience Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Brian Wiltshire BS, Civil Engineering 7 years civil engineering Roadway Design PE (Colorado) Ken Soellner BS, Industrial Technology 19 years design and plan preparation Roadway Design/Planning Cindy Otegui BS, Civil Engineering 10 years structural engineering Structural Engineer MS, Civil Engineering PE (Colorado, Wyoming) Katie Peksa BS, Civil Engineering 1 year civil engineering Roadway Design Stephanie Sangaline BS, Civil Engineering 19 years civil engineering Freight Rail Coordination Stan Shibao Associate Degree 26 years transportation planning & Roadway Design/Planning Civil Eng—Technology preparation Thor Gjelsteen BS, Forestry 20 years environmental analysis NEPA Compliance MS, Geology Quality Assurance Registered Professional Geologist Gregg Mugele BS, Environmental Design 26 years transportation planning and • Quality Assurance NEPA analysis Value Engineering Ed Lind BSC, Physical Science 30 years water resources Floodplain/Water Quality BA, Geology PE (Colorado, Utah, Montana) Kendra Gabbert BS, Civil Engineering 1 year water resources Floodplain/Water Quality Alex Pulley BS, Biology, Env. Management 10 years water resources Water Quality Analysis Graduate Studies, Env. Science and Eng. Laura Archerd MEPM, Environmental Policy 3 years environmental analysis Hazardous Materials and Water and Management Resources Kevin Maddoux BA, Environmental Science 11 years environmental analysis Hazardous Materials MEPM, Environmental Policy and Management Dale Tischmak BS, Biology and Chemistry 22 years quantitative environmental Traffic Noise MS, Chemistry analysis Jordan Rudel BS, Environmental Engineering 3 years environmental analysis Traffic Noise Jason Marmor BA, Cultural Anthropology 21 years historic site evaluation and Historic Site Coordination and MA, Historic Preservation preservation Effects Determination Jan Campbell BA, Graphic Design 27 years graphic design Graphic Design Zach Topoleski AS, Chemistry/Civil Drafting 26 years graphic design Graphic Design • List of Preparers 9-3 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 9-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration Experience Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Evan Kirby BS, Environmental Studies/ 12 years GIS analysis Geographic Information Services Geography Keith Hidalgo BS, Wildlife Biology 5 years GIS analysis Geographic Information Services Jacobs Gina McAfee, Principal BS, Landscape Architecture 30 years NEPA transportation analyses Deputy Project Manager AICP Registered Planner Wendy Wallach BA, Geography 12 years NEPA analysis EIS Manager MA, Urban and Regional Planning AICP Registered Planner Bill Knapp BS, Natural Resource 6 years natural resources and NEPA WetlandsNegetation Management analyses Andy Priest BS, Natural Resource 9 years GIS analysis Geographic Information Services Management Brian Werle BS, Geological Engineering 18 years environmental planning Land Use Specialist MS, Urban Planning 5 years NEPA analysis PE (Colorado) Shonna Sam BA, Environmental Studies 4 years NEPA analysis Socio-Economic, Environmental BA, Geography • Justice, Cumulative MA, Urban and Regional Planning AICP Registered Planner Craig Gaskill BS, Civil Engineering 24 years transportation engineering Alternatives Development and MS, Transportation Engineering/ and planning Transit Planning Planning PE (Colorado), AICP, PTOE Julie Walker BA, Political Science and 6 years transit planning, safety and Alternatives Development, Transit Environmental Studies security, and financial analysis Planning, Safety and Security, MS, Urban and Regional Financial Analysis Planning Chris Primus MS, Transportation 14 years transportation planning and Task Manager, Travel Forecasting MS, Computational Mathematics travel forecasting BA, Mathematics Kevin McDermott BS, Natural Resources 3 years NEPA analysis Cumulative Effects Analysis MA, Urban and Regional Planning Paul Brown, PE, PTOE BS, Civil Engineering 17 years traffic engineering, Traffic, Transit Planning Professional Traffic Op's Eng. transportation planning and NEPA PE (Colorado, New York, New analyses Mexico) Ken Carlson, PLS Continuing education in 37 years survey, mapping, right-of-way Survey, Mapping, Right-of-way Geodesy and GPS Professional Land Surveyor • List of Preparers 9.4 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 9-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration Experience Jacobs Jill Schlaefer BS, Geology 22 years geology and GIS Air Quality MS, Geology 6 years NEPA analysis Jim Clarke BA, History 16 years NEPA analysis, QA Lead Reviewer [Section 4(f), MS, Urban and Regional environmental analysis and planning Section 6(f), trails] Planning AICP Certified Planner Jennifer Merer MLA, Landscape Architecture 10 years landscape architecture Stations Danielle Smith BS/MENG, Civil Engineering 12 years highway transit design Transit Engineering PE (Colorado) Diane Yates, RLA BS, Landscape Architecture 26 years experience assessing and Wetland Specialist RLA(New Mexico, California) design of wetlands, and ecological restoration Karen Rhea BA, Art 9 Years graphic design Graphics