The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20083472.tiff • N oRm I-25 im EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Noise • • ,;2008 - 39702 1 I _ LEGEND1 AC 2 werin��n ---s----..•-•-_,...,_,,,,,. Mapbook Grid Cell / '� 85 p Cities & Towns in Project Area • -, 287 /'�/ • I Regional Study Area + A, Study Corridors / Pierce "/ Highways ( /\ �-. / Arterial Roads I Fort Collins AI_2 Local Streets i CI . -_�--�- AJ_1 ,-2 Auk ,- j'� O Cit Boundaries ! - AK_2 y257 AL 2 _)AM at�3 °Severance Eaton 1 AN 3 I 28/ AO 2 MA p3 Lucern 'I 392 AQ3 AR3 Greeley ---,..._ 343 AS_3 _ ...,, , rAT_1-2 , 3 Garden Ci j Lovela , AU i — Evans 1J.Av_3 La Sall / ' ' Campion AW=3 Johnstown AX��3 85 /' Berthoud ' —' Q Milliken IF-- AY—3 LA r_: /' AZ3 _ — j BA 4 Gilcr�t • _ — / i BB 3 ; / Mean __ B C—4 i BD_3 ' �- Platteville 6666" BE 3 1 BF 3 Y� Longmont _ _ BG 3 — — lone r / H_3 Vollmar0 1 ikti / BI 3 / — 'Firestone j BJ 3. ° �' �rrederick I roGunbar ; Niwot BK-3�- ljgLeaacono Fort Lupto , 52 rel g M 4 ° Erie a�� — 1 /f1 r— g a_3 ° l 76 ,0 -- - BO, 3 Wattenberg I / f --Boulder 7 BP{ 3 lH'1 'i --ertferrear :\ NL. 0a'e Nw re. l Lour 'Ile BQ 3 7- p • BR 3411 BS3 I �`� i � BT-`3.lake Hen I = oomfield , / �'•N, B U_3 i 4:12C:43 ,��-� j 36 BV w3 nn % I S 287 `' _ BW-3 n i <0 2 4 6 8 10 7\ N......--- . N ` BX_3 / i I 1 r h North limo BYr3 72 1 r / I lig LEGEND III • ! Q Noise Model Receiver , ► Mapbook Grid Cell i a Highways • V _ rTd . It .;; . ----'-,::_. _ ;. y A • �. �•' �.yam . ? '1 • , ' lop `11r _ I • '+► ` ,,� North • r �� 1 0 250 500 F �,t*. • ,� IMMI=1 Feet idikki.RY i • i,4:1-1/4 ! ti F 1.. r X11 b . • •� N r6P , . hc • k ` '� ! � 4 .-mss e : . SH11� �.. �3. a �' • 7 r" . 1 wry 1 1 g i • •. 1" 5N r., • Pi a- 'u`• aSNP G . r ! n • lial kr_ Ritte473A-( -• I 0- r ii. iti 4kiiiikt , 1.i. • ---• .... - — , I . i. ,c .,# 1.4 -r- . , -„ .:: ..: ,,, � 4 x: ► � * i t. i • �r -7 .. ..' ' i ,, ' •.! 5t — r it '• I •`} lea I `A v �^s ■ �r_1 N .i i li' I I •,• !�n�il i !' _i JIi r . -4,•• p � y it . _ V Y04,1 vi pt ‘��p�'�-+� i .11.' • A • _ i .'l'ilk ii r ,~ - a • S `;�. i • u - . • ` 'iiir `• yIg_b° 1(, Kali 14 Ht ill: u P I 1 ' I ' '`' T' I I Grid Cell AC 2 11 r 1b I Are z r3� = _ , LEGEND 2' �+ 4 _. .• i- 2� � Noise Model Receiver • SN1P� r Mapbook Grid Cell :L .� 4 . t Highways I -, : r• a t: _rf _ r t� ,)k o titNorth ir ' 'I I i 0 250 500 tit I �� I Feet L (e - r 1 v • it• r 4 cJ ' j _ __ 'TIP-.', - ; P • X51 : irw". , 1" . O!+�`� yS I -`al• 4. IC -s .. ) ar- f . � I • elint ci lJ e ' ID‘ h Pil • ' \, 14. w 1 • Y••••• ) , 1I ••C1.... 'jrn •Ss1f in Dili d ._ I t . 1 r f a �•�� 'I,: _ ,4�� it 1 i '• ly- it.. r a c .,... • „,,t• lilt.. . -tilt• +'' . � 441:1111. '�• 'III .1/4.. ,t r I 1411. -4%, f 1 • r o 11s \ I I _ .-_•.- Grid Cell Al 2 lei j Ilk I. ' 11Oilit'l . LEGEND O Noise Model Receiver 4 11 Mapbook Grid Cell • Highways „r M • • a North r ' 1 + - 0 250 500 ilk 4. .'"`T"^L. �I Feet 1) - — 0. •• •. T1! _ -,its - - _-1 - uY I i _- ' y a f I • i. I •* 14 -4.". e+` r a • r . ` :V IV II in , bittati B7rr"rrr"r - WS_ I II al la .4 Ilbeirri4-4 • 1.i 1 i r "" r it .1 2. G2� r ,- A!' 1 iS .. I i r CP AC: P . '. +. ,,' G2 ,IA •� .. I- -z--n.. st • 4 . , , g f, I t 4 I I Cir?' W; • Itilliallift``• . r 1 iai {tea! p :.awe _'ij iab aWael� _ jam'— r it ' r, 4 i° d tit 4 Lit _____----",„ MN ark 1 I ail •�� ' �7I l �� , a �� lr It lir_ al it , .. . ,,,, , . ii. r ;;.' j It 4 a it 4 • - • -r • 111 i 112 _ •*. , 6 i 4, . gr. P It il ;': . , 7: 4 " • . -• '.•1 . ga Ili I r rallik �_ a 1 1 . .�. T :V . f II r 16 ii a.. I. • �, .f . ISei _ ti:• l I �'`' - `' ' '` Grid Cell AJ_ 1 - r - . a )-1 I'd •P � '1 e f 414v, LEGEND 1 O Noise Model Receiver • Mapbook Grid Cell H -- Highways r �'►� - • lr — $ North iiiiiMilille Y i _ r� pri , i 0 250 500 • Feet i 0 r _ ise r 1 Q G - - • I1 ,i t ( � �. ' 1' f ■ Ile 1 or .e o i Ne3C5 • rto —11 a err- • • J. f 1 1 rr rl ' •a a . Y ^ 1 ti i • et.,S 4110 ` r -.4 Ili . _ _ + 'yam Vi iiiii(;) ,6 a:•• 1 1 d +"j ; f... 1 f . rallikd ilictvt . 4 • • •- ' 00 N % • ' ti • it Ell . s- I. y ,: c + . - • - "r•'r. .�. •.. ..{��' j, - I 1-I�I 1. ':f »: ' _. ' ." '��}� �J�i` ( f Grid Cell AJ 2 J. 1 I _ -----...--,... _..s..r.i i Si • r - - O G1 frit —; ti'. V ' fir! , LEGEND II EE �t �r GQ10 f Q Noise Model Receiver � • Mapbook Grid Cell Highways ` r 44• �, - \ 41, 11 \4: i \�_ North `�, �, 0 250 500 1. G1 • .�� I Feet - F •ti IN kiliaNebNr."-t - 6. ? 'I,. -.4"b31_may. t 1 I • 1/4k \ gliN 4. • 41 I 4. ale 9411'6 li t ‘) Ct.) ill -; *, 1st a•t)41 i , .., I. ' lit 1 • .. ' ‘1*- a ___I ac. � � :� ti Ill • 4. G_ v f; 1 • �f zap 1 :J 1 1 5t ' ro 0.'r y I i ID( 111 41 I • o. 1 a A i 1 • t .;> CIj�.i At Grid Cell AK 2 II ,.._ • . ,I p. �, I • } _ - 44 y . LEGEND • MI SI ! r `'/11 - . • Q Noise Model Receiver 3 ! C +' t II Mapbook Grid Cell 1 , Highways , I 1 i. II lis r I I/ VIN \ 111 . North t„, - . ~ 0 250 500 ' .., fir. ni r i E ilif ‘ { , , I Feet -.IC .. �3r y : It all- ••• ;' ' \ ' it - -' a , , vith.,„.„ , i. ,I . • 1 I . f :et*" ._, (-...00st it . ....„ ; \ , •as . . , . .,I NIN, , • \ . • , [is -4% IN III, \ I. _I _s , 411 !I ~ 1 I' _-7 NI 4 s. it t Nsi Nit.� ...` / , • . .sir 5, .Fr Y CIA. j� VI I I 4 w Sio Pe• � 1 1 , . lies r / 1 Grid Cell AL_2 µ. F r t j - i • + - _ t • _ +al IllIli • ��;� }( n , LEGEND •,,• Iv- ,.. I Q Noise Model Receiver III ' Mapbook Grid Cell Highways \ '. a f • 1 illi Pr VI .. \ t.k. / J� \\:\„' R �' . , 4 1:. North 14,� :�J _ t �v " , 0 250 500 ;;.. • �- Feet :t r�• I I...." G1 �. 1A ,t'' l. y \.4t:lit it-. te- F ` i 7, Ph rat • 1 • N. t. . 1 • 4 . .. A et .. r_ ^ r F - w•e , r 3i. Thil I • t ni T.� 11 l • 0 r - 3 k d . 4 1 1 1 i .• ). '-t.:41.1*# 1..: \ a 'III - I tc. I Iligi IS 1 1 - ; ti' ,.. t!..,,, ilk i . $ � i • '° .� ..tte I1/2 y4000)Ditri r• '1 • it - 1 'lPa . .;,. 1 i x...31 1' • S . • • . .: a e ' elp 'r, -.� . si }fi .rt..,:. 1..;. ..1 . lir iii3d , .,.__ 6 at"; kuididiLlr, .. 4: -01. l _ ` 6 .. - - + 1 i r' . '• ,a ,-.,... _N. , Grid Cell AM 3 411 Alt Wit. lc I t4p. • t 1 4 -.. ..!.1' • li , . c t t LEGEND • - tills , -. w O Noise Model Receiver fMr& ti . i , � 11Mapbook Grid Cell - •2 r • •. Highways I I .i '. 1. I 1• , ! (N r14. 444:kt, . ; North 1} 0 250 500 CIE �_ I Feet _ - _ 5 - - h.._ r„ Ai I ' t. ' 1 �e kr �_ 1 , I. 't--'ANS. fr,' W..*' ' . ib_ _ ii. ts ' t, ,7. i/ 43' gilt' } I. i f...it : .,.: IIIIIP Avi 1 ` ,, { • R, . - , i..;?. =� . , .{ , . L� i ? y :•I 1, • , } 1 t I It I I - (I .1' I .. r r - . •aK: l I --vs ws ! I - , .e - .... _.....:' ,i! 0 "t �,,� I ! 1 S. iii ' be 3 11. .� _ s ' ,i• .. . s , t _ . ,r• t Grid Cell AN 3 , - i 1 I 4 4,I i. Zoe. LEGEND III u t Q Noise Model Receiver -•1-, z Mapbook Grid Cell Kite e ..f : Highways 4111 i a . h- ``• ` ill �^ , •- / North ,„ , , -, . . y. „ . 0 250 500 IL .,. ' Feet ' l 1 • hal -IP -4:iii' f ,a r' III ,i4 ,,,, . . ., d� . _. ...„ a ,.... .. -,... . .YV r• , . . . • , .," , - -. , , .. . . lot : . . a . . es .. . . • .• owe i + vitalr -!lib 1‘1 l ilk f r., . . - f- • A % ', 4. � - y f t S . 44. .. „,..v". ire - - Grid Cell AO 2 II i. •, _ , 3 . , !J 3 . ftr ' y gam-- ,. . f. D �` Iv r 'Itej- i ik? ; t\ _ 'Ste '" ,r, .4 . ... . , x.„.4.4, ... . i; I rm . . / : • i t!fi n r':�paa►. Grid CellPit p n - North I ., i ., P • t i, ,, , .. 1 ' k 4s- -• •i ', �� - ;`� I ' ; 0 250 500 ' ! i s : x,41 ; Imo~ Feet _ _ _ r- rte. -� _�_ .-..L� �YA.t��.� r.- _ W_ ��.• iI --t 1 1:. • ka` Z • i{ / i . s*SH , I K -. I I 4,t.,* ek. 1 t • ..f V. . -!‘ 1 ile a7 Ps ) 44. ...„ A 2 I, .1-.14- ••• .1 ‘ -I'. t - 4 -.4 --al 4 *„. % XT41,4i re ‘r lisikt4 . ijoiR : --:" : 44 ii lAli 4 i__ +yt . :: - t , . _ t,• tl w. ��`` 1e ! i r 4 r1j .yy r `IP ix ii 2 I- c 'v.1\1 kf' y t . . f `IC ! i.- - 3 . ! Y sir !T f • � •i y1 � �I • i1. t lt IP: .. SS Ss,_ —� P- - • — — .. •F::: . . _ i . 4 I - ' i , ( I 4 ,,, ,,,..,- „:„... 4:- iS - i , . 4i iigi ., N.. ! an - lk ''' a ci . ;t �` % U 4 - --.....l la _ _ F , .._ P ,Ir li tiii: lir- ' GM __.'arf• IPC:or k ..k.ei . Illi 'i 1. 4t, 0• * s -sii 4 NW"sir 1.,, •ais .oh •••• ' ere flit 1 d • 11 IC 4 .i rt _ ,'�.,, T i, • y y "~ = j ►w 1' Grid CeIIP 3 • ; • ' m' ' gap' .w • - : - mi., 7r • 4V _z 4•,0• i .f, rqr 1. ��fj • �+►• ael C'� ,010 4 , _t w - �4._. �a'Fri+ ' •? to _i 0 s. R•I Spa gTh ,H *b t ,' �„' LEGEND ill 0 '' •4 a '; N c ise MCaG I R=c-ei„•e' t ''` je " rtts 'c cry Cell ►• 4,41 Highways . ,.• . • irk ` .,,` Y .car 1 t . /\ — / \' North 0 250 500 • Feet e 0 . Illira7s1J11111• .. . . .. . j ._ . . , .. .. • . •_ _ _ ., _ ., . _ lI . , • I , _ p, lIllitillizio...e.„ I j. ,. .a _ • r *"*w.n _. isdr . • ]rte. -- ti. "r .. � f '4 � . , „wino . .. _ _ . . . H _ 6.4r, _ .. , - , . . . _ . _ �- :< M� _ _ • - La 041041, ; ' ' -- .4. la ' _re-a ' r' .� .., f •.._ III r Pte- w •pt) 1 — I: -Jr - r ! • • tit C . - ,.. C — * _ �_ 1 - { Y fc if 4 r d we I ►` 4:; L- -I:I nisi • .. _ ._ . . ...�.....a._ a Grid Cell AO 3 1 1 ; :::: T . LEGEND r • O Noise Model Receiver ° Mapbook Grid Cell Highways t I t. - - y� � •t J �7t ' r s ,. 4I ' . p,23 I North P : ' k .f' 0 250 500 ir 4 • �4 % � . . . .o ' m :11/4.146tL It' I Feet .. "Iti — S• ,..s. - __ •` -.....1/4. 1 I I I • 4 -air". • ftalM wRr.'1 1I . dint jik\0 'Illiiiiialliall"..- al "44 _mall" - • 4 lJ rill I lit ht L III II !/// ti -' ille I 0 (.4.4 1 i ig ill 1 I. i ••• ti f ll 41 6162 : I : A- 11,111PLIP. 7 .... a • • 3sz) Grid Cell AR 3 • 4 It 1 'oil x • _. .� _ LEGEND I Q Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell Highways 1 • North 0 250 500 f— Feet t . 9 ' •1 r .. 4, 1 Imo"• ______ i �� . F 111 I fi _ i . f , . I lit , _ a I=N �~�� • r.,, . 1 . . r I , 1,, _ f t • ., , 4 • ? I ' •15 1 1 C.cif fr 4 :• 'Ai 1.` 1 r.i • a ilt i ilb . ' _, r :.__ ___ __ _ - --i . - _ - , al '' '� rya_ .r... •-.q' 1 Inn? 1 4,L i :1 ' , , , ,I , ,. / Grid CeII AS 3 c tllirilljFc-11 moll:.sip 112 0 0 .li III+. 1 ii • ILEGEND f Q Noise Model Receiver ,1 • ' l---1 Mapbook Grid Cell eqwjj ' ! ' • _ Highways _ . . A. • be . - ri - Sr 111:t 2 11 ii st• 7• n �` • Jr �� North �� +_ 0 250 500 ii 1 Feet ii r 1 i• • ii. i i • • I, s . i „ I Ikt• --,4 „...40 , f/' y f L-T 1. It;j 1 ! ,,- �r-IbnL_` =i -t '�—+r.. t j sr II r ae. •r l ',40. '+, 1. ., y _ �.✓ - it. 1, - i t • •V,II • i- lot _ iti A114‘ 1 1 III - �R t - , • 1 f 1 • i 1 1 1 5 a 1 0 `'lit /R Sil1 r ! f 1 i . 1 ' I a • '1•f L• 1 '. - i Grid Cell AT 1 1 1 v ripM1!y r �-er.•�'� ��. .mod I ti - _ • 1 _. _ a }{ _ '1 — I.-nil". ~� ' •f I i L-ii, �.�•�{ Yom. �,. �iia�r '�' 1 _ . i J +: . ! ,` .. . - -i p G`6 LEGEND ill F' s,-; _ 1'. �" , . j ., Q Noise Model Receiver re. •... , . _ I • I Mapbook Grid Cell I •3 II t - _ . ,'_ r � . . Highways ,: I iii,...,11. Cie • . a. • A k. 0;€)52) .1:0 ' 21 k i' •y �- , _f CC). :, r -� C. e_ •a.l - g 0 250 500 G26 T Feet . T! —1 -z. • - - i, - . 111 ' • - 1 11 E It, . l', f' ti,' l' , ' . , i •- , , T. i : i 1'if�l i lii I. I . A t 1 ..• . • • 1111 •.-, ._.-. , i __ __ .— ., i:L' -a-WaCITC r•=La'=. -- - -a- - .,.., - - • , . . .. .-. . iin Ea,i - irn81\645 S t - - _, 8 t_' 1 ►� O � . ', e'- . ` _ 1 � f I . i 0 . F r, t. (, , r !f tiSal 01\i III .. F f ti Grid Cell AT 2 at t I mss : i I i 4 / I. LEGEND \• I r' 1 i ft 1111 t t rats pbo ok Grid Cell t 4.1, ./ 1 Highways or 2 . \i„. , 4-4 i iN, Thei , ,, , il ' .."...•,..\ %• iii ♦• - �— ��11 . North . . , . . t ---- 0 250 500 i, • • .- �.`- - �.._ _ , _ t� Feet a. - ni ;_ A - �..i 11 11.•...� s -� • a: {. 1. I I . - • ___ r LI tr • e.. r -ti - e ` 44 it , s. 1 •'+• ''ilkac_.--r..r. , I * mi, 6- Cr' nit - e. . . .. y j ♦ fn f I 1- , i r .r 4iii1 �"i �` , � r,' - 1 1. f • 1. ,i . HI • I.11 k:f ._ } . w�I r. -,-Ss I w. — ,a._,i, - .� Grid Cell AT_�t 'Y\.4 Y\ „. ..1 `Y ,'I✓" .dc. r ., , 4 * , ' I. • - -`` LEGEND III l Q Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell Highways r North *'F tale 4t - 0 250 500 a_ �� I Feet Tom. �' fip _ . s ._ a� —fir , i.. . T. r _ -i f— • ..., . P I { { f; - ,, . &� it 1 .._..el i r. ill , . t03. is • : "wr.,__ ,, t : • • ' ,. ` __ _ ‘ .. .. ,-, .., ... II iti . _.. • -- - . • ...„,.._ ____......,,., ... . _ T b 4. _ 1, ! t a 1.ibirk r .;_ .... L...c! ,., _ ... . , 4 , y Grid Cell AU 3 111 .. . . _ ___ _ k < v,,,,..",,,,,... ; ' 1 LEGEND it z' '''� Q Noise Model Receiver 7 ' , Ma book Grid Cell y'; 1 l Map book Highways lII bar 3 _ _ »- � North • -_. . �b `,. , -a ' 0 250 500 rie '� N , - $, Feet . - 4 • L , - _ • I' 'I t. 1, A'• '1� • - 7:.. II , r, ,, , 4 ,, € • : AAi ; \ A 4. • I L - S 4k ` 1 . 7 • • - *- I t• • 44 � "I 't ' - i 4 . • litaill vflfrIst.....t. i ' ll * .�, t A as ".• I. • Cr'`• A. : . it • " ' ' \ \\\ I • , 4 r IS r ` __ o- at • \ 4 I to rill. 4 /1 A • • • , 7 . • Er. - P. 4. IS Grid Cell AV_3 C64\1 1.. ji? f ,„ ss �—--m } 0 1 a titocia ` " LI • ' LEGEND r 0 1 4"e.:. � ' L ', ' 1'` F: /� O Noise Model Receiver • � II ��i ��es\ • Mapbook Grid Cell Is ft t i{ i . ' Highways a-ill 1,. i�ii}ajffJt>rrrr i- t, ' �d ,c;\ . I , , � a '-(-1�5 I North q 1. 1i � � ! ��- -r SG, 0 250 500 �' O �— I Feet r f .i P „ r 1 0410 illi I - -_ -4 Z. II_ A iI IT . I • ; 9. • a iG tio 6 c 1� 1A ! 1 , B093: t' 0-7 vpr- it . , ) .tti A S . , ...__ _ , . _. r i. 1P4 ' .4-4 - v , '• -• - i ,r it .rteY y` ! \1 •y - 1IL 1 L - :.J. 4. rte.-.- i alla4 ••.� A N.•••••• wt- M ti • i far . • / 4 1 } ' _ i. i. , j . _ Grid Cell AW 3 I \ 1 5 ••'i ....", e . arPIPS. . ,,. ..i..miimai A* . r ►K . ..{• _ LEGEND C O Ci • it; 1.4°y Noise Model Receiver e A I I I'ir �1 .- 1141 � �• I i r . ` t .. d Mapbook Grid Cell e� t 1 }� Highways [ i _ _ .._s_ _ T , vs IIII I lit rillir 17\1 it4 I-- ow g (7 North , ,, \ �- I1, . I 'ft I\ . :C 1 0 250 500 . I I Feet i 7 . i 95 I ? I. vii, . ..,.•1. 1 ' 7 '' '-1-‘j I •r} • •1 --,Y,rf-- _ --"_ : f, • ; . - - 1 i i. Y I ,' '1 I 7' j ql it - ', , yr' 1 { ' 1 y�,l: e."1 'at •i ��! i I ) i / - I ( ' it y 1 11?“ `Y 1 ,P if • 'I? .1 '. fir . Tr I I Sr I. 1! 1 e.1 , id ;. it'. 4. I M1;. , r A. f ; ll + l r. w ( „ I i 1 , • 1 1 II ., VIII I _1 I• Ili • • _1I •I M 'pet N. I; ' r :ill II I 1,r, I, 1 f 4 ttt 4 f I, I I I ik1441124": i I 4 fr - 4021 y _ 1 se • . ~ , .h ji '! .. bit Grid Cell AX_3 i it •i a - • k. t, ,'1 si fa I iti LEGEND 1 Q Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell II Highways i. = I \t II I • '• North 0 250 500 r�� I Feet 1. y 5 S. E 1 � ', .. . 1 . :) • • ,. --.6 .O-1 . • i ., . . f ..I • . .k., r . • .1" -.. triC--. ' . i 4 -'� 1,_ ,....0 .. . ..,.. . _ ,.; i • 1 r . 1 :' , . I c. . .. • , , . / i ' , is , 1 if • : 401 it s. } 1 i. _ r - - fratalmm - 'ms- \ilia-s __ _____Lbarej MI . , • . • -7 it t1 i .e' " , I i . S c . - f l I rillilk: II . 1 ' i • r r , .. . . .._ _ _ ___ ___ . pIii Grid Cell AY_3 eA.'- I ;tit . I �. +i a '.•••4 1 Li- "`- —;re—' LEGEND • S I� F, Q Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell . Highways r _• i p North Y f a II, i — 0 250 500 b _ �� I Feet ill Y q 1 I . :• I y• _ T - . _y .•- y .ir yl _ • �W •i ,ti Y irill • _ : e r � , �. a 22 <. • 1•1 _bias. _ ib— - - _ ._— - s �� --- - -.Je -' a . ._ �j 4 ' " ir 1 . ..� , 1sr . J • . II. 'i -• - . ' .:-t e. 3' r. ! rY€`: t 1~ ' a • i • l • •- C .. 1 a r L .Y. ,� 1. yy - 46 1. et- e '1 4 • •th. . "4 !ft !!". lit, . . .3 -I .. -•-tom. ..'r • i Y,• .. Ill!.. Iji: ..Y I I_:t_t •II ` .3 `� _ 1.y i • , - i' ' ' ' ' !,frl%t Grid Cell AZ_3 IF i,. - . , ..,,H_ - t j! . ➢et: wr• • Y I, i . L- 77p- _ LEGEND - O Noise Model Receiver �. Mapbook Grid Cell till R�` Highways - - r7, h �. , FIN -. Z\ North 1 0 250 500 .. f , r. �� Feet .. :, I r y` lanagliirlif 1110:111-m , - f . it. II .._ _ , 1. • ii.: 11. .. . • j i, ......., ._ .. ....._ . , , . , •, , , .... . i .• , . __ , j - . ,,,,,,,. , .... e0-0---7-._, - .. . , , . . . i . pv, . ._.. ._. . I . - l� -- _ _ _ _ ,_ F i. .. , _. ... .. .. ,, ... „ . _ _ .... . . . ..i. . . .L 4 , ... ass. .... Grid Cell BA 4 . . . . . _ . . . ___ . . .. _ _ . . 1 _ i ', 1• LEGEND ii ,.. ... t. '_'emu' Q Noise Model Receiver _.. Y Mapbook Grid Cell •• . Highways Ai illi North J /f ' 0 250 500 si. . • • . •••II• Feet r I \ ' - ,� •• - I '' + - fir ; ke it �.ti• r, eo � 1 • s� o� Q 1 _ • r i < } . • NS SI U +' - X , '` 0 1. . �3s�s • •• t Ss• as . - + •t ' l T. f 1 j'• ., ;;"4: . N 440 -I f• so••{ 1 L r• ,1• e 1 L a :_F v f. i W I • I `. as + _tat r i t et yy + - el f . i II Ii I . r r . .,•: "a to ., y I .. iJi rr -.. - t - _�._ ---- ',.-i I . • : , • _ , E �it I• ' Grid Cell BB 3 +_ 1 . ti 1 2 J , I.I..i4 il . la 1 f , : I LEGEND , i O Noise Model Receiver ii j= - Mapbook Grid Cell "'7 "' �k Highways r •ii . 4 ma j • .• _f ' rt .j '.,F' - " North'ITill0 250 500 `` 'ili I Feet 9 j _ear' I Arlie el • • 4. • r : kijrkt-,t- • a`4w NIIII . l ti .11 � y. .19111. ,fe, i J I . rf • { �. 1. /, irt :j — 1' - .� 1' , l M I 1•' \ ,r, . t ,► i _ ' 4 . _ . jt'i"‘ II t:. . Grid Cell BC 4 1 "litS , 1j 'e li . ; ''Ii:. : LEGEND • Noise Model Receiver , t 1 `.�°1 ', �ni Mapbook Grid Cell Highways I - a 41 jail IAI1 � ir tillr-? 1 _ . _ tI y t I F ; `•,T. ,• �- - I I /' • . North•rr." '4 '7I ' '' 41 "�. , ' • :� . ' 0 250 500 ri Try-, - 11I.- ' it ;... Feet ili r--- LI ' w PI nejlei it 'tips? so. INS .tr 'Cie 4 'I , .../ ‘i ' t %*,' tit. � , • T , kA r 'wit 1� �•� 1 ."• al ` Stilt .11 i iI • •viSe. I. 1 • fl nil :"r- - d f 1 ti1.1 II I .# ■ r lit It III • 3 •tf. \ ,' , S 1 7. �;i = $. ��+ it..4:;:\J ,. .. 0.0" r t1 it 1 1 •if "4 aPIs i la G, ;. ill G\V - --; I 4 ' .._." Grid Cell BD 3 3 — v i � • G 1 _,. H L' 11 _G1ai n LEGEND Al '-' ' 4611* O Noise Model Receiver • , F. = Mapbook Grid Cell �I0 10- - -� - Highways • • • d j t <• rte. `'c!ril• ft '¢` f; ! • " North * a GZ'l , _ _ 0 250 500 • try. , .,.: I =I Feet r.- , , , I ' , ,, .. _- -......„„. i .44r. - si‘o : , -, ., , 6 d • r , • —171% ."Yilik".0W1617t i kiiipit:Ir -'• -I•re _____,....:0.ssict a, LI' Pa* \ . .... :2 1 jkik, , ! ;If ft I ' i. n •� i4 : � 741, I k , il 0 l IIIIh • W 1"""-- -.....„,.. _sesiaill i Arr IA\ *hi), . i • - t - w • ..1! ' 1 t .nisk, l it No fr • - air A + '' t ft :Atty. 0 t 1 • kiGrid CeII BE 3 i V . e' LEGEND ... • ,._ 2.• i. AI Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell ;e. ,r.L. , - - !i r--�+ar. Highways I y 6 J seft 7\1 •....i 0 North o 0 250 500 • I Feet l �� • . i ail '4'+='I .�• _ _ __ � • , 043 rl r -•,rte: i V -9; ` .. V 1.1.141.. p 4 ,. L, w 4 .4. Litt ' ' .. 4. . r‘401:11g.1 y . tar . _ T J - , - . -. if _ '. _ 1P if .L [p - a il . 4 it 0 ..- . *II alli.. .. 1 1:•♦ _ . - Ti _ }' _ ate '�' $ ..., .. 1 i 4' -r - '' 3'� ai • �. P f. 0,0 •.... Grid Cell BF 3 Air , • . • _ , . . . ..r'' -- • 1 =�, —_ ,�.: -4a — LEGEND ll • Q Noise Model Receiver LaNi .4 4,4iitaiili Mapbook Grid Cell OS al 4 'I �+ r' iii. L�., Highways igiltlitjlit - I 7. 1 i A ,.. ill ellipr2r - - '?".10.4,4; . North 1 ".11 I — 0 250 500 _ t/• �� `■r Feet 0. M rs t _ r r r i. Al •. I . siii •�/ !1 a • : r . k r Y 1 i ,, I 4 ' I � 1 iaM —" ' "" Git I. ill 1 E %i1i I. sIh ite ►,.. ••-. 4r7.- _fit„ `L1 z. • 1 421 fir. • , lei r I !i .7 r ., A ii,IP f •. � � f- 0•• 1t ia.l.6r F-!-t... ! La�• y • 4 _. F f I ' a ' I. iu r le . • T t _ J 3: . ., __u.r,.ert• i , ` • � ' I ` r ' ` ' k, Grid Cell BG 3 ; r { • -: y _ ' ► Qc� , • y Lk ' MIRIr..„ e f • G229 \7-- r, \ , O i' ► LEGEND a i. I)) .its_a 3 • __r - -a j am~ f G22 t Noise Model Receiver r ,•"� $a4 4: Mapbook Grid Cell g0'`n Highways i f : �. = � ' ( • - t 0 Ii Al g� North G1 I • 0 250 500 .t we'. I ` I I Feet I. r - * _, P ; - .4 1 Y ,• G19; F. • t "� E\ . . ,. _ - • i , rum ill'it' . 7 P [ ' - _ rws1t it w„at r : -:...L.stus...4_ . 4 TT i' Jt t 4- ' 1 0 . _ . ` r r • r_':1 f 4 • 1 1,,,Lsoe,e'. ;d , Il • . 4. $ +ems a G\9 ,f} ' . • .,---4,.. „ p I' to •' . ti ' ;{I :1/4 ., �,.. 111 ! �a • _ ' } '-r-.tii f ..'1 I in P . Grid Cell BH 3 Ja irn j 113 I0t . I • 11 I LEGEND Q Noise Model Receiver •l - Mapbook Grid Cell Ill j - a. Highways •_ • 4. r _ , ,' '• 1 t i - III. [7\26 North I 0 250 500 0 r ! i l I Feet • 7,H _ - . , , . I a. 0 2 ii.. , . l ! _ f _ „L. ._ Jr 1 *gal .. ____., . 3/4 t i • liP , a % S Fir J.tv+r . . _:ri- 1 . ' 0 ii G 4116 ill: a -' Y V o -v , .,+r . _ ,_ q I r.• (119 4-- 'sar ,.... �'• Grid Cell BI 3 _ .,i �_ - - - • s -1_ 1.. 1 U 1 g1 I ,. LEGEND Ili ,' _ ,I e , il ys - . . 16 t' `� O Noise Model Receiver , __ _ , :,, a Mapbook Grid Cell Highways i II 1 ' Wit 4 . North is 0 250 500 II Feet 1 . P , t ill — 1 I 'fir / J__ Y y`=. J• 1 t III 1 • -,_ f l yr ti •� r rIII •1i11 'r. 1 • `1 • I tillikF '4 , • r- • N ....-: I i .: i , 4 t iiai 1 ' r ill le 1 I - 1 • ,4Th - 1. .,Y •t 8 i sa w 4 i t r 0 Grid Cell BJ_3 LEGEND 111 a , IElll* ' kt; • I = fi O Noise Model Receiver I Mapbook Grid Cell I . Highways r ' k. I ! ,} - ti North i \\ 0 250 500 Feet ) . I, ', M i it a ( . . y i ' .'k.} • 1 t,„....- . -_ _ _ _.... --______.". ._., r - �, l, 1 '.,4 • i / . l y 1 I ttlI re .r t: d fl t t c t- ;sue N r.� Y:. el rt, - tea, ' 7 .0. - f.. 1 .(i '.'' - f •. ..• •• e , fir. =-`- ,cam. p ' ' ' rii 1. I 1' i Cj1 . Th....J.4 „.„.„....,...„. _ .............,,_ . . . 1 , - lie- 3 - I , r . is ti 0 'j 1 , ` . _ i 0., . -ter 1 t mss • _ r. nelgaill: . • �.�`� ' : I, ; I j ; i 10,. a -, ,, _ ►. . JL +i� 7� . Grid Cell BK3 I, ilk• iii ' �` — _a " • ��211 LEGEND ::'. "jilt �' . `' e_ � S � '¢ Q Noise Model Receiver � .. , V Mapbook Grid Cell q 1 Highways _ 1 - VIN• 41 • it North 0 250 500 L. I Feet 1 i • 41' .V I I _ I --f . 1 '.. ' IS 4, I a `e .• irt ,r• F - _ - ' . ti, a. ' : % ' 'Y ••�J 1 ' I 1 y— f li IS • I I - • _ `` , 1 , . ,I , , • I I - r Af• 44 ' ror r • ! • r rr 1 $1 411 I. i il . ..: Grid Cell BL_3 Or A` I il LEGEND .fiAt- , Q Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell II �' , d. Highways \ .... -F- -1' V v i a , \ . 4 4 North 0 250 500 Y +" �� 1 Feet k I • WI • • 1 • • 1 1'-' + • _ v _ -. .- If ' 4I . Instil. . 7. I_ J I I I • I. I "S "4 i l NI 1 1 1 J...•••• i • Y.y;. • I • .+ I; 1 J•� I 4 _ _ } ill .., . , ... i .. .. .. H IIII iti Grid Cell BM_4 1 ,,2;., . , _____ .. ... .. . . , iii e ,_. _ . '� `. . airy, -.Alf _re._ . ail 31^It:4 t �' LEGEND i i . _..... -tr.., . . -im Q Noise Model Receiver w gill • ' , _y • 1 '^s 6 it: Mapbook Grid Cell I1 Highways i 9 Y �: 1 , , tir 1..,_ : -,- • , i . • ,, . 1 r Is, .a• 4 . GZ North 4' vii ' s * Ors, # la 1.c 0 250 500 1 i_ ` l I Feet . iety I 4• : ,. L eit r / I A. 1 it :� '` J f'` r • I :, a• L , illirlire.7. ‘fi .FAS .. rr ' 4•^. ` f'._Iiii r , 'a - - - - •*. I .rie. ti .. Iiir . 1 - a. ' .r1....„ ,, . I. -. _._. . ,,,,,..,_. . _ .. ... • �� t o t ' :;• ' f �, .I.•44 ' . i C7c) NH .1.;• • . eill .rr`y#�yj_(�j{ a l ' A .; ? _ �- I G� _. _ •; I - J►•.'- 'iF •..r • 1' ' 1 �+... Il • � w r - Di 3 4 - - ' -- • - ' f L - • J 1 • r , : ' r. ;' } c-2"39 �� G21• I,t �F :,: r - 7 � R - 1 - - �.• .. . I H 2 T , I .0 . 1 T • 1 I t i. ! - . r I t t .- .• k 1.1 1I , , i 4 - • 1 - �. r ' . ;�� k Grid Cell BN 3 _•:- . • 1'1qi� f i �-- ' - — • - o ! ; ., 1g , • , LEGEND iii, III�12g Q Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell :• I Highways , a. VNI .0 i I3 — North 0 250 500 __ I Feet - • I I t: I s / I • • . 1 t *a , _ . . .t . . .. 1.... .., , ill;„ _ _. . ._ .... a_ . __ . .. ..._ ,.... ........_ , , , , ., . . . . .• _ _ __ ._. . ... . . .. . . . • .... . . . . . ..i • ... • ill ; - - • t I �_, I '� w I - C n II yam~ • . t Ii I . ; ��, .5 i Grid Cell BO 3 4 • • . i • .' i LEGEND ,, a • i f Q Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell l a .-- Highways F - ' "t"': "'fir,' I P;IV .. I. . ...uLs ,:,...ire•s•..•.....- — • '' 0 it 0 `ti ' } North 0 250 500 _. = .MIl Feet . .a- - � A. ' {t y ' rj I` f t 1. • pitt fi : a _ I' ,l • v 4 i y 4 I pr _ rt / .- _.. y• y s Tf ±,1 r- e rr 1ID . - ,.i.jatt : Am r il.4.i - 1-' it:// ..... . • • ' L 23-2- }� ` J� }+j 4- i • . 1 ' K r 4 • r ,I ,j fr 1 .. • , t1. .1' at,. L j A I idilledi I r r . 4 , .. . . . + +, ti - .t _ - T .\ ' • , t - - , n • il II a . j ;: 1 I � ..- _tit /• 1 _ . ,.� - - - _ '`.a.S - . S 1 1) 1 ill T ' F Grid Cell BP 3 jam: . _4 ar. — it 'Y I LEGEND o i Noise Model Receiver III Mapbook Grid Cell Highways 1.‘ 10IF- _ ._ North IglIPONPitv»,....4,41 : 0 250 500 ist ��i I Feet 14* tb d m I i • X • r . } - It I . t Y II Le _ 4 rt II _ • . , , , __ .._ a t . An.,.. , ..,. ... „.. . ,, • ^ 1L. ,,, . a, ....... i, .. • , 11, T : ' 1 iiirli i a. k 4 ,. lt 2 t. - I f .i .h Y. am . - 1 a. l r r t 4 4:.. ID • ai ic `_ - Grid Cell BQ_3 1 ' itr `I[ i ht t .+, 1 • 4 ;. ' .5 . LEGEND .• ,� Is , , K- e. Noise Model Receiver i! i II Mapbook Grid Cell 1 9 ice — Highways IVO l 4 . North j } ` t- .� - 0 250 500 + Feet y . a } , .• - I ' • ' �� . 1 !� I A ' 4 1 rte _ ' .4 11 1 1 it III ii , t ._. 1 • {,Ai -rierh / _ / 4t' - fi li •-e. 'ill 0 t .0 g ..... ' i r , _ Ise I. .{• Grid Cell BR_3 t ., 1 r LEGEND li O Noise Model Receiver I 1 I 1 Mapbook Grid Cell I — Highways jj F . - . _ _ ._ .. -- . . J , _i o 7 North ~{ ! 0 250 500 Ir J Feet I:. - ° _ • I. oT ` Ir a 1? Pr .. ' . s it li I t �.. r -. , : i • , , ., iss_ •220 • s I r i �a �'� ya .1 t I ► 01 ...,,, ' I I . • • r, ,, " I I. T ill ill; 4 a•t r i it II . . . • • . f ,� _ . - . - 1 r ' _ et I f' 1 r,Vila: • ter" H 252 iN 1I )I .. ,; �►r 1� }} j a. if re A • 14111 i 7 .. oi: . a ft ikri . -'1 .. I ' - 2 - 4Phr:- ' ... itia • C, �.. , , ; Grid Cell BS 3 I • • 1 ` 1 T: • y _ �1e - "j �' 1► 4 '� LEGEND all ..i•, O Noise Model Receiver ₹ ' ; f• • _-. LI Mapbook Grid Cell I Highways All ; R4 ' a. - ' 4 1 44 ' fir • ,' �. , . North•• _ r 0 250 500 I I Feet 1 ,- a) . , . N. __ ; r • MP":' trifoinbISWINIvior ` ' ti iiir " ., -, I • 1 l�4 It_ i 1 T f3 4 .- "1i i 0 ,. . . , !, ' iit. a - u 1 - r. t ii, .., . . 1 T , . . 1 ` Y t , a• f.a.•ell' i Sp IV -didllitia • .krt•, s' ' ` . r ` i<x r • i irr Is A6 LI ! q tie 1 111, I r l ` :. ' • _ t-n t *u 'ti S L. t- ."Irli ; i 7s G • AZ• tik. S; • ! i. ir A. . .. ; 1.1 t(fat Iwo ''t . - • ( fI • ` ' � ' . I .1 .. .. ,_ . am f. • • I . .N.' - • Al - _ -.� i _ :R.7h.1.� 4j Z'f'' :_ • 1 ` fir =.• t" • • .1 Ill,. _ -• �..� 0.• • d y .y_. t .31 0 • el&it vii • • ` `�` !• r r Grid Cell BT 3 •••••••••••-4, 4•11144"1 •. •... -. V- ,; . I �•t '- + j}. .,_mil r l " �' • _ • • .. r.; .. •Y, " -1 i 1 ,3 • • 1 sr. '� , �` 1 "t-1 am ' . '.. kr° 4: P. r ° . t • : : • • • Q a LEGEND -- 4:"* : :Jj1paiø: ; 1 1 �� • - . id ; r" Q Noise Model Receiver I ' i 1 _ Mapbook Grid Cell • r/ t t c� , — Highways f t >�•,/4 w it Mt off • 4_ - :�- �• - I. _ 1 �, :L 1- ice' 1 —• �it _ ' 1 fff��iiilll��-aaalll��LL. _ -"-..__ _ _ __• , t FN -If - 49.S. b • L ' 4: "- 4 . ; . led, t1 � � � u, , . _ i479 7 TV"' North �I , .%i;it . - — , 1 • -co. • . • , , i • •. • F ,-- ,— - • r`r�"r —1"1"7 « i ` • ' G" t � F I F. -� tills 1 -'I "�, -.1 : 0 250 500 - :�. 1=..v +Z, • ':' t ad li Feet irrt .... ' 1 , ' t Tail ma si q-rnmpp- it • 3 ...in. .Mai III I L' ... - , - r -1., ramrod Mew L•- r. rte' ( F _ - -- �. ait 1/4. /y103p0 ? • .4. j • V L _ iii T 1 • T - r• I. I) ,6'••:1 • • ' vL 1 ` t i I —' ',` 1 r,— j j• Fci it • . --...' r� • _Tcrs-_ .,,,,, e fkittilij: iv st ' I •• .4.I.1 . • '• . _ jj it Ansi_ 1 . � -r • O 1 a, tip i , a , IIal • • 4J i It. tioil bll l ;t I 1 1. • • O . , a -4 • - ', l '' ' 21 _ � .jam it s I iii a • - t' ' •-1 } i.• • _ .j 1 1�► 1 • i r : n 4 i.1 + N(2,.. i lic,A a. T— — .- I' - ^ti- --r,!...1, 4,- , t I t • _. ii .9r I - { •4. ., . ..E. a "'A a. 0 r . , ,-- r ' ...% , (J1 A r • 11.-- - lii 111 i , ..' .--....,a,i.- 4wwsni: • • 46 i ni ill re' Sr&a .. 1 iii .. •. , . ...., .k it tx 8 .er ai .......IFSBOMMIe . _ , . , - X.; Jr. _ iii y II 46 6; is • pm at l Grid Cell BU_3 r � + : nom j ..: IL.. - _ r _�- r • ter 4 t Y (� .dam ; •MI S - �1 r 1 y • , r _. • fTrli Lip �, ��ArsEli �' -I ` LEGEND fil IR i • ikrii 4- -4 ' - IN. r - • •. all {,.I. V ` ��, • , Q Noise Model Receiver • aki • �, 1 ,� rr 1 ,• ti r , f'4 i'r� , Mapbook Grid Cell .'11.1:k ( jf,,n,JJ 'el • ,t •'F Ji 1 11 try T �• g3 ! '. 5' • ' F I A Ls',_ le Highways r.: ti r;-i. vtix-iii't"; ,sidit. JP r ii -• fr ' ij, et North-utak•.. / • �. • : • ! +� M S as0 250 500lil W * Feet ill g a a �, .� J 1 ., y. r 1 !;k ± c !r . ' II � a �' a. .• r r ` modr ' r 41 Or el lir ceir mat - �. • i'f rte• , 'f t a . .1r %ire- -,..-,3 4.11• Itita hirer • IP- 41 1'3y* &" • Pit impa S ski • g, ft'.. _ ___ • , • -41 , .... 4 AI G ire , - rtw • .� ti - 1 _•1 ilai r -t ,, • * ii t:14, , r_ .- etrp - ii , so - irs ill . t ea. 1- 1 _ •��•~. I ( rick .. •V • �-Jr ± -1 a. .' . .�• I . ' A Is. • . 't, r 1 t - 4 , � �} 4 is p p0 .� i" i.. t c'► 1-. i•, * X 1.1 , 6lis .�I lit It relit a •'• 1 'y.T s- • _ 11_' t J y. la. -ti {�� -. ••bl - .� } I tire III�„j,i `n?�,_ V - ._z-"�' 4- *' 1y •7•11:" •,1••N�'ow.r .. : Yr7 nTS aST I ♦ 1 Pr 'rail • •I 4 •I 41 vr V I -� 'r �— *, , • --reL Lr4 _ �. 1 , • • - ..:G I a. 4. t 0 Nita „At\ Z • el / ... ,. ,,ti - t 4 g, 4 ■ L. _ _ a' �! 141 i • 1 1 + _ •-� vwN tiffiell. amII _ 1' Y '• _____z Iv �`? �.1 '0 arabi •,� .� . . . _ -�.--- -•*AS'arias Grid Cell BV_3 • itit f M i� r-a- -.1......t 'ft' s- 1 • • •. 4. , •2 . . • . :4 4000± ` 46. . r :T.-- ::, - --- I LEGEND . vitt' tr. - , P • Noise Model Receiver I "•• ii 4 Ili _ Mapbook Grid Cell f ' M $ \ ,r'r ini SS I p — Highways LI t t- ' I `. ,,,t07* 1 •Ig' ET • + •w, l 1 ti + lir �' ' ir �' 1 f' '� • '�'- r1 . J. ' r - 'L - s , iii �, '�' North 4. 11 4. # : r' • . !,' a' G �� 1 a A�� r t - t' �'� 0 250 500 r ° � + _ r i t 1. Ili, Feet t ] fr ' • 1. I 4 ID ' t-' ~ ' • s• ' • ii:- witt , NW 4:• • r• .. e • ' . nom('( • ' _ y •,.• V '? j � 1 'd t • ,%I, vh. pike ssil alt • 7 AI IP irtil.t ytit rFx ft It ••1 1 .`1I. \• 1 aP of .1 -.. . e...„:J 1 11 1• 1 • r,' i. ti � 7 1 1 • • , e/2-- i %Ai ' i nil e Lt ' r * - � _ 1'a I I til , dicta -I •,, ' : kilt, ; Y . MV 12114 a. 1 �� • . • ► 1• are *' -I a, .<• I 1 z • ai ii. 4, lt'' 4 , .0% • r 1a& t. ' • . r q • ♦G t f' rte` ., r t � . �, +_ ' 1 _ r: •1.• it " . - t f: t`,= 0C..-4* ei • N• y e 1 a R I 1•' '. _ r . r�. J i . . • . '<-4" 3 ell • • - "tkil 15:4:1V4 -1-----e• I er J t , 11 li •, i I i r - ' - ^• 7:r ,fir_ •.ti - G .`•r p • _ '" :err,' _— Grid Cell BW 3 I n �L•- %...h. -, �fObilwtr� x ,* • GA�� R ■ a 4 r , _ = '` ) ' 1 r ; , ' 4 rL LEGEND At 7 +�` *" �� ! • - _ • Q Noise Model Receiver rte ' _ s }''-' , • ., ` Iu II Mapbook Grid CeII kg � iiiiiii � �� r — Highways ' •. ii 1 ..„...4.4) - I l-/ "C] ` I ��3 \I _ _ ' —+' •- •r North ,, ..,1,. 4, . �'""� i i t, .tea ,,, `i)cpils . call . . . 0 250 500 il ti` _ 1 . •.• . �le GIs r fir• a.•• Feet %I ....-. ..C.• • ;l+li I A ` , .+ : :k ,, . 4, ... __ .... ______.,_ _,_ _ _._. , _._ ... ........... ,44 4:. ..... Ili, I . • 1 I ! ,• 4iVi I \), i •i I an.Sri I, I r ie. * 77• CliiilkiniaTil .:1". 1 1 I eft 1v5 w lr. • Ga1 ` ,, Gael ;Hal . 40 it. , 1� , k ._ :• y1.a-.-, ..- N. • Fi.. t •• u yet' r� 1 0 qt. , , I i ■.4 k .r • _ •I1 4 . f • r. a -flirt ' • .. `- _ ' ..'. . 1 sir •_ •_a_f is_aiiiiiPal-a-"l -I, _ t ,I i . .0 W sr � ' • . • .NISI 1EIIIM Y w � _. _ . f - - . , , 1 ;iv,. a yam .+tr _`• . a . , •�--c.. 1 , _' 111,310141 . 1 I_,r ' �,. � . . . 4ii, &n ail , ._ • °try , .4 `Y.f '•TR i I - - 1a • t .II 2 4 . 45. t , r•-• : ' 1..-. -. .. 1 ir .,, 4 1/2° . ir ' . • I -man •--0,1 -..L v. , , , i i .. a •-• 9 r ,0 -I iiill-• ••• • •••... * 1 turis A Z '' ". .. •• IP _ mt4 $ 4t r I 1. ;UL Ill t+ ." '1- 4- . 4 1 .• P�� " x`389• ~ �+;Y }. �ti ( .r,r= IAi, rP t'+ • •t� '' t -'S ' i ►� l� i v" , , "•A no .'tt1f_ e r +�� ts G, , 4463 + R �a 1t ■ �J .�� + 's_ r• ' •'' *, ITT ' ._. - � "� �` �` a Grid Cell BX 3 !! 4 tafi .^ 11 • B397-xl -_'.' �� -:� !��. '''yL �, "' •-}' 'I ` • -,-� ti $ 1 • 8398 1• IA 44, `s**!ir:4C esu1 ',c 'F h _ " �• ;4 . • r 3 • 6 LEGEND Nis - .. wi - a. t� �• 8398 O Noise Model Receiver • tw MapbookGridCell ! 1T!. * III Highways a .- a `• 1 1 milt ... .- mps...._ -. • . ttr" iv . let 'ft""' -di rr , r 1 1- — -.1.- I r, 434 - .7-I ii Lk- ''' P1 in - 744. P. leg JO .1 7 • -. , fir risHia , r'L'itti . „ _ I __. , . i a P t • a , 'los' • [or j:i1/4gr 4 4 a: . Ir.. . f FN 1. • . ?� i ' ':r 1. +w , t i Op• 1 1 " - I : #s: North i �� yare r ��,. 7• '• fllib ' -r - p :e • . Ill • SL_' - • ' in 0 250 500 1.- •'f - t` i'. + •yY is. - '� ,4f ' �. •�/ • y,4ol ' • 1 Feet is ePt sir ? Atli v, 44,-, # -ter• i L1Iiii y,_� •, ' , •' ,l f. - -1•4 rfr‘� ' •# ¢. • i ''1 �� J i �, �' Y"YVi .a-I.J�\ Jl.l-P b_•' fir a ry ��' F_ " + _ , kr ■ ; X01 {ti 1,,t7-.2e y Y et * . 1� • y i gr ' giN - r`,• ' 1. t L.t L L.L L' " fl L 1 e. * . ' sir . s, I .x_ -, .% tiff .! -2 ciiii _ 114.4) . , .. . JO 'eft . , • 4., , . -ma - i i L— , „ - r. f , Ni..,, n'4 .1all 9 44 i 5 A , coilki _ 11• I-I'* � N_• '. . ' . • • .. .g • . iyaitt s.g.it if : � ; ,• I 4_3 1 It _ m lt;Aa's at al * 'l •- MIr 1 r 'talk s t •• Ltipt, i -t , siiiir !' 4,, u- r i, Ai,. .a lir ��J' ' ' �R a ` " ,• , _ r1/2... •rte • gersincilaiir—7 CT- - t t Lirrk - aLAI lir .IL defier_.4s ` is IA II t 11 ii- • tie , impi-• > . Si d i --114, -!. -- , •,� y, - -. - •.-II ft -_ - - `` (+ � S ' 1 , ..,a Grid Cell BY 3 , , is...4...II i I..., . �,., i ,� r • . • TNM Model Output Data (dBA) Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ _ _ Existing_ _ _ No Action _ Packase A _ Pecka9.e 8001 66 76 79 81 82 B002 66 67 71 72 73 B003 66 69 72 70 72 B004 66 64 66 65 66 B005 66 64 67 65 67 8006 66 68 70 71 73 B007 66 70 73 74 75 B008 66 67 69 65 B012 66 B013 66 69 71 68 67 8014 66 73 75 75 75 8015 66 75 77 76 77 B016 66 76 77 77 77 8017 66 75 77 76 77 . 8018 66 75 76 76 76 8019 66 75 77 76 77 8020 66 74 76 75 76 8021 66 73 75 75 75 B022 66 72 74 74 74 B023 66 66 68 68 69 B024 66 66 68 68 69 B025 66 66 67 68 69 8026 66 66 68 68 69 8027 66 66 68 68 69 8028 66 67 68 68 69 8029 66 67 69 69 70 B030 66 67 69 69 71 B031 66 66 68 68 69 B032 66 67 68 68 69 B033 66 70 72 72 73 B034 66 75 76 75 76 ill 1 lull■ lull 11111/I1•ll•il Il•llullUll111■....,.11ull■u.u•u.iuuUuuuiuUuUuUnU...iim uUu•Ilull.11■1iUl �hursday, September 27,2007 Page 1 01 16 Model Receiver _ _. _ _ NAC Exig No Action Packa e A Packa e B it B035 66 75 77 76 76 B036 66 75 76 75 76 B037 66 73 74 75 74 B038 66 70 72 72 72 B039 66 72 74 74 74 B040 66 75 77 76 76 B041 66 70 72 73 73 B042 66 67 68 69 70 B043 66 66 68 69 69 B044 66 67 69 70 71 8045 66 75 77 76 76 B046 66 75 76 75 75 B047 66 72 73 74 74 B048 66 70 71 72 72 8049 66 75 77 75 76 B050 66 72 73 73 74 B051 66 70 71 72 72 B052 66 75 77 75 75 • B053 66 66 67 68 68 8054 66 67 68 70 70 8055 66 73 74 74 74 B056 66 71 72 72 72 B057 66 69 70 70 71 8058 66 69 70 70 72 B059 66 73 75 74 74 B060 66 74 75 75 76 B061 66 74 76 75 76 8062 66 73 75 74 76 B063 66 69 71 71 72 B064 66 65 67 66 67 B065 66 72 74 74 75 B066 66 70 72 71 72 B067 66 72 74 72 73 u ll.ui u. i.ii emberi27ul007uuuuuunuu� uminunuuuuunuu�umnunnuummim .i 2 oti■6 IIModel Receiver NAC Existing_ No Action Package A Packase B B068 66 72 74 72 72 B069 66 67 68 68 69 B070 66 66 68 67 68 B071 66 66 68 67 68 B072 66 73 74 72 72 B073 66 74 75 72 72 B074 66 66 68 67 68 B075 66 67 68 68 69 B076 66 68 69 68 69 B077 66 74 75 72 72 B078 66 72 73 71 71 B079 66 67 68 69 69 B080 66 68 69 69 69 B081 66 67 69 68 69 B082 66 67 69 68 69 B083 66 78 80 • B084 66 70 71 B085 66 71 72 B086 66 66 68 67 67 B087 66 69 71 73 73 B088 71 69 71 75 B089 66 64 65 70 B090 66 74 76 B091 66 71 73 69 B092 66 73 74 75 75 B093 66 66 68 70 70 B094 66 72 74 B095 66 74 76 B096 66 73 75 74 B097 66 77 78 B098 66 67 69 B099 66 71 72 73 73 fB1001 ■inir a ■ 66 76 78 78 77 1 ■ IIII•ir tlay I5 ii ilUlIJJuuuu uuuuua• • •u•i . •i • •iuu•u•u•u•uniuiuuUiunUuUiuMIZ 3 ofI16 Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ _ _ Exi:tinq_ _ _ No Action Package A Package B • 8101 66 66 68 68 68 B102 66 69 71 70 70 B103 66 74 75 75 75 B104 66 71 72 73 72 B105 66 71 73 74 74 B106 66 67 68 69 69 B107 66 71 75 75 75 B108 66 73 76 74 75 8109 66 70 72 71 71 B110 66 68 71 71 71 8111 66 77 79 79 79 B112 66 75 78 78 78 B113 66 68 71 70 70 B114 66 67 71 70 71 B115 66 65 68 68 68 B116 66 72 76 75 76 B117 66 69 75 75 75 B118 66 68 70 71 71 B119 66 73 76 76 76 B120 66 69 72 73 72 B121 66 67 70 72 72 B122 66 76 78 79 79 B123 66 65 67 67 69 B124 66 64 66 66 68 8125 66 67 69 69 71 B126 66 70 76 75 76 B127 66 62 64 68 B128 66 67 68 72 72 B129 66 74 75 77 76 B130 66 74 76 77 76 B131 66 74 76 77 77 8132 66 77 79 79 79 1 truizt.iB133 ■ ■ 66 75 77 77 77 u1 ep iiupi fi27llub�07uuunun.n•ummmuuu•u•u•unuu•n•u•u•u•u•u•u•u•Page 4 01116 • Model Receiver _ _ _,._,NAC _ _ _ Exi li No Action Packa e A Packa e B B134 66 69 72 72 75 B135 66 68 71 71 74 B136 66 66 69 69 72 8137 66 64 68 68 70 B236 66 66 70 70 71 B237 66 64 66 67 69 B239 66 67 69 72 72 B240 66 64 65 67 67 B241 66 61 62 66 66 B242 66 60 61 63 63 8243 66 57 58 61 61 B244 66 55 56 58 58 8245 66 63 64 67 67 B246 66 59 60 63 62 B249 66 66 68 68 71 B250 66 67 69 70 70 . 8252 66 72 75 75 78 B255 66 60 64 66 66 B261 66 61 65 66 66 B267 66 64 66 65 65 B270 66 66 68 66 66 8285 66 54 57 60 60 B286 66 51 55 56 56 B287 66 52 55 57 58 8288 66 50 53 56 56 B292 66 66 69 B294 66 61 64 62 63 B295 66 59 60 61 62 B296 66 59 60 64 65 B300 66 63 64 64 65 B301 66 55 57 57 58 B302 66 65 65 65 66 8303 66 54 55 55 56 • meta unmmember 2 , uvueuwu�iuumu�u�ruu�uoneumneu�rumueum�runmunuurmb!g 5 of 16 Thurs�ay, September 27, 007 Model Receiver _ _ _ NAC _ _ _ Exi:tin No Action Packa e ka A Pac e B • B304 66 54 55 55 56 B305 66 64 64 64 65 B306 66 65 66 66 67 B307 66 66 67 67 68 B308 66 66 67 67 68 B309 66 58 58 58 59 B310 66 61 62 62 62 B311 66 58 59 59 60 B312 66 54 55 55 56 B313 66 54 54 54 55 B314 66 58 59 59 60 B315 66 58 59 59 60 B316 66 57 57 57 57 B317 66 58 59 59 61 B318 66 69 70 70 73 B319 66 71 71 71 74 B320 66 75 75 75 76 . B321 66 65 65 65 68 B322 66 61 61 61 63 B323 66 61 62 62 64 B324 66 64 65 65 67 B325 66 63 63 63 64 B326 66 60 60 60 62 B327 66 60 60 60 61 B328 66 64 64 64 66 B329 66 61 62 62 64 B330 66 64 64 64 66 B331 66 60 60 60 62 B332 66 59 60 60 63 B333 66 76 77 77 78 B334 66 67 68 68 71 B335 66 71 71 71 74 B3361 1 66 66 66 66 69 4n�'aa'Y i ep emberi27 ilbia7muuuuiuiuuauauanuumnuuaiuuanananauMMIMOI nutiag 6 o!luu • • Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ ,_.._ t,S in9_ No Action Packaue A Package B 8337 66 63 63 63 65 B338 66 61 61 61 63 B339 66 65 66 66 68 8340 66 63 64 64 65 5341 66 61 61 61 63 8342 66 63 66 66 68 5343 66 63 66 66 68 B344 66 61 64 64 66 5345 66 61 64 64 65 B346 66 66 69 69 70 8347 66 60 63 63 65 B348 66 56 58 58 60 B349 66 62 65 65 66 B350 66 58 60 60 61 8351 66 59 62 62 63 5352 66 68 68 68 69 • 8353 66 63 64 64 65 5354 66 60 61 61 62 B355 66 61 62 62 62 5356 66 64 64 64 65 8357 66 66 66 66 67 B358 66 63 63 63 64 B359 66 59 59 59 60 5360 66 59 59 59 60 8361 66 58 58 58 59 B362 66 67 68 68 69 5363 66 63 63 63 64 8364 66 60 60 60 60 B365 66 66 66 66 67 8366 66 62 63 63 64 B367 66 58 58 58 60 8368 66 66 66 66 67 B369 66 61 62 62 64 • iluuiuuiuuitu uu•n uumuu•uluiu.uiununman•aeuuuuuunuuuuuuuuuuu•uuuuuntuiut Thursday, September 27, 2007 Page o 16 Model Receive_ _ _ _ _ teS. _ _,E_xistin9_ _ _, No A_lion _ Package A ,_ Pa:ka9e B . 