Vladimir Jones Kim McCarl BS, Public Relations 14 years public involvement, Public Involvement Manager Accredited in Public Relations community relations, media (APR) by the Public Relations relations, and public information • Society of America Jessica Woolery BS, Public Relations 3 years public involvement, Public Involvement community relations, media relations, and public information Centennial Archaeology Christian J. Zier PhD, Anthropology 30 years archaeology, history, Principal Investigator, Archaeology NEPA analysis Mary W. Painter MA, Anthropology 15 years archaeology, history, Project Director for NEPA analysis Archaeology/History; Linear Historical Sites Christopher C. Kinneer MA candidate, Anthropology 8 years archaeology, history Crew Chief, Archaeological Survey Denise Fallon Zier BA, Anthropology 25 years archaeology, technical Technical Editor editing Connetics Jim Baker BS, Community and Regional 21 years transit operations Financial Analysis Planning planning MCP, Master of City Planning Susan Rosales BA, Psychology 20+years transit operations Transit Operations Planning MA, Urban Planning planning Dennis Markham MBA, BA, Economics 20+ years transit financial Financial Analysis modeling • Smith Myung BA, Political Science and 13 years transportation planning Travel Demand Forecasting History and travel demand forecasting MA, Urban and Regional Planning List of Preparers 9-5 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 9-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration I Experience ERO Steve Butler BS, Biology 11 years natural resource analysis Wildlife, Threatened and MS, Environmental Endangered Species Management Ron Beane BS, Wildlife Biology 27 years biological analysis Raptor Specialist MS, Biology Hartwig &Associates Marvinetta Hartwig BS, Civil Engineering 20 years transportation design, Engineering PE (Colorado and California) specializing in highway and roadway design David Dyer Technical Drafting 25 years design and plan Engineering preparation H.C. Peck Pat Bergman BS, Social Services 25 years right-of-way experience Right-of-way Analysis Phuong Tran BS, Psychology 3 years Right-of-Way experience Right-of-Way Analysis Hermsen Consultants . Gail Keeley BS, Environmental Science, 34 years NEPA analysis and Historic Properties Regional Planning environmental compliance MS, Urban and Regional 18 years historic assessment Planning HMMH David A. Towers, Principal BS/MS, Mechanical Engineering 30 years transportation noise and Rail, Transit, Noise and Vibration PE, (California) vibration analyses Task Manager Flatirons Marketing&Communications, Inc. Meris Delli-Bovi BA, English 30 years technical editing, Technical Editor environmental compliance, public involvement Clarion Associates Ben Herman BS, Environmental Studies and 30 years regional growth Land Use Planning management and transportation corridor studies 2 • List of Preparers 9-6 Draft EIS rds, October 2008 NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • CHAPTER 10 LIST OF REFERENCES CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005a. 2030 Moving Colorado— Vision for the Future, Statewide Transportation Plan. February 17. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005b. Field Log of Structures. Staff Bridge Branch, Bridge Management System Unit. May 16. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2006. CDOT Design Guide 2005. Last updated April 2006. ETC Institute. 2002. Community Transportation Assessment Survey. Conducted on behalf of North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). December. ETC Institute. 2005. Community Transportation Assessment Survey. Conducted on behalf of North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). October. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2002. Eastern Colorado Mobility Study. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). April. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2004. Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Prepared for the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission. November. • Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1999. North Front Range Transportation Alternative Feasibility Study Phase II, Technical Report No. 3, Summary of Stakeholder Workshops and Community Input. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council, and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFRRPC). August. Kononov, Jake and Bryan K. Allery. 2004. "Explicit Consideration of Safety in Transportation Planning and Project Scoping." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1897, Statistical Methods and Safety Data Analysis and Evaluation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). 2004. North Front Range Year 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. TransitPlus and Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2003. Front Range Commuter Bus Study. October. CHAPTER 2- ALTERNATIVES FHU and Jacobs, 2008a. Alternatives Development and Screening Report. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. FHU and Jacobs, 2008b. Package Concept Plans. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. FHU and Jacobs, 2008c. Traffic Analysis Technical Reports. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. FHWA. 1995. Interstate 25, SH 7 to SH 66 Environmental Assessment Project NH-IR(CX) 025- 3(109). The FONSI was signed by FHWA on January 10, 1995. • List of References 10-1 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 information cooperation. transportation. CHAPTER 3- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . Land Use and Zoning Jacobs. 2008a. Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Social Conditions Jacobs. 2008b. Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Economic Conditions Cambridge, Systematics, Inc. 1999. Public Transportation and the Nation's Economy:A Cambridge, Systematics, Inc. 1999. Public Transportation and the Nation's Economy:A Quantitative Analysis of Public Transportation's Economic Impact, Washington, DC. Prepared with Glen Weisbrod Associates, Inc. October. City of Fort Collins, City of Loveland, Town of Berthoud, Town of Johnstown, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor, Larimer County, Weld County and the North Front Range MPO. 2001. Northern Colorado 1-25 Corridor Plan, 2001. McCann, Barbara. 2000. Driven to Spend: The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses. Surface Transportation Policy Project and Center for Neighborhood Technology, Washington, DC. http://www.transact.org/PDFs/DriventoSpend.pdf. Porter, Douglas R. 1997. Synthesis of Transit Practice 20: Transit-Focused Development. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Air Quality Ayala, A., N. Kado and R. Okimoto. 2003. ARB [Air Resources Board] Study of Emissions from Late-Model Diesel and CNG[Compressed Natural Gas]Heavy-duty Transit Buses: Toxic Compounds and PM Emissions. California Air Resources Board. Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE). 2005. 2004 Annual Data Report. Air Pollution Control Division. September. Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE). 2006a. 2005 Annual Data Report. Air Pollution Control Division. September. Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE). 2006b. Colorado 2002 Ammonia Emissions Inventory. Curtis Taipale. Air Pollution Control Division. Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE). 2007. 2007 Annual Monitoring Network Assessment. Air Pollution Control Division. September. Environmental Law Institute. 2005. NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles. 35 ELR 10273. Houk, Jeff. 2007. FHWA Personal communication. Email discussing nitrogen calculations associated with the US287, 1-25 and US85 corridors Jacobs. 2008c. Air Quality Technical Report. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2000. Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II. March. • List of References 10-2 Draft EIS y NORTH 1-25 '.'i° ` ' October 2008 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II(March 2000); The Sierra Club's Highway Health Hazards:A Sierra Club Report(July 2004) summarizing 24 studies on the relationship between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005)with health studies cited therein. The Sierra Club, 2004. Highway Health Hazards: A Sierra Club Report. July U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. EPA420-B-06-902. March 29. Whiteman, C. David. 2000. Mountain Meteorology- Fundamentals and Applications, Oxford University Press. Noise &Vibration Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002. Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines. December. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. June. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2006. Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 49, Sections 222 and 229. August. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May. • Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2008a. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Noise and Vibration Technical Report. Harris, Miller, Miller& Hanson (HMMH). 2008. North /-25 Environmental Impact Statement Rail Transit Noise and Vibration Technical Report. Water Quality Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002. Erosion Control and Storm water Quality Guide. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2003. Final Section 309 Report, A Study of Colorado Water Quality Classification and Standard Issues under CRS [Colorado Revised Statutes] 25-8-309. Colorado Water Quality Control Division. December. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004a. Drainage Design Manual. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004b. 1-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2006a. Regulation No. 93, Section 303(d) List Water Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Water Quality Control Commission. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2006b. Regulation No. 94, Colorado's Monitoring and Evaluation List. Water Quality Control Commission. • List of References 10-3 Draft EISNORTH I--25 October 2008 EIS ' information. cooperation. transportation. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2007. Regulation No. 38, . Classifications And Numeric Standards South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River, Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin. Water Quality Control Commission. Online at: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/requlations/wqccreqs/ 100238southplatte.pdf Colorado Geological Survey. 2003. Colorado Geological Survey Groundwater Atlas of Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication 53. Prepared by R. Topper, K. Spray, W. Bellis, J. Hamilton, and P. Barkmann. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1990. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Stormwater Runoff Volumes I, II, and III. FHWA-RD-88-006; FHWA-RD-88-007; and FHWA-RD-88-008. April. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU), 2008b. Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report for the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. Performance Evaluation of Dry Detention Storm water Management Systems. EPA Grant Number: C9994515-94. Online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Water/nonpoint/docs/319h/wm658clo.pdf Kayhanian, Masoud, A. Singh, C. Suverkropp, and S. Borroum. 2003. Impact of Annual Average Daily Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations. Journal of Environmental Engineering. November. Trombulak, Stephen C. and Christopher A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14 (1), 18-30. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Urban BMP Performance Tool. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/urbanbmp/ bmpeffectiveness.cfm. • Accessed: January 27, 2008 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Water Quality in the South Platte River Basin, Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, 1992-1995: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1167. Prepared by Kevin F. Dennehy, D.W Litke, C.M. Tate, S.L. Qi, P.B. McMahon, B.W. Bruce, R.A. Kimbrough, and J.S. Heiny. On line at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ1167. Updated October 15, 1998. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Colorado Land Cover Data Set. Online at: http://rockyweb.cr.usqs.qov/frontrancie/datasets.htm Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). 2001. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Volumes I, II and III with revisions. June. Wetlands Ecotone. 2006. Field notes and GIS surveys. Boulder, Colorado Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. NTIS No. AD A176 912 Jacobs. 2006. Wetland Assessment Form Jacobs. 2008d. North 1-25 Wetland Technical Report. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. L.M. Cowardin, V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-79/31 • List of References 10-4 Draft EIS NORTH 125 t October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Floodplains Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002b. Erosion Control and Storm water Quality Guide. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004. Drainage Design Manual. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), 1995. Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas. April. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU), 2008b. Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report for the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2006. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 568 Riprap Design Criteria, Recommended Specifications, and Quality Control. Vegetation U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Ecoregions of Colorado. (2 sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Virginia. Scale 1:1,200,000. Weber, W.A. and R.C. Wittmann, 2001. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado Wildlife Barnum, S.A. 2003. Identifying the Best Locations along Highways to Provide Safe Crossing Opportunities for Wildlife:A Handbook for Highway Planners and Designers. Colorado • Department of Transportation, in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 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 Division of Wildlife. 2002. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. Craig, G.R. January 18. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005. Confidential unpublished sampling data from study area, provided by S. Albeke, Fisheries Biologist. September 26. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2005. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Environmental Review. Locations and Status of Rare and/or imperiled elements within the North I-25 EIS Study Area. Generated October 28. ERO Resources Corporation. 2008. North 1-25 EIS Draft Wildlife Technical Report. Prepared for CDOT Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. Huwer, S. 2006. Personal communication from Sherry Huwer, CDOW to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18. Jackson, S.D. 2000. Overview of Transportation Effects on Wildlife Movement and Populations. Pp. 7-20 In Messmer, T.A. and B. West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. Jackson, S.D. and C.R. Griffin. 2000. A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Effects on Wildlife. Pp. 143-159 In Messmer, T.A. and B. West, (eds)Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. • Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2006. Wildlife Species Pages. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available at: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. List of References 10-5 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 is k , October 2008 EIS is information. cooperation. transportation. Ruediger, B. and M. DiGiorgio. 2007. Safe Passage:A User's Guide to Developing Effective Highway Crossings for Carnivores and Other Wildlife. Produced by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Unpublished trapping database for Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Last updated September. Vierra, M. 2006. Personal communication from Mark Vierra, CDOW, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18. Wells, P., J.G. Woods, G. Bridgewater, and H. Morrison. 1999. Wildlife mortalities on railways: monitoring methods and mitigation strategies. p. 85-88 In ICOWET III International Conference On Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, Missoula, Montana, September 13- 16 Threatened & Endangered and State Sensitive Species Colorado Department of Transportation. 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. 2005. Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy. Memorandum. March 4. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2002. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Craig, G.R. January 18. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2005c. Confidential unpublished sampling data from study area, provided by S. Albeke, Fisheries Biologist. September 26. • Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2007. Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2005. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Environmental Review. Locations and Status of Rare and/or imperiled elements within the North I-25 EIS Study Area. Generated October 28, 2005. ERO Resources Corporation. 2008. North 1-25 EIS Draft Wildlife Technical Report. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. Gamble, N. 2006. Bald Eagle Watch 2006 Report, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Huwer, S. 2006. Personal communication from Sherry Huwer, CDOW to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18, 2006. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2006. Wildlife Species Pages. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available at: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. Ryel, A. 2006. Personal communication from Aimee Ryel, CDOW, to Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation. September 2006. Sherman, M. 2006. Personal communication from Mike Sherman, CDOW, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. June 19, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Impacts to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Associated with FHWA Funding of CDOT's Routine Maintenance and Upgrade Activities on Existing Transportation Corridors of Eastern Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2004. Programmatic Biological Opinion for • Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. January. List of References 10-6 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS : information cooperation. transportation. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005a. Letter to Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation Endangered Species Specialist, from Susan C. Linner, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Supervisor. July 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005b. Unpublished trapping database for Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Last updated September 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Website Review: http://mountain- prairie.fws.qov/species/plants/uteladiestress/index.htm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2008. Amendment to the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. February 5. Venner M. 2001. Long-range multi-species advance mitigation: CDOT's shortgrass prairie initiative process and benefits . IN: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 200-206. Vierra, M. 2006. Personal communication from Mark Vierra, CDOW, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18, 2006. Paleontological Resources Rocky Mountain Paleontology. 2008. Paleontological Resources Technical Report: Interstate 25 North Corridor Environmental Impact Statement, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado. • Hazardous Materials American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. ASTM Standards on Environmental Site Assessments for Commercial Real Estate. E 1527-05. Colorado Department of Natural Resources. 2006. State Engineer Water Well Construction Rules. Division of Water Resources. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005a. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005b. Right-of-Way Manual. Chapter 3, "Right-of-Way Appraisals, Procedures, and General Information." October. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Environmental Programs Branch (EPB). 2005. Hazardous Materials Guidance. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2001. Exploration and Production Waste Management 900 Series. November 30, 2006. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2008c. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Hazardous Materials Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Parks and Recreation Adams County Parks and Community Resources Department. 1998. Adams County Trail Map. Adams County Open Space Plan. http://www.co.adams.co.us/documents/ page/trailsonly map.pdf Boulder County. 1999. County Trails Map. Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. April 22. • Boulder County. 2002. County On-Street Bikeways Plan. Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. July 5. List of References 10-7 Draft EIS NORTH I-25 October 2008 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department. 2004. St. Vrain Trail Master Plan. January • 6. http://bouldersheriff.com/openspace/management plans/st vrain pdfs/sv trail mp/ st vrain trail mp01 04.pdf. City of Boulder. 2007. Transportation Information System GIS Map. http://gisweb.ci.boulder.co.us/website/pds/Transportation gisweb/viewer.htm. City of Brighton. 2006. City of Brighton Comprehensive Plan. June 7. http://www.brightoncotiov/egov/docs/1149698820761.htm. City and County of Broomfield. 2005. City and County of Broomfield Open Space, Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan. February 8. http://www.broomfield.org/openspace/ Open Space Parks Recreation andTrailsMaster Plans html. City of Dacono. 2005. City of Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan. January. http://www.ci.dacono.co.us/docs/Complete CompPlan.pdf. City of Fort Collins. 2004. Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan. City of Fort Collins. 2006. Fort Collins Bicycle Map. http://www.ci.fortcollins.co.us/bicycling/pdf/bike map 9 14 05.pdf City of Greeley. 2002. Greeley Parks and Trails Master Plan. January. http://www.ci.greeley.co.us/coq/OrgPacies/63/Report-opt.pdf. City of Lafayette. 2003. Lafayette Comprehensive Plan. http://www.cityoflafayette.com/Pape.a sp?N av I D=653. City of Longmont. 2002. Longmont Open Space and Trails Master Plan. May 7. http://www.ci.lonqmont.co.us/openspace/masterplan.htm. City of Longmont. 2003. Longmont Area Bikeways Map. Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan, p. M-1. July 8. http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/Planning/lacp/documents/LACP 2006update.pdf. City of Longmont. 2005. Longmont Bicycle Vision Map. Longmont Multimodal Transportation Plan, p. 16. July 26. http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/planning/trans/pdfs/final plan/bicycle map.mmtp small.pdf City of Loveland Parks and Recreation. 2005. Bikeways Map, City of Loveland. September. http://www.ci.loveland.co.us/parksrec/BikewaysMapRevised 11-22-05.pdf. City of Northglenn. 2007. Trail Map, City of Northglenn. http://vail.northglenn.org/website/parks/viewer.htm. City of Thornton. 2003. City of Thornton Parks and Open Space Master Plan. October 15. http://www.cityofthornton.net/park/adobe/Plan Contents With Cover.pdf. City of Thornton. 2003. City of Thornton Proposed Community and Regional Trail Network Map. Thornton Parks and Open Space Master Plan, p. 5-7. October 15. City of Thornton. 2004. City of Thornton Parks and Trails Map. Winter. http://www.cityofthornton.net/comd/adobe/public parks trails.pdf City of Westminster. 2001. City of Westminster Trails Master Plan Map. June 25. City of Wheat Ridge. 2006. Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2003. Bicycle/Pedestrian Program. CDOT webpage. http://www.dot.state.co.us/BikePed/. Colorado State Parks. 2003. Colorado Front Range Trail Project. List of References 10-8 Draft EIS NORTH 1-25 October 2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Denver Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Denver Parks and Recreation Game Plan. April 1.http://www.denvergov.orq/Default.aspx?alias=www.denvergov.orq/GamePlan. Denver Department of Parks and Recreation. South Platte River Greenway Trail Map. http://www.de nvergov.orq/Portals/474/documents/South Platte Map.pdf. J.R. Engineering. 2000. Town of Mead Proposed Sidewalk/Trail System. December. Larimer County. 2001. Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan. Larimer County Open Lands Program. http://www.co.larimer.co.us/parks/openlands/master plan.pdf. Larimer County. 2003. Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Draft.http://www.larimer.orq/enqineering/ufr2030/ufr2030.pdf. Larimer County. 2006. Larimer County Transportation Master Plan. October 18. http://www.co.larimer.co.us/engineering/TransMasterPlan/Transmst.htm. Northern Colorado Regional Communities. 2001. 1-25 Corridor Plan. May. Shapins Associates, Inc. 2002. Colorado Front Range Trail Corridor Plan. April. Town of Berthoud. 2001. Town of Berthoud Master Land Use Plan. http://www.ci.berthoud.co.us/planning/Land°/020Us0/020Plan.pdf. Town of Berthoud. 2001. Town of Berthoud Parks and Major Bike Trails Map. February. Town of Erie. 2002. Town of Erie Parks and Open Space Master Plan. October. http://www.town.forterie.ca/WebSite/tofeweb.nsf/0/0EFA0F2EC5EB0748852571 DC0047 AD98/$File/Fort%20Erie%20%20FI NAL%20MASTER%20PLAN%20- %20OCT%202006.pdf. Town of Firestone. 