8370 66 59 59 59 61 B371 66 69 69 69 70 8372 66 58 59 59 60 8373 66 62 62 62 63 B374 66 65 65 65 67 8375 66 59 60 60 61 B376 66 57 57 57 58 8377 66 64 65 65 66 8378 66 57 58 58 59 8379 66 59 60 60 61 B380 66 60 62 62 62 8381 66 61 63 63 63 B382 66 64 64 64 66 B383 66 62 63 63 64 B384 66 62 63 63 64 B385 66 59 59 59 62 8386 66 71 72 72 75 B387 66 61 61 61 64 • B388 66 62 64 64 65 B389 66 64 65 65 67 8390 66 68 69 69 69 8391 66 63 65 65 65 B392 66 58 59 59 60 8393 66 56 58 58 58 8394 66 58 59 59 59 B395 66 61 62 62 62 8396 66 69 70 70 71 B397 66 64 65 65 65 8398 66 57 58 58 58 8399 66 59 61 61 61 B400 66 55 57 57 57 8401 66 61 62 62 62 B402 66 66 67 67 67 wninuu uuuu•u n■ununuuuuiuu•urnuununuiuunnniuununuunnuuu.um uuu•iu Iulul Thursday, September 23,2007 Paged of 16 • • Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ .,,_ Exi:till_ _ _ No Action _ Pac 2 A _ Package B403 66 63 64 64 65 B404 66 55 56 56 57 B405 66 55 56 56 56 B406 66 65 66 66 66 B407 66 59 61 61 61 B408 66 68 70 70 72 B409 66 59 61 61 61 B410 66 64 66 66 66 B411 66 60 61 61 62 B412 66 57 58 58 59 B413 66 63 64 64 65 B424 66 61 62 62 63 B430 66 70 72 72 74 6432 66 60 64 64 65 B444 66 61 61 61 62 B448 66 61 62 62 65 • B449 66 66 66 66 67 B450 66 63 64 64 67 B455 66 68 69 69 72 6458 66 69 70 70 73 6459 66 62 63 63 64 B460 66 65 66 66 67 B461 66 59 60 60 61 B462 66 60 61 61 63 B463 66 62 64 64 63 B464 66 63 64 64 64 B465 66 65 65 65 69 B466 66 63 63 63 65 B467 66 65 66 66 67 B468 66 65 66 66 67 B469 66 62 62 62 63 6470 66 63 66 66 68 B471 66 63 64 64 65 • iluuUuui■uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunuu■u•uUu■unmmuuuuuuuuuuUuuuuuuuu uu1uuu Thursday, September 27,2007 Page 9 0f 16 Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ _ . Exi:ti: No Action Packa e A Packa e B . B472 66 67 68 68 69 B473 66 67 68 68 68 8502 66 57 59 62 62 8503 66 54 56 57 56 B504 66 56 58 58 58 C009 71 68 71 73 74 C010 71 69 71 73 74 C011 71 64 68 70 70 C138 71 71 75 72 73 0139 71 71 74 71 72 C140 71 77 79 78 78 C141 71 77 80 81 82 C142 71 72 75 76 77 C143 71 76 78 79 80 C144 71 72 75 77 77 C145 71 72 74 76 78 C146 71 69 72 73 74 • C147 71 72 74 75 76 C148 71 68 70 71 74 C149 71 74 77 77 78 C150 71 68 70 71 74 C151 71 C152 71 71 73 75 75 C153 71 C154 71 73 75 75 77 C155 71 71 73 80 80 C156 71 69 70 C157 71 77 79 78 78 C158 71 73 75 74 73 C159 71 74 75 75 74 C160 71 75 76 76 76 0161 71 72 73 73 74 C162 71 74 75 76 77 nu un n.u.uuuu.uuu•u•um■nuu•u•umuuu•u•u•ruuruouurnmmuunun iuiuunut I r ursday, September 27, 2007 age 10 of 16 • • _Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ _ _ Existing_ _ _ No Action _ Pa212E A _ PackaA:B C163 71 75 76 80 81 C164 71 75 76 69 70 C165 71 75 76 70 70 C166 71 75 76 69 69 C167 71 75 75 70 70 C168 71 73 75 C169 71 65 67 73 O170 71 73 74 71 71 C171 71 77 78 76 C172 71 77 79 77 C173 71 75 76 75 C174 71 74 76 76 75 C175 71 69 70 74 74 C176 71 69 70 72 72 C177 71 72 74 74 C178 71 73 75 75 75 • O179 71 74 76 69 69 O180 71 74 75 77 76 C181 71 73 75 76 76 O182 71 74 75 77 76 C183 71 73 75 76 76 C184 71 72 73 76 75 C185 71 71 73 76 75 C186 71 72 75 77 77 C187 71 73 79 79 79 C188 71 72 74 74 74 C189 71 74 78 78 78 C190 71 72 75 76 C191 71 72 76 76 77 C192 71 72 76 76 76 C193 71 74 77 77 77 C194 71 75 78 78 78 C195 71 76 79 79 79 • mn uiwipvi uauriu t uriuoinummioniunuiururunUuUnanauraiuuuu muur iuuUuanit Thursday, September 27, 2007 Page 11 of 16 Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ _„_ Exi:tinq_ _ _ No Action _ Package A tni are B • C196 71 74 76 76 76 C197 71 74 77 77 77 C198 71 72 76 76 76 C199 71 74 77 77 77 C200 71 73 75 75 75 C201 71 71 74 73 73 C202 71 68 70 70 70 C203 71 74 75 75 75 C204 71 72 74 74 74 C205 71 73 74 74 74 C206 71 74 76 75 75 C207 71 75 77 77 77 C208 71 74 76 75 76 C209 71 71 75 76 75 C210 71 75 77 78 78 C211 71 75 77 78 78 C212 71 75 77 78 78 • C213 71 73 75 76 76 C214 71 70 73 74 74 C215 71 70 73 74 74 C216 71 70 73 74 74 C217 71 71 73 74 74 C218 71 71 74 75 75 C219 71 69 71 71 72 C220 71 71 73 73 74 C221 71 62 64 65 65 C222 71 73 74 C223 71 74 78 78 78 C224 71 75 77 77 78 C225 71 69 71 73 72 C226 71 72 73 75 74 C227 71 71 72 74 73 C228 71 72 73 71 72 i ■n.lulull■ll■ ululu nul ulu nulul uluununululull■lu nulunulululull■lu nunun nunununul �hursday, September 27, 2007 age 12 of 16III • Model Receive: NAC Existing_ No Action Package A Package B C229 71 64 67 68 68 C230 71 72 74 75 75 C231 71 69 73 73 73 C232 71 73 75 80 82 C233 71 70 73 73 74 C234 71 68 70 70 72 C235 71 66 70 70 72 C238 71 67 68 65 65 C247 71 73 75 76 76 C248 71 70 72 72 75 C251 71 74 76 76 77 C253 71 65 69 68 68 C254 71 66 70 70 70 C256 71 63 67 68 68 C257 71 63 67 67 68 C258 71 65 68 68 68 • C259 71 64 66 65 65 C260 71 64 68 67 67 C262 71 67 70 71 72 C263 71 63 68 69 69 C264 71 61 66 67 67 C265 71 64 67 67 66 C266 71 62 65 63 64 C268 71 66 67 65 65 C269 71 68 70 66 66 C271 71 69 71 67 67 C272 71 67 67 69 69 C273 71 63 64 64 64 C274 71 61 62 63 63 C275 71 66 67 69 69 C276 71 66 71 71 71 C277 71 67 70 70 70 CC278 ■1 71 71 76 75 75 ■ S Thursday i•ptemberu27i•ii•7uu•iuuuiuuuuuuuuu m uuuuuuuuuiununiiuuuuiluuuu•ag 113of 1) Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ _ _ Existing_ _ _ No Action _ Package A _ Packe9:i3 • C279 71 64 67 67 67 C280 71 64 67 67 67 C289 71 57 60 63 63 C290 71 56 60 66 66 C291 71 57 61 66 66 C293 71 60 63 65 65 C297 71 63 64 70 71 C298 71 64 65 69 70 C299 71 63 64 67 68 C414 71 64 66 66 67 C415 71 69 70 70 73 C416 71 64 65 65 67 C417 71 70 70 70 71 C418 71 64 65 65 67 C419 71 63 64 64 67 C420 71 77 77 77 79 C421 71 70 71 71 71 . C422 71 70 70 70 71 C423 71 73 74 74 74 C425 71 65 65 65 66 C426 71 76 80 80 81 C427 71 75 78 78 79 C428 71 66 70 70 73 C429 71 67 70 70 73 C431 71 67 69 69 71 C433 71 73 74 74 75 C434 71 65 65 65 68 C435 71 71 72 72 75 C436 71 64 65 65 67 C437 71 65 67 67 67 C438 71 69 69 69 72 C439 71 73 74 74 75 C440 71 65 65 65 67 iI h uuun u�uImi2r uuuuuuuuuumuuuunmuuuuuuuruuuunnunimuuuunuu ugu1unui • Thursday, �eptember 27, 2007 Page 14 of 16 • Model Receiver _ —.._....VS.—._.,_ Exi: in9. _ _ it Action Package A Pacla9e B C441 71 69 70 70 71 C442 71 70 70 70 70 C443 71 67 68 68 70 C445 71 64 66 66 67 C446 71 64 65 65 67 C447 71 65 65 65 67 C451 71 69 70 70 73 C452 71 62 63 63 66 C453 71 72 73 73 75 C454 71 62 64 64 66 C456 71 58 60 60 60 C457 71 71 72 72 71 C474 71 70 71 71 72 C500 71 63 64 69 69 C501 71 60 61 67 67 C505 71 63 64 65 65 • C506 71 63 66 70 71 C507 71 68 69 67 67 C508 71 67 69 69 69 C509 71 66 67 68 68 SH1_B0 66 68 70 70 71 SH1_B1 66 69 72 72 72 SH1_B10 66 58 61 60 60 SH1_B11 66 70 72 72 72 SH1_B12 66 62 65 65 65 SH1_B13 66 58 61 61 61 SH1_B14 66 56 59 59 59 SH1_B15 66 55 58 59 59 SH1_B16 66 64 67 67 67 SH1_B17 66 61 63 63 64 SH1_B18 66 59 62 62 62 SH1_B2 66 71 73 74 74 SH1 B27 66 60 64 64 64 Sim U t. iSeptei.iiuul 7I2S07uunuu•unuuUuuuuuUuuuUuUnuuUuUnuuUuUuUuuuulUutageI15 of 16 Model Receiver _ _ _ _ NAC _ _ _, 21.18:9_ _ _ No Actior: _ Package A _ Pa:k_qe B • SH1_B28 66 66 70 70 70 SH1_B3 66 71 74 74 74 SH1_B30 66 58 62 63 63 SH1_B31 66 72 76 76 76 SH1_B32 66 62 SH1_B4 66 62 65 65 65 SH1_B5 66 64 67 67 67 SH1_B6 66 64 67 67 67 SH1_B7 66 58 60 61 61 SH1_B8 66 59 61 62 62 SH1_B9 66 58 61 61 61 SH1_C19 71 61 64 64 64 SH1_C20 71 64 67 67 68 SH1_C21 71 73 76 76 76 SH1_C22 71 62 65 65 65 SH1_C23 71 59 62 62 62 SH1_C24 71 56 59 59 59 • SH1_C25 71 56 59 59 59 r uu.I1ry r eI•11•H I276, luiiuu•unuu•n•umunuuruu.u•runuuorurr.rr.rr.u•u•uuu�age 16l r16 S I hursda • N oRTH I-25 OM EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Wildlife • • • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO October 2008 • Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg Holt& Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way Suite 600 Centennial,CO 80111 Prepared bv— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188 FHU Ref. 03-225 / 05-071 /05-143 / 07-190 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Regional Study Area and Project Area 2 Regulatory Framework 4 Regulatory Framework 5 Federal Endangered Species Act 5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 5 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 6 Executive Order 13186 6 Colorado State Statute 33 6 SB40 7 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan 7 CDOT Prairie Dog Policy 7 Methods 8 Regional Study Area 8 Project Area 8 • Existing Conditions 9 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 9 Black-footed Ferret 10 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 11 Mexican Spotted Owl 15 Other Federally Protected Species 16 Bald Eagle 16 Wildlife Species of Concern 21 Mammals 25 Birds 29 Reptiles and Amphibians 32 Fish 33 Invertebrates 35 Terrestrial Wildlife 38 Big Game 38 Other Mammals 41 Birds 41 Reptiles and Amphibians 42 Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors 43 Sensitive Wildlife Habitat 48 Sensitive Wildlife Habitat 49 Aquatic Resources 49 • Potential Effects of the Proposed Project 50 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 50 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 51 Other Federally Protected Species 51 Bald Eagle 51 Wildlife Species of Concern 52 Mammals 52 Birds 53 Reptiles and Amphibians 54 Fish 54 Invertebrates 55 Terrestrial Wildlife 56 Big Game 56 Other Mammals 56 Birds 56 Reptiles and Amphibians 57 Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors 57 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats 58 Aquatic Resources 59 Mitigation and Recommendations 59 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 60 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 60 Other Federally Protected Species 61 Bald Eagle 61 • Wildlife Species of Concern 61 Black-tailed Prairie Dog 61 Western Burrowing Owl 62 Great Blue Heron 62 Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog 62 State Sensitive Fish 62 Invertebrates 64 Terrestrial Wildlife 64 Big Game and Movement Corridors 64 Other Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians 65 Birds 65 Aquatic Resources 66 List of Preparers and Contacts Made 66 References 68 • ii • TABLES Table 1. Federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species potentially occurring in the regional study area 9 Table 2. Federally listed wildlife species with potential to be affected by depletions to the Platte River system. 10 Table 3. Summary of Preble's trapping records for project area 14 Table 4. Bald Eagle Habitat Types and Recommended Setbacks. 19 Table 5. State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern Potentially Occurring in the Project Area. 22 Table 6. CNHP listed rare and imperiled wildlife species potentially occurring in the project area 24 Table 7. Deer and elk habitat categories 40 Table 8. Summary of wildlife crossing areas identified in the project area. 44 Table 9. Sensitive wildlife habitats in the regional study area. 49 Table 10. Summary of effects to important bald eagle foraging habitat within 3 miles of nests and roosts. 52 FIGURES Figure 1. North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area 4 Figure 2. North 1-25 EIS: Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Trapping Data 13 • Figure 3. North 1-25 EIS: Bald Eagle Habitat 18 Figure 4. Wildlife Habitat, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area—Northern Region 26 Figure 5. Wildlife Habitat, North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area—Central Region. 27 Figure 6. Wildlife Habitat, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area— Southern Region 28 Figure 7. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area— Northern Region. 46 Figure 8. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area— Central Region. 47 Figure 9. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area— Southern Region. 48 APPENDICES Appendix A: CDOT Impacted Prairie Dog Policy Appendix B: Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians Known to Occur in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado Appendix C: Fish Species Documented in the North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area Appendix D: Recommended Buffer Zones for Colorado Raptors • iii • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT • NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO OCTOBER 2008 Introduction The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) for alternatives to improve transportation facilities in an area known as the North 1-25 EIS regional study area (regional study area). This Wildlife Technical Report has been prepared in support of the North 1-25 EIS to address issues related to the potential effects on wildlife of state concern, migratory birds, and other wildlife resources in the project area. This report includes a description of the proposed project, existing conditions in the project area, a description of impacts of the project, and proposed mitigation measures. This Wildlife Technical Report will be used to identify wildlife resources in the project area, and provides a comparison for conditions under the proposed alternatives. An analysis of potential impacts resulting from the project to wildlife and wildlife habitat, and a description of conservation measures is also included in this document. The proposed project consists of highway and transit improvements in the area from Fort Collins south to Denver. The project includes two packages of alternatives, Package A and Package B. Package A would include: • adding lanes to I-25, • upgrading interchanges on 1-25 from State Highway (SH) 14 south to E-470, • constructing a commuter rail line from Fort Collins south to connect with the proposed North Metro Corridor, • adding commuter bus service on U.S. 85 from Greeley south to Denver, and • constructing commuter bus and rail stations along the commuter rail alignment and along U.S. 85. Package A would include nine commuter rail stations located in Fort Collins (three stations), Loveland (two stations), Berthoud (one station), Longmont(two stations), and Erie (one station). Five commuter bus stations would be located on U.S. 85, including Greeley (two stations), Evans (one station), Platteville (one station), and Fort Lupton (one station). Queue jumps (bus-only lanes) would be added at several locations on U.S. 85 and U.S. 34. 1 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Package B would include: • adding new managed toll lanes to 1-25 and upgrading interchanges on I-25, • • adding bus rapid transit service with feeder bus service, and • constructing bus stations along 1-25 and at other locations. Package B would include 12 bus rapid transit stations located in Fort Collins, Harmony Road at Timberline Road, 1-25 at Harmony Road, 1-25 at Highway 392, I-25 at Crossroads Boulevard, Highway 34 at Highway 257, Highway 34 at 83`d Street, Greeley, 1-25 at Highways 56 and 60, I-25 at Highway 119, 1-25 at Highway 52, and I-25 at Highway 7. Each package would include either a bus or transit maintenance area. Regional Study Area and Project Area The North 1-25 EIS regional study area (regional study area) is bounded generally by U.S. Highway 287 (U.S. 287) on the west, U.S. 85 on the east, Wellington on the north, and Denver on the south (see Figure 1). The regional study area is located primarily in Adams, Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties; and includes small sections within Broomfield and Denver counties. The regional study area includes all areas that were addressed during initial • screening of alternatives. The draft EIS will address two packages of alternatives, Package A and Package B, as well as a No Action Alternative. The project area is defined as the areas used by wildlife that could be affected by the proposed project under either Package A or Package B, including sections of I-25 proposed for widening, proposed rail alignment, proposed transit stations and queue jumps, and proposed maintenance area. Along 1-25, the project would mostly affect land within the CDOT right-of-way. The median would be used where widening is needed in the southern one-third of the project area, between SH 7 and SH 66. Land within the CDOT right-of-way and median consists mostly of mowed grasslands with riparian trees and shrubs along major drainages. Outside of the CDOT right-of-way, surrounding land is mostly privately owned irrigated cropland, nonirrigated cropland, and commercial development. The transit stations would be primarily located on agricultural or vacant lands. The commuter rail line would primarily affect land within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way between Fort Collins and Longmont or within the abandoned • Union Pacific Railroad (UP) right-of-way from about Weld County Road 10 to the connection 2 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO with the proposed North Metro Corridor. Between Longmont and Weld County Road 10, the • commuter rail line would follow SH 119 east, and would then turn south to follow Weld County Road 7. Land within the BNSF and UP rights-of-way consists mostly of unmowed grasslands with riparian trees and shrubs at crossings of major rivers and streams. Land use surrounding the commuter rail alignment is mostly agricultural, with residential development in Fort Collins, Longmont, and other communities along the alignment. Land along SH 119 consists of a mixture of publicly owned open space and private land that is mostly developed. The transit stations would be primarily located on agricultural or vacant lands. Some species of wildlife are more mobile than others, so the width of the project area varies depending on the species. For most wildlife species, the project area extends %2 mile from the center line of either 1-25 or from the center line of the proposed rail alignment. For bald eagles, the project area extends 1 mile from the center line of 1-25 or the proposed rail alignment. For less-mobile species, such as prairie dogs and most invertebrates, the project area extends 150 feet from the center line of 1-25 or the proposed rail alignment. Major drainages in the project area run in an easterly direction and include, from north to • south, the Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Little Dry Creek, Big Dry Creek, and South Platte River. • 3 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 1 . North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area. I LEGEND ` re Burlington Northern Santa Fe r troawastes - Great Western Railway \ r ( __, ( /a © 4 - • — - — - —- — Union Pacific Railroad 287\ .4r,e I - • - - - • -- - Abandoned Railroad \ NT ""Right-of-Way .- I ,1/4______T) '. Fort Collin - t I US or Interstate Highway s • ' 85 . I-S24th ; — — — — - State Highway Mania ••r•r•^�• talon S- -_ Luc.rn 287 Windsor 1 Lovel nd ‘eareier",,,,, i GreeleLiii. Gordon City-5741.15111: y ' : 257) J.hnst.vrnI Evans L. allIIL LARIMER � 1 i SE IIIINY.w 36 CV `✓ /*Y G CIO a r• - _ %9' J _ W L � - 411 ►Ltto•III 06 t gmont / '1 ;rel./ id36 / — 85 Flraston. 287 F odorlcY Nlwet \..' Fort ton Docents' Bould r `"• `' -►J'r J1.re 36 Louisville s.t .n Saporta st.wnn&d Thornton - .tr' torn c. ' (` N.rt •Ions / / I om Mott nst.r E470 Int rnMiond \ Airport \ 12' r / JEFFERSON • ni t n • Ste tan ® a0 7t i_ �°rin North 6 De ver i 11 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EN ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO 4111 Regulatory Framework CDOT projects must comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations protecting wildlife species including: • The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); • The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); • The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668-668d); • The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended(16 U.S.C. 703-712); • Executive Order 13186; • Colorado State Statute 33 (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-2-102-106); • Senate Bill 40 (SB40) CDOT also has a prairie dog policy that applies to all CDOT projects. In addition, a portion of the project area is covered by the City of Fort Collins' The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. All of these federal and state laws and CDOT policies area described below. Federal Endangered Species Act Federally listed threatened and endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Potential effects on a federally listed species or its habitat resulting from a project with a federal action require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA. Projects that may result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat for a federally listed species also require consultation with the USFWS. No regulations require consultations for effects to candidate species; however, if a species were to become listed during project planning or construction, consultation with the USFWS would be required. Upon final selection of an alternative package for the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS), a Biological Assessment and formal Section 7 consultation (if necessary) would be undertaken. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) provides that whenever the waters or channel of a body of water are modified by a department or agency of the U.S., the department or agency first shall consult with the USFWS and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the state where construction will occur, with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources. • 5 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER.BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the . golden eagle by prohibiting the taking, possession, and use of these two species for commerce except under certain specified conditions. The definition of"take" includes to: pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. In 2007, the term disturb was defined to mean "to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, injury to an eagle, a decrease in productivity, or nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior" (72 Fed. Reg. 31332). Migratory Bird Treaty Act Originally passed in 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects raptors and other migratory birds and their active nest sites. The MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill; attempt to take, capture, or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried, or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product, manufactured or not. In Colorado, most birds, except for the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesiicus), rock dove (Columbia livia) (pigeon), and grouse/pheasant species (Order Galliformes), are protected under the MBTA (§§ 703-712). The MBTA stipulates that it is unlawful to destroy an active migratory bird nest, nestling, • or eggs. The USFWS allows vacant nests to be destroyed, but active nests with birds, their young, or eggs must be left undisturbed (USFWS 2003a). For most migratory bird species, the active nesting season is between March and August. Under the MBTA, the USFWS may issue Nest Depredation Permits, which would allow a permittee to remove an active nest. The USFWS, however, issues very few Nest Depredation Permits, and only under specific circumstances. Executive Order 13186 Executive Order 13186, signed by President Clinton in 2001, directs federal agencies to take certain actions to implement the MBTA, including avoiding and minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions (86 FR 3853). Colorado State Statute 33 According to Colorado law (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-2-102-106), the state must maintain a list of species determined to be endangered or threatened within the state. State- listed wildlife species that are not already protected under federal law (i.e., ESA) are protected under State Statute 33, which is regulated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW). Colorado Revised Statute 33 states that it is unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, 6 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on the state list of threatened and endangered wildlife (CRS Ann. §§33-2-105). Also under State Statute 33, the Colorado Wildlife Commission (Commission) issues regulations and develops management programs for Colorado species that are implemented by CDOW. SB40 SB40 (33-5-101-107, C.R.S. 1973, as amended) requires any agency of the state to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream or its bank or tributaries. CDOT has developed a Memorandum of Agreement, in cooperation with CDOW, for SB40 wildlife certification (CDOT 2003). Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Land use within the area around Fossil Creek Reservoir is guided by the policies and principles presented in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (Fossil Creek Plan) adopted in 1998, amended in 1999, and amended again in 2000 (City of Fort Collins and Larimer County 1998) and the Resource Management and Implementation Plan for Fossil Creek reservoir regional Open Space (EDAW 2003). The Fossil Creek Plan establishes natural area buffers • ranging from 100 to 1,320 feet. Buffers for bald eagles in the Fossil Creek Plan, as recommended by the CDOW, include buffers around bald eagle winter roost sites (1,320 feet) and bald eagle hunting and feeding sites (660 to 1,320 feet). The Fossil Creek Plan establishes colonial nesting sites for great blue herons and black-crowned night herons (825 feet) and for waterfowl, shorebird, or wading bird production areas, wintering areas, or feeding areas (300 feet). CDOT Prairie Dog Policy CDOT adopted an Impacted Prairie Dog Policy on March 4, 2005 (see Appendix A). The policy consists of a series of steps that include avoiding prairie dog colonies and minimizing impacts, relocating prairie dog towns if feasible and if avoidance is not possible(for colonies greater than 2 acres in size), donating prairie dogs to raptor rehabilitation facilities or the USFWS black-footed ferret reintroduction program, and humanely euthanizing prairie dogs in construction areas if no other options are available. The policy also requires contacting CDOW's District Wildlife Manager before manipulation of prairie dogs or their colonies begins (CDOT 2005). • WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Methods Regional Study Area • Wildlife resources in the regional study area were reviewed during initial screening of alternatives using existing information from readily available sources. Existing information was reviewed and special concerns related to the project were identified through coordination and consultation with the USFWS, CDOW, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), and local open space management agencies. CDOT requested input from CDOW and USFWS during meetings that were held to discuss the project on May 2, 2006, June 19, 2006, and September 18, 2006. CNHP also provided data on rare species in the project area. Most wildlife distribution data came from CDOW's Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). Habitat types and sensitive natural resources in the regional study area were identified based on existing documentation, aerial photo interpretation, and limited field confirmation. Only reconnaissance-level surveys and fortuitous observations of rare species were conducted within the regional study area. No site-specific presence-absence surveys were conducted during initial review of the regional study area. Project Area Once the project area was identified, more detailed habitat evaluations were performed • within the project area based on fieldwork and additional review of existing information: • Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat was evaluated in the field and USFWS Preble's trapping data for potential crossings of major drainages were reviewed. • Bald eagle nest and roost location data was updated with more site-specific information obtained from field reconnaissance and from the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). • Black-tailed prairie dog colonies were initially mapped based on information provided by CDOW (CDOW 2002). Prairie dog mapping was updated within '/2 mile of the north I-25 corridor and the proposed commuter rail alignment based on aerial photograph interpretation with field verification. Prairie dog colonies within proposed transit station sites were also mapped based on aerial photography with field verification. • Stick nests that were confirmed or suspected to be used by raptors were mapped in the field within 1/2 mile of the north 1-25 corridor and the proposed commuter rail alignment. Raptor nest mapping occurred primarily in April 2005 and April 2006. • 8 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Potential wildlife crossing areas were identified based on CDOW input, road 411 mortality data from CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol, and field review. Identification of potential wildlife crossings focused on areas in the proposed alignment right-of-way, vacant lots, drainage ditches, floodplains and floodways, parks, golf courses, open space, and other landscape features conducive to wildlife movement. It is expected that more detailed surveys would be conducted prior to construction of any build alternative. The field team did not attempt to identify natural resources within residential and commercial developments, and did not access private land to conduct the inventory with the exception of railroad rights-of-way along the proposed commuter rail alignment. Existing Conditions Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate wildlife species that potentially occur in the regional study area are shown in Table 1. Correspondence with USFWS indicated that these species should be addressed in the EIS (USFWS 2005a). Table 1. Federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species potentially occurring in the regional study area (USFWS 2005a). • Common Name Latin Name Status Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Endangered Prcble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Table 2 lists species that could potentially be affected by water depletions in the Platte River system(USFWS 2005a). Species on this list could be adversely affected by water depletions associated with a variety of project elements including detention ponds and dust-abatement activities. Species listed in Table 2 are unlikely to occur in the regional study area and will not be addressed further in this Wildlife Technical Report. Potential impacts to Platte River system species will be addressed, if necessary, in a Biological Assessment to be prepared at a later date as part of consultation with the USFWS. • 9 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 2. Federally listed wildlife species with potential to be affected by depletions to the Platte River system (USFWS 2005a). • Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Whooping crane Grus Americana Endangered Least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis Endangered Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhvnchus albus Endangered The following sections provide a description of habitat requirements for each species and an assessment of the potential for habitat in the regional study area to support the species. Black footed Ferret Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution The black-footed ferret is listed as endangered under the ESA. Black-footed ferrets are associated with black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies where they depend on this species for food and shelter(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Prior to the discovery of a population of black-footed ferrets in 1981 at Meeteetse, Wyoming, it was believed that this species was extinct. The widespread practice of poisoning prairie dogs during settlement of • the west is thought to have been a major factor in the black-footed ferret's demise (CDOW 2006a). Currently, black-footed ferrets are known to exist only in the Shirley Basin of Wyoming, in captive breeding facilities in various locations across the country, and in various sites where captive reared ferrets have been reintroduced into the wild (Fitzgerald et al. 1994; CDOW 2006a). The last official record of a black-footed ferret in Colorado was near Buena Vista in 1943 (CDOW 2006a). Despite considerable search time in western Colorado and on the eastern plains by various state and federal agency staff, no naturally occurring populations of black- footed ferrets have been found in Colorado (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Since 2001, two black- footed ferret populations have been established in Colorado at Coyote Basin and at the Wolf Creek Management Area, both in the northwestern part of the state (CDOW 2006a). Potential Habitat in 1989, the USFWS published black-footed ferret survey guidelines stating that black- tailed prairie dog towns or complexes of greater than 80 acres are considered potential black- footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). However, no new populations of black-footed ferrets • 10 WILDLIFE:TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO have ever been discovered in Colorado using these methods. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. In July 2007 the Service published a map of"Block-cleared Areas for Black-Footed Ferret Surveys in Colorado" (USFWS 2007). In designating a block clearance zone, the Service eliminated the need for individuals or agencies to coordinate with the Service prior to conducting activities in habitats that otherwise would be deemed to have potential to support the black-footed ferret. Because the entire project area is within a block clearance zone, the black-footed ferret is assumed to be absent from the project area and the potential occurrence of this species in the project area or impacts to this species will not be addressed further in this Wildlife Technical Report. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's) was listed as a threatened species on May 13, 1998 under the ESA of 1973, as amended (63 FR 66777 [December 3, 1998]). In March 2004, 1111 the USFWS initiated a status review of Preble's based on two petitions to remove Preble's from federal protection under the ESA (USFWS 2004a). On February 2, 2005, the USFWS proposed to delist Preble's (70 FR 5405). On February 17, 2006, the USFWS announced a 6- month extension of the time required to make the decision on whether to delist Preble's. Until a final determination of Preble's status under the ESA in 2007 is made, the USFWS will continue to manage Preble's as a threatened species in accordance with existing laws and policies. Typically, Preble's occurs in low undergrowth consisting of grasses and forbs, in open wet meadows, riparian corridors, or where tall shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover (USFWS 2004c; Meaney et al. 1997). Preble's occurs below 7,600 feet in elevation, generally in lowlands with medium to high moisture along permanent or intermittent streams (USFWS 2004c; CNHP 1996; Ryon 1996). Research by CDOW has suggested that habitat quality for Preble's can be predicted by the amount of shrub cover available at a site(White and Shenk 2000). Potential Habitat • A number of riparian areas in the project area have potential habitat for Preble's, including the Cache la Poudre River, Spring Creek, Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Dry Creek, Little 11 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Thompson River, St. Vrain River, and South Platte River. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) evaluated the project area for Preble's habitat during site visits on April 18, April 22, and S August 31, 2005. ERO also reviewed trapping records maintained by the USFWS. Trapping records show that trapping surveys have been conducted on all of the major drainages in the project area (Table 3). Trapping surveys have found Preble's in riparian habitat near the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers east of I-25 (USFWS 2005b). Preble's is assumed to be present in riparian habitat along the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. The other drainages in the project area have been surveyed extensively for Preble's in the past and available information indicates that these sites are unlikely to support populations of Preble's. It is likely that the facilities associated with the preferred alternative identified in the EIS would not be constructed for several years, and available information on Preble's distribution may need to be reevaluated prior to construction. Critical habitat has been designated in Larimer County; however, no designated critical habitat for this species occurs in the project area. Past trapping surveys near each crossing of a major drainage by proposed project components are shown in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 3. S I 12 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 E I S ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 2. North I-25 EIS: Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Trapping Data. • I LEGEND Al Study Corridors _- "/ Highways 1f walfngbn /\/ Arterial Roads N' MI •• •, s re'; Regional Study AreaCSA `' i \k / CI City Boundaries A. F,etc! ' 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area ■ \� II Preble's Trapped-Found j — 4 / + Preble's Trapped-Not Found ! a • Tannj „h Severance Eatm r 187 i ill wsor . ` "Ilk. III • l r reelry . ; f . ■ Gardaoy l. 34 FS • • ■ ' Corns1161.251 . L858 j tampion 1 85 ' GI Waken Li M / ! ee � • Glcres� i MI see le • . , _ar m- Flint- ne -IC' I ■ Vollmer .■ I 1-.� / 0 Firestone I / - • NM, 9 Frederic* I Th . �.- - a -- — 'i . l tSa 0 Dacono■ Fort LuFtcn ' ..��c /('- •�.' Gunbartel �{...r..400: —_. . 7 _ ntanen. 1 ■ O yens ,\1 /11.. . lai4 ^, ■&rgnton , pen r r N. Eastlz*e• ft ��ai ' Broom5Nd CI H I Deal -----.1.,:i., � '. �. • �3 in mfirason 1 — - Thornton / • j I fr i _- I I Derive - • N I! 1 i Figure 2 A 0 2 4 6 8 1 l North 1-25 EIS Preble's Meadow � Miles ----• t Jumping Mouse (Preble's) Data r ` I Source IIs,F\Ns 0 13 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 3. Summary of Preble's trapping records for project area. Location Past Trapping Surveys Conclusion Cache Ia Poudre River at Five negative trapping surveys from Available data indicates that this commuter rail alignment 1998 to 2002 within 1 mile upstream or portion of the project area is not downstream. occupied by Preble's. Cache la Poudre River at Three negative trapping surveys from Available data indicates that this 1-25 1999 to 2004 within 1 mile of 1-25. portion of the project area is not Additional negative trapping surveys occupied by Preble's. within 10 miles. Cache Ia Poudre River at One negative trapping survey within 1 Urban area. Available data Greeley Transit Station mile in 2001. Negative trapping survey indicates that this portion of the within 2 miles in 2000. project area is not occupied by Preble's. Spring Creek at commuter Three negative trapping surveys from Available data indicates that this rail alignment 2000 to 2002 within I mile of BNSF. portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Fossil Creek at commuter Three negative trapping surveys from Available data indicates that this rail alignment 1998 to 2000 within I mile. portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Fossil Creek at I-25 One negative trapping survey in 2002 Not suitable habitat(cattails). within 1 mile. Available data indicates that this portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Big Thompson River at Two negative trapping surveys in 1999 Available data indicates that this commuter rail alignment and 2001 within 1 mile. Six additional portion of the project area is not trapping surveys between BNSF and 1- occupied by Preble's. 25 were all negative. Big Thompson River at I- Three negative surveys just west of I- Preble's is assumed to be present 25 25 from 1995 to 2003. One positive at this location and east of I-25. survey east of I-25 in 2001 less than I mile downstream. Dry Creek at commuter Two negative trapping surveys within 1 Available data indicates that this rail alignment mile in 1997 and 1998. portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Little Thompson River at Two negative trapping surveys within 1 Available data indicates that this commuter rail alignment mile from 1997 to 2000. portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Little Thompson River at No surveys within I mile. Two Preble's is assumed to be present 1-25 positive surveys more than 1 mile east at this location and cast of 1-25. of I-25. St. Vrain Creek at 1-25 Four negative surveys within I mile Available data indicates that this and SH 119 upstream or downstream of 1-25. Eight portion of the project area is not additional surveys between U.S.287 occupied by Preble's. and I-25,and two more surveys east of 1-25 were all negative over the period of 1999 to 2003. Little Dry Creek at I-25 Never surveyed. Evaluated not trapped Not suitable habitat, Preble's several times,not suitable habitat unlikely to occur. (cattails). •Little Dry Creek at Never surveyed. Evaluated not trapped Not suitable habitat, Preble's commuter rail alignment several times,not suitable habitat. unlikely to occur. 