2006. Firestone Draft Master Plan:A Community in Motion. Town of Frederick, Parks, Open Space, and Recreation. Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan, p. 10-1. http://www.frederickco.qov/frederick.aspx?id=832. Town of Frederick. 2004. Town of Frederick Parks and Open Space Map. April. http://www.frederickco.gov/uploadedFiles/Frederick/Government Services/Planning De partment/Comprehensive Plan/parks open space map.pdf. Town of Mead. 2004. 2004 Comprehensive Plan. September 27. Town of Milliken. 2003. Johnstown/Milliken Parks, Trails, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. June. http://town.milliken.co.us/default2.asp?active page id=174. Town of Timnath. 2005. Timnath Trails Plan. April 27. http://www.timnathcolorado.orq/documents/maps/Master%20Trail%20PIan.pdf. Town of Timnath. 2005. Timnath Comprehensive Plan. http://www.timnathcolorado.orq/documents/compplan/Comp%20PIan.pdf. US 36 Regional Bicycle Map. http://www.36commutingsolutions.orq/Uploads/bikelinks 36.htm. Weld County. 1999. Structural Land Use Plan Map. Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Weld County, Boulder County, City of Longmont, Town of Erie, Town of Firestone, Town of Frederick, Town of Dacono. 2000. St. Vrain Valley Open Lands and Trails Plan. CSU/DOLA Community Technical Assistance Program and Colorado Open Lands. July. Westminster County. 2004. Westminster Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2004-2009. http://www.ci.westminster.co.us/articles/ParkRecBook.pdf. • Winston Associates. 2001. Brighton Open Space Plan. August 1. List of References 10-9 Draft EIS NORTH I--25 October 2008 _, EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Energy Federal Transportation Administration (FTA). 2006. Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria. Environmental Benefits Worksheet. May. Available at: http://www.fta.dot.uov/documents/FY08 Reporting Instructions - final - 5-15-06.doc (accessed March 2007). Public Safety and Security Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2002. Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities—Technical Report. FHWA-RD-01-158. March. Federal Railroad Administration. GradeDec.Net. System for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Investment Analysis. http://gradedec.fra.dot.gov/. Accessed April 10, 2007. Federal Railroad Administration. Office of Safety Analysis. http://safetvdata.fra.dot.qov/OfficeofSafety/. Updated June 19, 2007. Accessed April 10, 2007 Construction Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002a. Construction Manual. July. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002b. Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 1995. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance • Manual. Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC). 2002. Reducing Diesel Emissions in the Denver Area: Report to the Regional Air Quality Council and Air Quality Control Commission. CHAPTER 4 - TRANSPORTATION American Public Transportation Association (APTA). 2005. High Gas Prices, Emerging Technologies Spur Transit Ridership Increases. September 26. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005. 2030 Statewide Transportation Plan. February. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2007. Safety Analysis of Alternatives. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2005. 2030 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. January. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones. Chapter 4.3 of the Guide. December. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Safety Management Information Statistics. National Transit Database. (NTD) Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2002a. Weld County Roadway Classification Plan. June. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2002b. Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan Mobility 2020. June. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2004. Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. November. • List of References 10-10 itt#Draft EIS NORTH 125 tf u October 2008 EIS 1,#* information. cooperation. transportation. • Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) and others. 2006. Draft Larimer County Transportation Plan. August. Jacobs. 2008e. Development and Validation of the North 1-25 Draft EIS Combined Travel Model. September. Jacobs. 2008f. North 1-25 Draft EIS Travel Demand Model Application and Results. September. LSA Associates, Inc. 2007. City of Loveland 2030 Transportation Plan. April. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2006. Fatality Analysis Reporting System. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) and others. 2004. North Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. October. PBS&J and others. 2004. Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004. February. Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Wilbur Smith Associates. 2007. North 1-25 EIS Draft Toll Scenario Traffic and Revenue Study Methodology. • • List of References 10.11 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Hello