14 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Location Past Trapping Surveys Conclusion Big Dry Creek at 1-25 Within block clearance zone. No surveys or mitigation required. Big Dry Creek at Within block clearance zone. No surveys or mitigation commuter rail alignment required. South Platte River at Ft. Seven negative trapping surveys within Available data indicates that this Lupton Transit Station 2 miles upstream and downstream from portion of the project area is not 1998 to 2004. occupied by Preble's. Also, transit station sites are not suitable habitat. Preble's unlikely to occur. South Platte River at One negative trapping survey within 1 Potential transit station sites are Platteville Transit Station mile in 2002. not within suitable habitat. Preble's unlikely to occur. South Platte River at Two negative trapping surveys within I One potential transit station is Evans Transit Station mile in 2000 and 2002. located near the Cache la Poudre River but is within a cultivated field and is not habitat. Preble's unlikely to occur. Source: USFWS 20056. Mexican Spotted Owl Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution The Mexican spotted owl is listed as threatened under the ESA. It is found from southern • Colorado and Utah through portions of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, south to central Mexico. This species typically inhabits areas with steep, exposed cliffs and canyons that are characterized by picion-juniper and old-growth forests mixed with Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and white fir (Abies concolor) (Andrews and Righter 1992). Nesting Mexican spotted owls have been documented in Colorado on the southern massif of Pike's Peak in Teller and El Paso counties, and in the Wet Mountains (Boyle in Kingery 1998). Critical habitat has been designated in the Pike National Forest in western El Paso and Douglas counties (69 FR 53182 [August 31, 2004]), as well as other areas in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. No critical habitat has been designated in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, or Weld counties, including the project area. Potential Habitat The project area lacks the steep cliff and canyons or old-growth forests that provide habitat for this species. No designated critical habitat for Mexican spotted owl occurs in this area. A handful of records during winter and migration exist for this species in Boulder, Larimer, and Adams counties (Andrews and Righter 1992), but this species is probably very rare in these Ilkcounties, even in suitable habitat. This species is unlikely to occur in the project area due to a lack of suitable habitat and will not be addressed further in this Wildlife Technical Report. 15 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other Federally Protected Species Bald Eagle IP Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution The bald eagle is a large North American raptor with a historical distribution throughout most of the U.S. As a result of population declines attributed to habitat loss, the use of organochlorine pesticides, and mortality from shooting, the bald eagle was listed as an endangered species in 1978 (Buehler 2000; 43 FR 6233 [February 14, 1978]). Since its listing, the population trend for the bald eagle has been upward (Buehler 2000). The bald eagle was downlisted from endangered to threatened in 1995 (64 FR 36454 [July 6, 1999]). The USFWS recently removed the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species due to population recovery (72 FR 37346 [July 7, 2007]). The delisting takes effect on August 8, 2007. The bald eagle continues to be protected under the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Eagles feed primarily on fish and waterbirds but also feed on small mammals, mammal carcasses, and prey stolen from other raptors (Buehler 2000). Typical bald eagle nesting habitat consists of forests or wooded areas that contain many tall, aged, dying, and dead trees (Martell 1992). Bald eagles are migratory and are primarily winter residents in Colorado. • Nesting in Colorado and along the Colorado Front Range has increased in recent years. In 2001, there were an estimated 51 breeding pairs of bald eagles in Colorado, and more than 800 individuals were counted during winter(CDOW 2005a). Most nesting in Colorado occurs near lakes or reservoirs and along rivers. • 16 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO "Essential" winter roosts are defined by the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan according to the following criteria (Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team [NS BERT] 1983): • Locations used annually for 2 weeks or longer by adult or immature wintering eagles known (or strongly suspected) to be from nearby breeding areas; • Locations used annually by 15 or more eagles for 2 weeks or longer (applies to Colorado and other specified states); • Locations used by bald eagles during periods of extremely harsh weather when suitable feeding areas and night roost sites are limited in number(the minimum 2-week period of use does not apply to this criterion); and • Areas demonstrating historically consistent use should be regarded as essential habitat if still suitable regardless of present use. Figure 3 shows the locations of each type of bald eagle habitat mapped by CDOW (Natural Diversity Information Source [NDIS] 2006). Table 4 identifies types of bald eagle habitat: active nests, inactive nests, roost sites, communal roost sites, winter forage, winter range, summer forage, summer range, and winter concentration areas, and shows recommended IDsetbacks for each. S 17 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMF.R, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 3. North 1-25 EIS: Bald Eagle Habitat. I I LEGEND /%/ Study Corridors /u Highways 6 , r w..,,pp, -,• /\/ Arterial Roads 'c N 85 - IP i in ; Regional Study Area f' %.` City Boundaries ; 44 t - _ Pecs O Cities & Towns in Project Area I . Cots N �, ton � H / Q Bald Eagle Winter Range T �/ t • Bald Eagle Active Nest Sites N, 1 J \ (1/2 Mile Buffer) IV- - - :.t& rMrrtals ^ • , �• 34 .,. Golden Eagle Active Nest Sites - . 1 ;p (1/2 Mile Buffer) .1.. . ..,�•'� lei \-51 1 • • Bald Eagle Unknown Nest Sites a.� .t-�„♦ (1/2 Mile Buffer) may , v�� . Bald Eagle Winter Forage °� a ' ; ��' ' c..«., ,� : I NA Bald Eagle Winter Concentration r , O I .r� '' ir . Cede)Gly , 34 i Bald Eagle Summer Forage - si'�" • ' i- ' Bald Eagle Roost Sites Bald Eagle Communal Roost '' i sfrs d LI `!� 1V4 &,,• ,,,,,,' '7 / 0. camr v t ! 4' . -..._. 5,--- , . I i Mnnao ) ., , ,' � ' •'�_ , . lie : At 1 LongmonVNob!5t Won N ' • I • Y'• aria na I , I r / r• eil I :: -7 < fort L W°, �- //er . Itir i -7/ �..�f• E,y , ill f yiti a yYtlw._ t Ro mM . 7 ! 1 • NI< 0 WWI ° L'aw3aW�• r�" _am Mry,vr • �� a ; IA I 1 � oLoomfed ore; '� —It/ Q _ ill •"•, i aVgbvl /7: - ‘ 0 . L \ 14 0.4 leg el 1 r g Denver, • N I ,)= Figure 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 „anal • INorth 1-25 EIS Bald Miles ,f �•••_.••; Eagle NDIS Data 1 I i\ -bs.1/4‘, Source: CDOW(NDIS 2006) 41 18 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 4. Bald Eagle Habitat Types and Recommended Setbacks. Habitat Type Description Recommended Setback Active nest A specific location in which a pair of bald Year-round closure within 'A eagles have at least attempted to nest within mile. Recommended buffer of the last 5 years. Any nest location that can be '/2 mile from November 15 to directly tied to courtship,breeding,or July 31. brooding behavior is considered active. Inactive nest A former active nest location in which neither None(Craig 2002); ''A mile courtship,breeding,or brooding activity has (NSBERT 1983). been observed at any time during the last 5 years. Communal roost site Groups of or individual trees used by more Recommended buffer zone of than 15 eagles for diurnal and/or nocturnal '/ mile from November 15 to perches. March 15. Up to 'A mile if there is a direct line of sight from the roost. Roost site Groups of or individual trees that provide Recommended buffer zone of diurnal and/or nocturnal perches for less than '/o mile from November 15 to 15 wintering bald eagles; includes a buffer March 15. Up to '/1 mile if zone extending '/o mile around these sites. there is a direct line of sight These trees are usually the tallest available from the roost. Note that roost trees in the wintering area and are primarily sites as mapped by CDOW located in riparian habitats. already include a '/-mile buffer. Winter concentration Areas(e.g.,tree and islands)within an None existing winter range where eagles concentrate between November 15 and April 1. These areas may be associated with roost sites. Winter forage Foraging areas frequented by wintering bald None eagles between November 15 and March 15. May be a large area radiating from preferred roosting sites. In western Colorado,preferred roosting sites are within dominant riparian zones. Winter range Those areas where bald eagles have been None observed between November 15 and April 1. Summer forage Foraging areas frequented by breeding bald None eagles from March 15 to July 30. These areas are almost always associated with nesting pairs. Sources:CDOW 2005d;Craig 2002. Potential Habitat Five active bald eagle nests occur within 3 miles of the sections of I-25 proposed for widening or the proposed rail alignment. These nests were monitored in 2006 and 2007 by the RMBO Bald Eagle Watch Program (RMBO 2007; Gamble 2006). Nest locations are shown in Figure 3 and are described below: • Windsor Nest— An active bald eagle nest is known to occur on the Cache la Poudre River near the confluence with Fossil Creek, approximately 2 miles east of I-25 and 19 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTII I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Fossil Creek Reservoir(NDIS 2006). This site has been used by nesting bald eagles since 2002, fledged one eaglet in 2006, and had two nestlings in 2007 (Gamble 2006; RMBO 2007). • Berthoud Nest—A bald eagle nest occurs just west of the town of Berthoud, and just north of SH 56. A pair of eagles nested at this site in 2007, and hatched two nestlings on March 28 (RMBO 2007). • Longmont/St. Vrain Nest—In 2006, a pair of bald eagles nested at a site on the St. Vrain Creek just west of the Boulder/Weld County line. This nest was new in 2006. Two adult eagles were observed at the nest incubating and adding nest material in March and April 2006 (Gamble 2006). This nest failed to produce fledglings in 2006, which is not unusual for a new nest. Nest building activity by a pair of eagles was reported at this nest from February 17 to March 15, 2007 (RMBO 2007). • Delcamino/Boulder Creek Nest—This nest has been active for at least four nesting seasons (2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, and 2006/2007) and is located more than '/2 mile west of the intersection of Weld County Roads 7 and 20 on Boulder Creek (Beane 1996). This nest was apparently successful in 2006 as a juvenile eagle was observed at the nest in June (Gamble 2006). In April 2007, two nestlings were observed in the nest (RMBO 2007). • Thornton Nest—This nest is located on Big Dry Creek near 148th Avenue and is approximately 1 mile east of 1-25. This nest apparently failed in 2006. Two adults were observed incubating and apparently feeding young in March and April, but no eagles were observed in the nest area from late May through June (Gamble 2006). A pair of eagles nested at this site in 2007, and hatched two nestlings on April 10 (RMBO 2007). CDOW mapping shows another active nest located approximately 'h mile northwest of the intersection of Highway 60 and Lorimer County Road 17 (NDIS 2006). This site is approximately 1'/z miles west of the proposed rail line and is occupied by golden eagles rather than bald eagles. This nest has successfully produced young golden eagles for at least 6 years as of 2006 (Ryel, pers. comm. 2006). CDOW has identified roost sites at several locations that are adjacent to or within 1 mile of the project area (Figure 3). • Fossil Creek Reservoir Communal Roost— CDOW has mapped a communal roost site at Fossil Creek Reservoir about V2 mile west of I-25 (NDIS 2006). Because most of the larger trees surrounding the reservoir are used by eagles in winter, and specific roost locations and levels of use can vary depending on prey availability, weather, and other factors, CDOW considers the reservoir as a whole when mapping the limits of the roost. As mapped by CDOW, the communal roost covers the majority of the reservoir, and extends about 1/4 mile from the edge of the reservoir, not including the southeastern finger of the reservoir(Swede Lake). • 20 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 ES ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • St. Vrain Creek and Boulder Creek Roost—CDOW has mapped the section of St. Vrain Creek from west of U.S. 287 to east of 1-25 and the section of Boulder Creek starting about 5 miles upstream from the confluence with St. Vrain Creek to the confluence with St. Vrain Creek as a bald eagle roost site. Field visits by ERO biologists in February and March 2005 confirmed that bald eagles were using this general area for roosting. • Boulder Creek Communal Roost—A communal roost site is located about 3 miles southwest of the intersection of 1-25 and SH 119 on Boulder Creek(NDIS 2006). Bald eagle foraging habitat in the regional study area is shown in Figure 3. Prairie dog colonies and open water such as lakes and reservoirs are important foraging habitat for bald eagles in the regional study area, especially when located within 3 miles of a bald eagle nest or winter night roost. Wildlife Species of Concern This section describes wildlife species that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the project area and although not federally listed, have been listed as species of special concern by the CDOW,or have been described as rare, vulnerable, or imperiled in the state by the CNHP. Wildlife species of concern with the potential to occur in or near the project area and their state status are presented below (Table 5 and Table 6). i 21 WILDLIFE TECI INIC'AL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 5. State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern Potentially Occurring in the Project Area. 11 Common Scientific Potential to Name Name Status* Habitat Occur in Project Area Mammals Black-tailed Cvnomvs SC Open space and vacant land throughout Known to prairie dog ludovicianus project area occur Swift fox Vulpes ve/ox SC Shortgrass prairie,generally east of I-25 Potentially in Larimer and Weld counties occurs Townsend's P/ceotus SC Caves and mineshafts,urban areas, Potentially big-cared bat town.sendii riparian areas occurs Birds Plains sharp- Tvmpanuchus SE Grasslands and scrublands Unlikely to tailed grouse phasiane/lus occur jamesii Western Athene ST Potentially occurs in prairie dog colonies Known to burrowing owl eunicularia occur Mountain Charadrius SC Shortgrass prairie Unlikely to plover montanus occur Ferruginous Buteo vega/is SC May forage in prairie dog towns in winter Likely to hawk occur American Falco SC Cliffs and surrounding areas Unlikely to 0 peregrine Peregrinus occur falcon Great blue Ardea herodius None Nests in colonies in groves of trees on Known to heron major rivers and reservoirs; forages in all occur aquatic habitats Reptiles/Amphibians Common Thamnophis SC Streams,ditches,and ponds; known to Known to gartersnake sirtalis occur on major drainages in the project occur area Midget faded Crotalus viridis SC Occurs in grasslands in western Colorado Unlikely to rattlesnake eonco/or occur Northern Rana pipienc SC Steams, lakes,ponds, marshes,and wet Known to leopard frog meadows occur Fish Common shiner Notropis SE St. Vrain Creek and South Platte River Known to cornutu.s occur Plains minnow Hyhognathus SE Cache la Poudre River,two records from Unlikely to placitus 1996(CDOW 20056) occur Brassy minnow Hyhognathus ST Cache la Poudre River,Fossil Creek, St. Known to hankinsoni Vrain River, and South Platte River occur Iowa darter Etheostoma SC Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson Known to exile River, and St. Vrain River occur • 22 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Common Scientific Potential to Name Name Status* Habitat Occur in Project Area Stonecat Noturus/lavus SC St.Vrain River Known to occur Invertebrates Cylindrical Anodontoides SC Mud and sand in small creeks Potentially papershell Jerussacianus occurs *Key to CDOW species ranking system: SE: State Endangered. Those species or subspecies of native wildlife whose prospects for survival or recruitment within this state are in jeopardy, as determined by the Commission. ST: State Threatened. Those species or subspecies of native wildlife which,as determined by the Commission,are not in immediate jeopardy of extinction but are vulnerable because they exist in such small numbers,arc so extremely restricted in their range,or are experiencing such low recruitment or survival that they may become extinct. SC: Special Concern. Those species or subspecies of native wildlife that have been removed from the state threatened or endangered list within the last 5 years; are proposed for federal listing(or are a federal listing "candidate species")and are not already state-listed;have experienced,based on the best available data,a downward trend in numbers or distribution lasting at least 5 years that may lead to an endangered or threatened status; or arc otherwise determined to be vulnerable in Colorado. Sources: CDOW 2005b;NDIS 2006. 411/ During discussions with CDOW, it was determined that several species in Table 5 are unlikely to occur in the project area (Sherman, pers. comm. 2006). Plains sharp-tail grouse, mountain plover, and American peregrine falcon are not addressed further in this report because they are unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat, or because the project area is outside the known range of these species. Although great blue heron is not listed as a species of concern by either CDOW or CNHP, it was added to the list of species to be reviewed at the request of CDOW (Sherman,pers. comm. 2006). CDOW species of concern are not protected by statute, but are rare and thus are typically addressed in any EIS prepared for proposed transportation projects. While CDOW species of concern are not protected by statute, CDOT is committed to their conservation. S 23 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 6. CNHP listed rare and imperiled wildlife species potentially occurring in the project area. Common Scientific Potential to Name Name Status Habitat Occur in Project Area Birds Black-necked Himantopus S3 Margins of lakes and ponds,and Unlikely to stilt mexicanu.s marshy areas occur Invertebrates Stonefly Mesocapnia SI Low-elevation streams in the southern Known to occur frisoni Rocky Mountains with minimal in Little siltation Thompson River Sandhill Boloria selene SI S2 Wet meadows,bogs, and marshes Unlikely to fritillary sbulocollis occur Arogos skipper Air/one S2 Undisturbed grasslands and prairies Unlikely to arogos occur Ottoe skipper Hesperia once S2 Tallgrass prairie in the foothills Unlikely to occur Dusted skipper Atrvtonopsis S2 Tallgrass prairie in the foothills Unlikely to hianna occur Two-spotted Euphyes S2 Marshes,bogs,and wet meadows Unlikely to skipper bimacula occur Moss' elfin Cal/ophlys S2S3 Rocky outcrops and cliffs Unlikely to mo.s.sii occur schrt'veri Rhesus skipper Polite.s rhesus S2S3 Shortgrass and mixed grass prairie in Unlikely to the foothills occur Cross-line Polices S3 Foothills areas Unlikely to skipper origenes occur Modest sphinx Pachysphinx S3 Riparian habitats and moist Unlikely to moth modesta mountainsides occur `Key to CNHP imperilment ranks for Colorado: S I:Critically imperiled statewide because of rarity(5 or fewer occurrences in the world/state;or 1,000 or fewer individuals),or because some factor of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extinction. S2: Imperiled statewide because of rarity(6 to 20 occurrences,or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals),or because other factors demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. S3: Vulnerable throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range(21 to 100 occurrences,or 3,000 to 10,000 individuals). S4: Apparently secure statewide,though it may be quite rare in parts of its range,especially at the periphery. Usually more than 100 occurrences and 10,000 individuals. Source: CNHP 2005. I 24 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO While CNHP imperiled species are not protected by statute, CDOT is committed to their conservation. Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog The black-tailed prairie dog is a state species of special concern and was, until recently, a federal candidate species for listing as threatened according to the ESA (69 FR 15951217 [August 18, 2004]). Prairie dogs are important components of the shortgrass and mesic grasslands systems. They are commonly considered a"keystone" species because their activities (burrowing and intense grazing) provide food and shelter for many other grassland species, and have a large effect on community structure and ecosystem function (Power et al. 1996). Prairie dogs help provide habitat for other species by creating an environment that is inviting to other animals. Species such as black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, prairie rattlesnake, and mountain plover are closely linked to prairie dog burrow systems for food and/or cover. Prairie dogs provide an important prey resource for numerous predators including American badger, coyote, red fox, bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and other raptors. Typically, areas occupied by prairie dogs have greater cover and abundance of perennial grasses and annual forbs compared to nonoccupied sites (Whicker and Detling 1988; Witmer et al. 2000). Prairie dogs can contribute to overall landscape heterogeneity, affect nutrient cycling, and provide nest sites and shelter for wildlife such as rattlesnakes and burrowing owls (Whicker and Detling 1988). Prairie dogs also can denude the surface by clipping above- ground vegetation and contributing to exposed bare ground by digging up roots (Smith 1967). Prairie dogs are found in agricultural and vacant lands throughout the project area. Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 show the location of prairie dog colonies in the project area. Prairie dog colonies cover approximately 717 acres within 1/2 mile of the centerline of I-25 in the project area and 609 acres within '/ mile of the proposed commuter rail alignment. • 25 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 4. Wildlife Habitat, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area — Northern Region. I LEGEND ^/ Study Corridors • Raptor Nests (Source: ERO 2006) ~ Highways Prairie Dogs (Source: NDIS 2006) O Cities & Towns in Project Area - Prairie Dogs (Source: ERO 2006) /\/ Arterial Roads Swift Fox Overall Range (Source: NDIS 2006) s Regional Study Area l»_. g %///, Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source: NDIS 2006) trill City Boundaries mat _ .--.. .. Wellington �., ,.� • • - - �-- ' ,L ,, c I ` .' ® ,. I e \___\ L Pierce \ • \a el 85 Fort Collins • % V F • •. • . Aultall\ ; 4 0 0 1 I � J lb �b Timnath ° Severance Eaton I l � •_`� • • • I L - I_p .--Windsor I Lucerne 1• V vey • i Greeley i • �� at p ~ . ; • 1 '� • Garden Citya Loveland r - - --*+ i Evans = Matchline Figure 5 !PPP La Salle 86 Johnstown N A I__ Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 j North I-25 EIS Wildlife Miles ° Milliken Habitat - Northern Region I 26 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO IP Figure 5. Wildlife Habitat, North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area — Central Region. - Lucerne LEGEND • AV Study Corridors • Raptor Nests (Source: ERO 2006) SI /%/ Highways - Prairie Dogs (Source: NDIS 2006) Greeley ', o Cities & Towns in Project Area - Prairie Dogs (Source: ERO 2006) ' '• 1 /\/ Arterial Roads s-el-it Swift Fox Overall Range (Source: NDIS 2006) U Regional Study Area %//5 Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source: NDIS 2006) • Garden Citya S. • City Boundaries ^ �.. V11. S Evans Matchline Figure 4 • • �.jp . ... . . . La Salle � Campion Johnstown / r a3 / r o Milliken 7o • Berthoud ,, o Gilcrest { • i' , O 4 4 Mead i • fiE • f, Platteville I • Longmont a a ar •r L 1 1 Vollmar o • • 9a i rr • a 1 Firestone I. it it • Illt A • / / Niwot 3 �� o Frederick • l a • a Dacono Fort Lupton o • •• r Gunbarrel • •! • r 0 s Erie' 6 • Jalmont '' C , • • ti ". ' o ;. • a Wattenberg ` Ada 4 `� � • • o 4Y • r __� ` Matchon gore 6 r Alb�' • • • , Lafayette ler ® r� r _Ate _' Louisville , Brighton • Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 • r I titNorth 1-25 EIS Wildlife I ' ' ' ' I Miles A • e Habitat - Central Region 1 - -• A _ ..t FaQt'Hak a a N „ann. • 27 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 6. Wildlife Habitat, North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area — Southern Region. I gg g - - - lone# LEGEND Vollmar o Al Study Corridors • Raptor Nests (Source: ERO 2006) I /\/ Highways Prairie Dogs (Source: NDIS 2006) e M ') o Cities & Towns in Project Area - Prairie Dogs (Source: ERO 2006) /\/ Arterial Roads •411 Swift Fox Overall Range (Source: NDIS 2006) 1` in Regional Study Area %///, Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source: NDIS 2006) - - T 0 41.1 City Boundaries Fort Lupton \if . i ;'(U(lJJ Erie* • El i o Valmont• ii, *el . . a • 3 • , . v _. .VG— .-- a a Wattenberg • • • etch . & Figul% 5 / • • r 11 :le Boulder a .,... 'A...,w. j ! i . An.. • • • a1 t s •a� w S . a Lafayette R r Louisville _ •Alt Brighton 14 Ill.. Supenor r rep- , a . II ts • W • `� - , - - is • n _ ii Eastlake A- fl `,--- ••,N. Broomfield? •t Henderso -� 12,0 - •A • ..._ ® � %*� +� Northglenri / T. ;' - -_• �� O J . 'y • J) ; Thornton I r / -.j • I a \ - \ • % \ `` , ' \I i , A . , Denver ;/ ___i ' I ,/ 1 k_________ 40 i 1at 49 / -- _ , i..i ,__,.._ I / 4 . "-ft.i'41-: ? _... N i Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 ,A �,.� ;- North I-25 EIS Wildlife I ' ' ' ' I Miles %, I + • Habitat - South Region Pl. -- _ I 28 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Swift fox The swift fox is a state species of special concern. The distribution of the swift fox includes the grasslands of eastern Colorado (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Dens are usually located on sites dominated by native shortgrass prairie species such as blue grama and buffalograss. They are sometimes associated with prairie dog towns although they generally excavate their own dens (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). An area generally north of Highway 34 and east of I-25 has been mapped by CDOW as being within overall swift fox range (NDIS 2006). Overall swift fox range is shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. The swift fox is unlikely to occur in other portions of the project area. Townsend's big-eared bat The Townsend's big-eared bat is a state species of special concern that uses a variety of habitats including coniferous forest, desert shrublands, and piflon juniper woodlands (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Townsend's big-eared bats are year-round residents in Colorado that forage primarily for insects over water or along the margins of vegetation (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). These bats are relatively sedentary and do not migrate long distances (Harvey et al. 1999). They use caves and abandoned mines for roosts and hibernation. Townsend's big eared bats return to the same roost sites year after year(Harvey et al. 1999). Hibernation sites with appropriate temperature and humidity are important for these bats, and they are susceptible to die-offs or winter roost abandonment if disturbed by humans (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Colorado Gap analysis data shows Townsend's big-eared bat habitat as occurring in forested foothills, urban areas, and riparian forests (CDOW 2001). CDOW lists Townsend's big-eared bat as uncommon in Boulder and Larimer counties (NDIS 2006). This species has been documented in Fort Collins just east of the project area (CNHP 2005), and has the potential to occur in urban areas and riparian forests in the project area. Birds Western burrowing owl The western burrowing owl is a small migratory owl that occupies prairie dog colonies in Colorado during the summer breeding season. The burrowing owl has been listed as threatened by the CDOW and is protected under the MBTA. The owl is active during the day and uses abandoned prairie dog burrows for nesting and roosting (Jones 1998 in Kingery). 29 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER, BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Bun-owing owls are typically present in Colorado between March 1 and October 31 (Craig 2002). • CDOW lists the bun-owing owl as fairly common in Larimer and Weld counties, uncommon in Adams County, and rare in Boulder County (NDIS 2006). Burrowing owls are known to nest in Adams, Larimer, and Weld counties, including near the project area (Jones 1998 in Kingery). This species is known to occur in a prairie dog town located in the area of one of the proposed transit stations adjacent to the existing park and ride lot on U.S. 34 at SH 257. Burrowing owls have the potential to occur in any prairie dog town in the project area, especially prairie dog towns that are isolated from human disturbance. Ferruginous hawk The ferruginous hawk is the largest hawk in North America and is a state species of special concern. This species inhabits open prairie and desert habitats and is strongly associated with primary prey species such as ground squirrels, rabbits, and prairie dogs (Jasikoff 1982). Ferruginous hawks are relatively common winter residents in eastern Colorado, particularly in association with the black-tailed prairie dog (Beane 1996). Ferruginous hawks are rare to uncommon residents on the eastern plains of Colorado in the summer (Andrews and Righter 1992). CDOW lists the ferruginous hawk as rare in Larimer Country and uncommon in Adams and Weld counties (NDIS 2006). This species has been known to breed in scattered locations in eastern Colorado, but not in the project area (Preston in Kingery 1998). Ferruginous hawks are likely to occasionally forage within the project area, especially in prairie dog towns in winter. Black-necked stilt The black-necked stilt is a wading bird that inhabits the margins of lakes, ponds, marshes, and flooded grassy areas (Winternitz in Kingery 1998). Black-necked stilts are often found associated with American avocets and the two species may nest in mixed colonies (Winternitz in Kingery 1998). The black-necked stilt is a rare spring and fall migrant on the eastern plains of Colorado and occurs casually in northeastern Colorado during the breeding season (Andrews and Righter 1992). Black-necked stilts have been confirmed to breed at a few locations in northeastern Colorado including locations in Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties, including Fort Collins in Larimer County (Andrews and Righter 1992; Winternitz in Kingery 1998). CDOW lists the 30 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO black-necked stilt as rare in Larimer County, with abundance unknown in Adams, Boulder, and Weld counties (NDIS 2006). This species is unlikely to occur in the project area due to limited suitable habitat. Great blue heron The great blue heron is a large, colonial nesting waterbird that inhabits reservoirs and rivers. Breeding colonies occur in groves of live or dead trees standing in or near reservoirs and rivers (CNDIS 2006). Great blue herons nest in close, congested communities called rookeries. They breed in Colorado from mid-March to August, and return to the same nest every year. This species has an extended nesting period that spans nearly 5 months from late March through July (Dexter in Kingery 1998), and potential disturbance to rookeries should be minimized during this critical breeding period. Double-crested cormorants (Phaicrocorax auritus) often nest in the same rookeries with great blue herons. Great blue herons are protected under the MBTA; however, there are no official guidelines for buffers around great blue heron nests within Colorado. CDOW maps great blue heron nesting areas with a 500-meter (0.31 mile) buffer (NDIS 2006). Land use in the area around Fossil Creek Reservoir is guided by the policies and principles presented in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (Fossil Creek Plan) adopted in 1998, amended in 1999, and amended again in 2000 (City of Fort Collins and Larimer County 1998). The Fossil Creek Plan establishes a recommended buffer of 250 meters (825 feet) around colonial nesting sites for great blue herons and black-crowned night herons. Other states have recommended permanent, year-round minimum protection areas (buffers) of 250 to 300 meters (820 to 984 feet) from the peripheries of colonies, with all human activities that are likely to cause colony abandonment being restricted in this buffer year-round (Quinn and Milner 2004). It has also been recommended that activities such as construction should not occur within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) around a colony during the breeding season (Quinn and Milner 2004). Great blue heron rookeries occurring in the regional study area are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. Three great blue heron rookeries occur near proposed 1-25 improvements or near the proposed commuter rail alignment including: Fossil Creek Reservoir on the Big Thompson River about 'h mile west of I-25, St. Vrain Creek just west of I-25 at St. Vrain State Park, and Ish Reservoir just east of U.S. 287 (NDIS 2006). The rookery at St. 31 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EN ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Vrain State Park is also the largest breeding site for great egrets (Ardea alba) in Colorado (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). • Reptiles and Amphibians Common gartersnake The common gartersnake is listed as a state species of special concern. The subspecies that occurs in Colorado has black and red sides with a pale yellow to white stripe down the center of the back. In Colorado, this species is found from northern Jefferson County and southern Boulder County northeast to Nebraska and Wyoming(Hammerson 1999). The common gartersnake inhabits the margins of streams, irrigation ditches, natural and artificial ponds, as well as open areas. The CDOW lists the common gartersnake as sparsely common in Boulder County and uncommon in Adams, Larimer, and Weld counties (ND1S 2006). In the project area, the common gartersnake is known to occur in riparian habitat in the drainages of Big Dry Creek, St. Vrain River, Big Thompson River, South Platte River, and Cache la Poudre River (Hammerson 1999). Other perennial streams and ponds in the project area provide potential habitat for this species, and this species would be expected to occur in suitable habitat. Midget faded rattlesnake One of two subspecies of western rattlesnake occurring in Colorado, the midget faded rattlesnake, occurs primarily in west-central Colorado and is listed as a state species of special concern. Among the smallest of the western rattlesnake subspecies, its maximum total length rarely exceeds 26 inches. Although it seems to avoid perennially wet habitats, it occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitats including grasslands, sandhills, mountain and semidesert scrublands, sagebrush, riparian vegetation, piion juniper woodlands, and open coniferous forests (Hammerson 1999). The midget faded rattlesnake occurs primarily in western Colorado; most rattlesnakes occurring in the project area belong to the more common western rattlesnake subspecies (Crotalus viridis viridis) rather than the midget faded rattlesnake subspecies (Hammerson 1999). This subspecies is unlikely to occur in the project area. Northern leopard frog The northern leopard frog prefers the banks and shallow portions of marshes, wet meadows, ponds, lakes, and streams particularly where rooted aquatic vegetation is present (Hammerson 1999). The northern leopard frog is listed as a species of special concern by CDOW. This species is wide-ranging, occurring at elevations up to 11,000 feet. Amphibian 32 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT Noun 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • populations have declined both worldwide and locally in Colorado, for reasons not well known. Additional threats to the northern leopard frog are thought to include habitat loss, predation by fish, and competition from the nonnative bullfrog (Hammerson 1999). The sites in eastern Colorado where northern leopard frogs occur in greatest abundance are typically small, isolated reservoirs that have not been colonized by, or stocked with, bullfrogs or predatory fishes (Hammerson 1999). CDOW lists the northern leopard frog as locally common in Weld County and uncommon in Larimer and Boulder counties (NDIS 2006). Within the project area, northern leopard frogs have been documented in the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, St. Vrain, and South Platte river drainages (Hammerson 1999). Fish Common shiner The common shiner is approximately 6 inches in length and is listed as a threatened species by CDOW. The common shiner inhabits streams of moderate gradient with cool, clear water, gravelly bottoms, and shady areas, and appears to be intolerant of silted habitats (Woodling 1985). Spawning occurs in early summer on gravel beds in flowing water(Baxter and Stone 1995). The type of habitat preferred by this species is not common in Colorado where silt and sediment affect most streams (Woodling 1985). The common shiner is a native of the South Platte River Basin, and has been recorded near the project area in St. Vrain Creek at Hover Road, St. Vrain Creek at U.S. 287, St. Vrain Creek just upstream from confluence with Boulder Creek, the South Platte River at 3l' Avenue, and Steams Reservoir in Boulder County (CDOW 2005c). Plains minnow The plains minnow is native to Colorado, and is listed as endangered by CDOW. The preferred habitat of the plains minnow is main channels of streams with sandy bottoms and some current (Woodling 1985). It seems to prefer turbid water and is less common in clear streams (Baxter and Stone 1995). The spawning habitats of this species are not well known (Baxter and Stone 1995). In eastern Colorado, the plains minnow has been collected from Washington, Yuma, and Kiowa counties (Woodling 1985). Near the project area, CDOW fish sampling studies in 1996 documented the plains minnow in the Cache la Poudre River near Fort Collins (CDOW 2005c); however, CDOW biologists have stated that this record is probably a misidentification 33 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO (Sherman, personal communication). This species is unlikely to occur in the regional study area or in the project area. Brassy minnow The brassy minnow is native to Colorado and is listed as threatened by CDOW. The brassy minnow occupies cool, clear streams with abundant aquatic vegetation and with a mud or gravel substrate (Woodling 1985; Baxter and Stone 1995). Spawning occurs in late May or when water temperatures are between 16°C to 27°C (Baxter and Stone 1995). Past studies have found the brassy minnow in the South Platte River to be mainly restricted to portions of the mainstem river and most abundant in the eastern portion of the plains region (Probst 1982 cited in Woodling 1985). CDOW fish sampling studies between 1991 and 2002 recorded the brassy minnow near the project area in the Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, St. Vrain River, and South Platte River(CDOW 2005c), and this species would be expected to occur in any stream in suitable habitat. The brassy minnow was found in St. Vrain Creek at Highway 119 during CDOW fish sampling studies in 2006 (Crockett, pers. comm. 2006). Iowa darter The Iowa darter is a small fish measuring less than 3 inches long, and is listed as a state • species of special concern. The Iowa darter occurs in lakes with rooted aquatic vegetation and in streams with cool clear water, undercut banks, and vegetation extending from the bank into the water (Woodling 1985). Spawning occurs from late April to July (Baxter and Stone 1995). In Colorado, the species' distribution is generally limited to streams in northeastern Colorado and Elevenmile Reservoir in South Park, although they have been introduced to the upper Colorado River Basin (Woodling 1985). Iowa darters have been recorded at a few locations near the project area including within the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek (CDOW 2005c). Threats to the Iowa darter include habitat degradation resulting from siltation, pollution, and bank destabilization; the effects of urbanization; and predation by nonnative fish. Stonecat The stonecat is a small native catfish that is listed as a state species of special concern. The stonecat lives in streams with strong currents and typically hides under rubble, rocks, woody debris, or along sandbars during the day (Woodling 1985; Baxter and Stone 1995). This species also nests beneath rubble in fast-moving currents in June and July (Baxter and Stone • 34 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO 1995). Eastern Colorado streams, which have low flows, silt, and frequent dewatering, are not ideal habitat for this species (Woodling 1985). One specimen was collected from St. Vrain Creek near Longmont in 1984 (Woodling 1985). Near the project area, the stonecat has also been documented during CDOW surveys in 1994 in St. Vrain Creek at U.S. 287 and in St. Vrain Creek just upstream from the confluence with Boulder Creek(CDOW 2005c). Invertebrates Cylindrical papershell The cylindrical papershell is a freshwater mussel that inhabits mud and sands of small creeks. The cylindrical papershell is considered imperiled (CNHP rank S2) in Colorado and is designated as a state species of concern by the CDOW (CNHP 2005; CDOW 2005b). This species is known to occur in Boulder County (CNHP 2005). The presence of this species in the project area is unknown. Stonefly Mesocapnia frisonii is a stonefly that is known to occur in relatively few low elevation streams near the southern Rocky Mountains of Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, and from 411 Kansas to Texas. The stonefly emerges in winter and spends its larval stage in sediments beneath and adjacent to creeks (CNHP 2005). It is likely that this species was formerly widely distributed in Colorado but has undergone a reduction in range due to urban and agricultural development(CNHP 2005). In Colorado, this species is known to occur only in the Little Thompson River(CNHP 2005). In the project area, the stonefly is known to occur in the reach of the Little Thompson River that includes the crossing at U.S. 287 and the BNSF railroad (CNHP 2005). Sandhill fritillary The sandhill fritillary, a butterfly that is orange with black markings on the upperside and has rows of metallic silver spots on the underside of the wing, is considered imperiled to critically imperiled (CNHP rank S1 S2) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in wet meadows, bogs, and marshes (Opler et al. 1995). The larvae of the sandhill fritillary feed on violets (Viola sp.), while adults feed on nectar from composite flowers (Opler et al. 1995). The sandhill fritillary has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). The sandhill fritillary has not been documented in the project area, but was recorded 35 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO east of Fort Collins in 1978 (CNHP 2005). This species is unlikely to occur in the project area because suitable habitat is very limited. S Arogos skipper This small butterfly is yellowish on the upperside and brown on the underside. The arogos skipper has declined throughout its range and is considered to be imperiled (CNHP rank S2) within Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in relatively undisturbed grasslands and prairies (Opler et al. 1995). The larvae feed on big bluestem and other grasses, while adults feed on nectar from native and introduced flowers (Opler et al. 1995). The arogos skipper has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the arogos skipper has been documented in grasslands south and west of Fort Collins, west of U.S. 287 (CNHP 2005). This species is unlikely to occur in the project area because suitable habitat is limited. Ottoe skipper This dull-colored butterfly occurs on the tallgrass prairie fragments along the foothills (Opler et al. 1995). The ottoe skipper has declined notably throughout its range and is considered imperiled (CNHP rank S2) within Colorado (CNHP 2005). The caterpillars feed on little bluestem and other grasses, while adults feed on nectar from native prairie wildflowers (Opler et al. 1995). The ottoe skipper has been documented in Adams, Boulder, and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). The ottoe skipper has been documented west of Fort Collins (CNHP 2005), but is unlikely to occur in the project area due to a lack of suitable habitat. Dusted skipper This butterfly is gray-black on the upperside and gray with white dusting on the underside. The dusted skipper is considered to be imperiled (CNHP rank S2) within Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in grasslands, prairies, barrens, and old fields (Opler et al. 1995). The caterpillars of this species feed on little bluestem and big bluestem (Opler et al. 1995). The dusted skipper has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the dusted skipper has been documented in grasslands south and west of Fort Collins, west of U.S. 287 (CNHP 2005). This species is unlikely to occur in the project area because suitable habitat is limited. 36 WILDLIFE TECI INICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Two-spotted skipper The two-spotted skipper is a small butterfly that inhabits marshes, bogs, wet streamsides, and wet sedge meadows (Opler et al. 1995). The two-spotted skipper is considered imperiled (CNHP rank S2) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). The caterpillars of this species feed on sedge (Carex trichocarpa), while adults feed on nectar from flowers (Opler et al. 1995). The two-spotted skipper has been documented in Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the two-spotted skipper was recorded in 1989 south of Fort Collins, east of U.S. 287 (CNHP 2005). Moss' elfin Moss' elfin is a small butterfly that is grayish brown to tan on the upperside and coppery brown to purplish brown on the underside. The Moss' elfin is considered to be vulnerable or imperiled (CNHP rank S2S3) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs on rocky outcrops, woody canyons, and cliffs (Opler et al. 1995). The caterpillars of this species feed on stonecrop species in the Crassulacea family; the feeding habits of adults are not reported(Opler et al. 1995). The Moss' elfin has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 2005). The Moss' elfin is known to occur near the project area from a single record in Fort Collins (CNHP 2005). Rhesus skipper This small butterfly is dark brown on the upperside and greenish brown with dark spots on the underside. The rhesus skipper is considered vulnerable to imperiled (CNHP rank S2S3) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in native shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie (Opler et al. 1995). The larvae of this species feed on blue grama, a native prairie grass, while adults feed on nectar from flowers including Drummond's milkvetch (Astragalus drummondii) (Opler et al. 1995). The rhesus skipper has been documented in Adams, Boulder, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the rhesus skipper was documented in 1993 from a site in the foothills west of Fort Collins (CNHP 2005). Cross-line skipper This small butterfly is bright brownish orange on the upperside and yellowish orange on the underside. The cross-line skipper has declined throughout its range and is considered to be vulnerable (CNHP rank S3) within Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in native 37 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO tallgrass prairies (Opler et al. 1995). The larvae feed on little bluestem and other grasses, while adults feed on nectar from white, pink, or purple flowers (Opler et al. 1995). S The cross-line skipper has been documented in Adams, Boulder, and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the cross-line skipper has been documented in grasslands northwest of Fort Collins (CNHP 2005). Modest sphinx moth The modest sphinx moth is considered vulnerable (CNHP rank S3) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species inhabits riparian habitats and moist mountainsides (Opler et al. 1995). The caterpillars of this species feed on poplar, aspen, cottonwood, and willow, while adults do not feed (Opler et al. 1995). The modest sphinx moth has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). The modest sphinx moth was recorded in 1989 near the project area, south of Fort Collins and east of U.S. 287 (CNHP 2005). Terrestrial Wildlife The project area is located along the base of the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains in the Great Plains ecosystem. The quality and connectivity of wildlife habitat in the project area • is supported by the expanses of protected open space or otherwise undeveloped land, which preserves several habitat types, as well as movement corridors between different habitat areas. The following subsections describe big game, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic species that are not considered to be "species of special concern" by the CDOW or the CNHP, but that that could be affected by the proposed project. A list of wildlife species (birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) known to occur in Adams, Broomfield, Boulder, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties is located in Appendix B. Big Game Big game species occurring in the project area include American elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer(Odocoileus hemionus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). The general distribution of each species and their occurrence in the project area are described below. Definitions of big game habitat categories are provided in Table 7. • 38 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO American elk • Elk occur in semi-open forests or forest edges adjacent to parks and meadows. In Colorado, elk range across the western two-thirds of the state, generally below 6,000 feet in elevation. American elk overall range extends east to 1-25 in the area north of Highway 60 and south of Highway 392 (NDIS 2006). This is the area located generally south and east of Loveland, including the area surrounding Boyd Lake. All elk winter range, winter concentration areas, severe winter range, summer concentration areas, and migration corridors, as mapped by CDOW, are located more than 5 miles west of the project area(NDIS 2006). A section of the proposed commuter rail line from Loveland south to the Boulder/Larimer County line (approximately 10 miles) is mapped as within overall elk range. East-west movement of individuals through the project area typically occurs along riparian corridors, but may also occur in open grassland areas. Elk are known to occasionally move through the project area along the Big Thompson River corridor at the proposed commuter rail alignment (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). Mule deer Although most commonly found in upland or riparian shrublands, mule deer are common throughout the project area, and are known to occur within almost all available habitat types including open grasslands. Mule deer summer range is generally located east of 1-25 and west of the proposed commuter rail alignment(NDIS 2006). Mule deer winter range occurs in the foothills west of the project area and in the floodplains of the South Platte, St. Vrain, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers, east of 1-25 (NDIS 2006). The South Platte, St. Vrain, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers also provide severe winter range for mule deer east of 1-25 (NDIS 2006). Mule deer movement corridors in the project area occur along the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson rivers, and St. Vrain Creek (Vierra, pers. comm. 2006; Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). The area around Ish Reservoir is also a movement corridor for mule deer (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). s 39 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMFR,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO White-tailed deer White-tailed deer are less common than mule deer, and are known to occur along plains • riparian corridors, especially when riparian corridors are close to irrigated agricultural lands (NDIS 2006). White-tailed deer concentration areas occur along the South Platte, St. Vrain, Little Thompson, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers (NDIS 2006). White-tailed deer movement corridors in the project area occur along the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson rivers, and St. Vrain Creek (Vierra, pers. comm. 2006; Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). The area around Ish Reservoir is also a movement corridor for white-tailed deer (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). Table 7. Deer and elk habitat categories. Habitat Category Definition American elk overall range The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of an elk population. American elk summer concentration area Those areas where elk concentrate from mid-June through mid-August. American elk migration corridors A subjective indication of the general direction of the movments of migratory ungulate herds. Mule deer year-round range The area where mule deer commonly occur during all seasons. Mule deer summer range That part of the range where 90 percent of the individuals are located between spring green up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. Winter range(American elk and mule deer) That part of the overall range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average 5 winters out of 10 from the first heavy snowfall to spring green up,or during a site-specific period of winter as defined for each DAU.* Winter concentration area(American elk and mule That part of the winter range where densities are at deer) least 200 percent greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average 5 winters out of 10. Severe winter range(American elk and mule deer) That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the 2 worst winters out of 10. White-tailed deer concentration area Concentration areas are defined as corridors of riparian habitat along river or stream courses that support higher populations of white-tailed deer,serve as travel corridors,and are considered critical habitat for white- tailed deer. *A Data Analysis Unit(DAU)is an area in which a herd spends most of its time. DAUs are used to set population objectives for big game species in Colorado. Source: CDOW 2005d. S 40 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other Mammals Carnivores common in and near the project area include the coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and striped skunk(Mephitis mephitis). These species are typically observed in open grasslands and close to riparian corridors. Mink (Mustela vison) are widespread in riparian habitats in Colorado and were observed within the project area. Black bear(Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Felis concolor) may occasionally occur in the western portion of the project area, possibly along the proposed commuter rail alignment from Fort Collins south to Loveland (NDIS 2006). The project area is on the periphery of occupied range for both of these species (NDIS 2006). Mountain lions may occasionally move through the project area along the major drainages (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). A variety of small mammals are found in various habitat types in and near the project area. Grassland species include the white-tailed jackrabbit(Lepus townsendii), eastern cottontail (Svlvilagusfloridanus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus). Small mammals associated with riparian and wetland habitats include the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus),prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), and • a variety of mice and shrews. Birds A wide variety of bird species use different habitat types in the project area for shelter, breeding, wintering, and foraging at various times during the year. Raptors Raptors commonly occurring in and near the project area include the red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Other raptors likely to occur near the project area include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), ferruginous hawk(Buteo regalis), northern harrier(Circus cvaneus), and rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) (NDIS 2006). Burrowing owls potentially occur in prairie dog colonies throughout the project area. Ferruginous hawks and burrowing owls are discussed in greater detail under Wildlife Species of Concern. Raptor nests in and near the project area were mapped in April 2005 and April 2006 and are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. Most raptor nests observed were unoccupied. The occupied nests were most commonly occupied by red-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk, or great horned owl. 41 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other migratory birds The majority of the project area consists of mowed right-of-way, irrigated crops, and . nonirrigated crops that are likely to provide habitat for birds such as the house sparrow, European starling, common grackle(Quiscalus quiscula), Canada goose(Branta canadensis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and rock dove (NDIS 2006). These species are also present in urban and suburban areas. The cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pvrrhonota) is abundant in the project area and frequently nests on manmade structures such as bridges and highway overpasses. Western kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis) are common in riparian areas in the project area. Common birds in native or uncultivated grasslands include the vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), western meadowlark(Sturnella neglecta), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), and lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) (NDIS 2006). Wetland habitats typically support the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), song sparrow (Melo.spiza melodia), common yellowthroat(Geothlypis trichas), and common snipe (Ga/lingo ga/linago), while riparian vegetation supports the northern oriole (Icterus ga/bula), • American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and American robin (Turdus migratorius). Shorebirds such as the killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) and American avocet (Recurvirostra americana) are likely to be common along the lakes and ponds near the project area (NDIS 2006). Open water bodies near the project area provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of waterfowl species such as the mallard (Anus platyrhyncos), pintail (Anas acuta bahamensis), and Canada goose (NDIS 2006). The American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) is a common summer resident on large reservoirs on the eastern plains. American white pelican foraging habitat includes sections of the Big Thompson, Little Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers in and near the project area (NDIS 2006). A comprehensive list of bird species known to occur in the regional study area is found in Appendix B. Reptiles and Amphibians The diverse and relatively undisturbed habitats within the project area have the potential to support a wide variety of reptiles and amphibians. Common reptiles in grassland areas are • likely to include the bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucus),yellow-bellied racer (Coluber 42 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO constrictor), and western rattlesnake. The plains gartersnake(Thamnophis radix) and western • painted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii) are common in wetland and open water habitats. Also, the lesser earless lizard (Holbrookia maculata) may be found in open grasslands such as prairie dog towns (Hammerson 1999; NDIS 2006). Snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentia) have also been documented to occur in the project area (Hammerson 1999). Two state species of special concern, the common gartersnake and the midget faded rattlesnake, may also be found in the project area and are addressed under Wildlife Species of Concern (NDIS 2006). Amphibians likely to occur include the western chorus frog (Pseudacris triserata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), Woodhouse's toad (Bufb woodhousei), plains spadefoot(Spea bombifrons), and tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum). The northern leopard frog, a state species of special concern, may also occur in the project area (NDIS 2006) and is described under Wildlife Species of Concern. Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors The existing lanes of 1-25 already provide a substantial barrier to wildlife movements. Wildlife crossings typically occur near riparian corridors because riparian areas provide a • natural movement pathway for wildlife and bridges and culverts often provide a way for wildlife to cross beneath the highway. Currently, the BNSF railway and the proposed commuter rail alignment are not major obstacles to wildlife movement due to the sporadic nature of fencing along the alignment, the small size of the fences (three strand barbed wire), and relatively low frequency of rail traffic. Wildlife crossing areas and movement corridors were identified based on input from CDOW staff, review of road kill data collected by CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol (from 1993 to 2004), and field review (refer to Table 8 and Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). Additional data was opportunistically collected by CDOT maintenance crews from 2004 to 2007. S 43 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 8. Summary of wildlife crossing areas identified in the project area. • Wildlife Wildlife Usage Existing Structure Crossing Area Cache la Poudre The section of 1-25 from SH 14 south to SH 392 is used as a Multiple-span bridges River at 1-25 crossing area by deer and other wildlife, as shown by the northbound(NB)and relatively high number of wildlife collisions in this area, southbound(SB). The and as reported by CDOW staff(Vierra,pers. comm. 2006). existing bridges provide good passage for wildlife. Fossil Creek at No data is available for collisions at the railway,but a few Single-span bridge. The the BNSF collisions have been recorded on U.S.287 near Fossil existing bridge over the creek alignment Creek,which is less than '/2 mile downstream from the appears to provide good railway crossing. crossing opportunities. Big Thompson CDOW biologists indicated that the Big Thompson River in Multiple-span bridge. The River at BNSF this area is a movement corridor for deer, elk,and other existing bridge provides good alignment wildlife(Vierra,pers. comm. 2006; Huwer,pers.comm. passage for wildlife. 2006). Relatively few wildlife collisions have been documented at U.S. 287 near this location. Big Thompson CDOW biologists indicated that the Big Thompson River in Multiple-span bridges(NB, River at 1-25 this area is a movement corridor for deer and other wildlife SB, and service road). The (Huwer,pers. comm.2006). The section of 1-25 extending existing bridges are adequately about 3 miles north and south of the Big Thompson River is sized for deer and other used as a crossing site by wildlife,as indicated by the wildlife. relatively high number of wildlife collisions recorded in this area. Little The Little Thompson River is a movement corridor for deer Multiple-span bridge. The Thompson and other wildlife(Huwer,pers. comm. 2006). Colorado existing bridge is adequately River at BNSF State Patrol data shows that several collisions have been sized for deer and other 411alignment documented along U.S.287 about 2 miles to the west. wildlife. Little The Little Thompson River is a movement corridor for deer Multiple-span bridges(NB, Thompson and other wildlife(Huwer,pers. comm.2006). CSP data SB,and service road). The River at 1-25 shows that several collisions have been documented along existing bridges are adequately I-25 near the Little Thompson River. sized for deer and other wildlife. Ish Reservoir CDOW biologists indicated that a deer crossing problem No major structures,crossings Arca occurs along U.S.287 west of Ish Reservoir(Huwer,pers. occur at grade. comm. 2006). CSP collision data indicates that deer,elk, and coyote have been killed crossing this section of U.S. 287. The BNSF rail alignment passes to the east of Ish Reservoir,about 1.5 miles to the east of U.S.287. Wildlife crossings of the railway likely occur at a similar rate as U.S. 287. I-25 between CSP collision data shows that deer and other wildlife have Concrete box culvert at North Little been killed along the section of 1-25 between the Little Creek,adequate for small-and Thompson Thompson River and St. Vrain Creek. The land medium-sized mammals; River and St. surrounding 1-25 in this area is mostly open and inadequate for deer and larger Vrain Creek agricultural,and wildlife are killed when attempting to mammals. cross at grade. St. Vrain Creek CDOW biologists reported that St. Vrain Creek serves as a Multiple-span bridge. The at SH 119 movement corridor for deer and other wildlife(Huwer, existing wildlife passage under pers. comm.2006),and a broad,open area occurs at this SH 119 at St. Vrain Creek is location on both sides of SH 119 connecting undeveloped undersized for deer due to low land along St.Vrain and Boulder creeks to St. Vrain State vertical clearance,but is large Park to the north and providing a natural movement enough for small-and corridor for wildlife. medium-sized mammals. • 44 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Wildlife Wildlife Usage Existing Structure Crossing Area St. Vrain Creek CDOW biologists reported that St. Vrain Creek serves as a Multiple-span bridge(NB,SB, at 1-25 movement corridor for deer and other wildlife(Huwer, and service road). The pers. comm. 2006). CSP collision data shows that deer and existing wildlife passage under other wildlife have been killed crossing 1-25 near St. Vrain I-25 is adequately sized for Creek. This crossing is used by deer,as indicated by tracks deer and other wildlife. observed in the field. 1-25 west of CSP collision data indicate that deer and other wildlife are No major structures. Firestone and occasionally killed along a 3-mile section of I-25 west of Frederick Firestone and Frederick. The surrounding area is mostly open and agricultural,and wildlife are killed when attempting to cross at grade. Commuter rail The rail alignment follows Weld County Road 7 about I No major structures. alignment west mile west of 1-25. No wildlife collision data is available for of Firestone and this area,but wildlife movements probably are similar to (- Frederick 25 west of Firestone and Frederick,as described above. Little Dry Creek Field review indicated Little Dry Creek at I-25 could be a Concrete box culvert; at I-25 potential wildlife crossing area,but collision data indicates adequately sized for small- that only occasional collisions with wildlife occur in this and medium-sized mammals. area and CDOW did not identify Little Dry Creek as a movement corridor. Little Dry Creek Field review indicated Little Dry Creek at the commuter None,but no existing rail line at Commuter rail alignment could be a potential wildlife movement area, is present, so no movement Rail Alignment but no CSP data is available for this area and CDOW did barriers exist in this area. not identify Little Dry Creek as a movement corridor. Big Dry Creek CSP collision data show a few collisions on 1-25 near Big Multiple-span bridge;the at I-25 Dry Creek,but CDOW did not identify this area as a existing bridge is adequately • movement corridor. sized for deer and other wildlife. s 45 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 7. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area - Northern Region. I . , LEGEND "v Study Corridors Road Kill Data /\/ Highways Coyote o Cities & Towns in Project Area Deer /\ ' Arterial Roads Elk L Regional Study Area • Fox City Boundaries a Raccoon et_4r Wildlife Crossing Area (Source: ERO 2006) Unknown • - _1,\\ iiii- it .._ ___ .. ___ t -- o Wellington ,//'.- 141Sr .., -7\N / -a / /\____\? _ i r Y Pierce i I e5 \ i Fort Collins " jot. l tAult \; I i l i i l I _ _.®____._"- Timnath a Eaton \' Severance re. , i FaeiCroek - RasNoit 1 ;. l • I ,: •Windsor- — K as • - i Lucerne i iI _ (L' ! 1 'k i c -- • - -- Greeley 1 I7 34 t �4— ice► l - r Garden City' it- Loveland -a i I i., t� Evans !! MatcHme Figure 8 ld=4 La Salle- co Johnstow o ' - 4.,_ — _ _ Figure 7 A IDid North I-25 EIS Wildlife 0 2 3 4 5 Miles ° Milliken Road Kill Data and Wildlife Crossings 411.. 46 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO III Figure 8. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area - Central Region. • T 1, OYYIIRa le,' — -- gm i atLEGEND j Lucerne ^, Study Corridors Road Kill Data _ �, 1 :,I�—� /\/ Highways • Coyote r`"` 1 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area • Deer Greeley 1._l /./ Arterial Roads • Elk a Regional Study Area • Fox 7 Garden C dip City Boundaries • Raccoon �Ya 4-* Wildlife Crossing Area (Source: ERO 2006) Unknown Evans f ` Matchline Figure 7 La.i �— . �'' Johnstown I Campion I ; i ral , / j II 0 Milliken /' - •� i %� re— / Berthoud de - �" � ,j I ° Gilcrest / , 1 , - , 1 ii 1 O L - ,,,. • Mead� 14,1i 1 _ , ,K65 (� ea Platteville _ E f I Longmont /� r 15-1 Vollmar o , / 4 I ° Firestone • %, 3 0 Frederick Niwot . �� ° Dacono Fort Lupton ° Gunbarrel a Erie Jalmont 0 __ Wattenberg i 7 v , Matchline Figure 9 1 Lafayette --, -- -- Bright N Figure 8 A North 1-25 EIS Wildlife 012345 Road Kill Data and Wildlife I ' ' ' ' ' Miles \ Crossings • 47 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 9. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study I Area - Southern Region. lone LEGEND . Vollmar a :t Al Study Corridors Road Kill Data L. :{ v I ,s/ Highways • Coyote Firestone i O Cities & Towns in Project Area •t • Deer r`- - ' /\/ Arterial Roads Niwot • Elk I 0 Frederick in Regional Study Area • Fox �j L • City Boundaries • Raccoon oDacono Fort Lupton ° .4- Do Wildlife Crossing Area (SourceEW '2006) Unknown -, Nr. the .= , `� o Valmont -� J �:'a--_...ill IIII— Wattenberg I Matchline Figure 8 .:'Boulder ,� .�.�.�......� o Lafayette -- 1 ® - - . \ 1 _ = Louisville , r i' Brighton / N``ray • Superior -Li �� / tL '., Eastlake Broo1 mfieldffi I J Henders{ /C. IY1:1 .` •` l ' •.N� Northglenn� / _ ' . , `� , '��. ° • Thornton ! r. I— / vs r* ti _ _ *- 6 1 3 \t___,- ! ' ' ±..„4".„, t_ ; - ; ' Denver• , ! '"' :' ,1 F?r ----' _�- 7-.4 . - P-li' l 1\. N) a i. , 4h- - , S I I.1 - • t• _ Figure 9 ;f f l North I-25 EIS Wildlife 0 1 2 3 I I I ' 4 5 I Miles A �� Road Kill Data and Wildlife '3 - I Crossings I 48 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Several sensitive wildlife habitat areas were identified during field work (Table 9). These areas were identified as sensitive wildlife habitat because: • They are wildlife crossing areas; • They provide known habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species as defined by the USFWS or CDOW; • They contain or are adjacent to protected lands such as designated open space, state parks, or state wildlife areas; or • They provide habitat for numerous sensitive species. Table 9. Sensitive wildlife habitats in the regional study area. Sensitive Wildlife Comments Habitat Area Cache la Poudre River Known occurrences of brassy minnow and Iowa darter;bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage;white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area;wildlife movement corridor Fossil Creek Reservoir Bald eagle winter roost occurs at reservoir Big Thompson River Possible occurrence of Preble's and Iowa darter;bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage;white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area;wildlife movement corridor; Big Thompson State • Wildlife Area occurs just west of I-25 Little Thompson River Possible occurrence of Preble's,bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage,white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area,wildlife movement corridor, CNHP Potential Conservation Area at U.S.287 Ish Reservoir and Great blue heron rookery;wildlife crossing area at U.S.287 surrounding area St. Vrain Creek Bald eagle winter roost west of 1-25;bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage;known occurrences of common shiner,brassy minnow, Iowa darter,and stonecat; white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area; wildlife movement corridor; St. Vrain State Park occurs just west of 1-25 South Plane River Bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage,known occurrences of common shiner and brassy minnow,wildlife movement corridor Sources: NDIS 2006;CNHP 2005; CDOW 2005c; USFWS 20056. Aquatic Resources The ditches, streams, and water bodies in the project area support a wide variety of aquatic insects,macroinvertebrates, and fish. Fish species documented in lakes, rivers, and streams in or near the project area are provided in Appendix C. Common fish species in creeks and streams in the project area include common carp (Cyprinus cat-plo), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), longnose dace(Rhinichthys cataractae), green sunfish (Lepomis cvanellus), and white sucker(Catostomus commersoni). Several rare fish species (including the state endangered common shiner and brassy minnow, and state species of concern Iowa darter and stonecat), are known to occur in or near 49 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO the project area (CDOW 2005c). These sensitive species are addressed in greater detail under Wildlife Species of Concern. 1 Common aquatic insects include the larvae of the blackfly (Simulium slossonae), midge (Chironomidae spp.), mayfly (Ephemeroptera), and damselfly(suborder Zygoptera); caddisfly (Spicipalpia sp.); and cranefly (Tipula oleraceae). Snails, crayfish, and other macroinvertebrates occurring in aquatic environments in the project area provide an important source of prey for other fish, waterfowl, and mammal species. The CNHP has designated a Potential Conservation Area (PCA) that includes the Little Thompson River at U.S. 287. This reach of the Little Thompson River provides habitat for a number of native fish and a variety of mayflies, caddisflies, and 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 Colorado Division of Wildlife in 1982 and 1997. All species captured are native and common in streams along the Front Range corridor. Additionally, only a few fish out of several hundred captured showed signs of parasites or infection, indicating a healthy • community (CNHP, 2005). One species of stonefly (Mesocapnia frisonii) is not known to occur anywhere else in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This stonefly species is addressed in more detail under Wildlife Species of Concern. Potential Effects of the Proposed Project Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species The proposed project would result in impacts to potential Preble's habitat. The black- footed ferret and Mexican spotted owl would not be affected by the proposed project because they do not occur in the project area. Effects to Platte River species in Nebraska (whooping crane, least tern, Eskimo curlew, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, or western prairie fringed orchid) due to depletions are not addressed because no depletions are expected as a result of the project. As currently proposed, the project would not result in depletions because: 1. Water quality ponds would be dry facilities and would release detained water within 40 hours; therefore, they would not result in discernable water loss via evaporation. 2. Water used for dust abatement would be obtained from municipal sources that • have previously undergone depletions consultations. 50 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO 3. Wetland mitigation would be at a 1:1 ratio; therefore, there would be no • additional water loss via transpiration. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Temporary disturbance to riparian habitat during bridge replacement would affect potential Preble's habitat near the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers at I-25. Direct effects to Preble's could include loss of habitat, mortality from crushing by construction equipment, or disruption of hibernation during winter. Any new street lights near bridges could increase susceptibility of Preble's to predation. Indirect effects could include increased habitat fragmentation and decreased use of the project area as a movement corridor due to increased width of the 1-25 bridge crossings of the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Other Federally Protected Species Bald Eagle Types of potential impacts to bald eagles include disturbance of nests, disturbance of winter night roosts, and loss of potential foraging habitat. Current data indicate that no active nests occur within 1/2 mile of the project components as of the 2006/2007 breeding season; however, several bald eagle nests are known to occur near • the project area. New breeding pairs of bald eagles could construct nests within 'h 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 '/z mile of an active nest during the courting or breeding season, effects could include behavioral disturbance and potential nest abandonment. The roost located at Fossil Creek Reservoir would not be adversely affected by the highway components because the proposed work in this area consists of upgrading an interchange and frontage roads, and because the roost is separated from the highway by existing and proposed development. New lighting at the intersection could either increase light pollution at the roost or, depending on design, could decrease affects of light on the roost. The roost area is already heavily impacted by light pollution and eagles have likely acclimated to the existing disturbance. The Package A transit components could affect the bald eagle roost on St. Vrain Creek. The proposed rail alignment from Longmont to Denver would run parallel to SH 119 on the • north side of the highway, crossing St. Vrain Creek via a new bridge north of SH 119. Although it is unlikely that bald eagles actually roost immediately adjacent to SH 119 (a busy highway), the loss of riparian habitat in this area would reduce the amount of available roosting 51 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO habitat further downstream. Bald eagle roosting areas change from year to year, and new roosting areas could become established or existing roosts could be abandoned by the time of • construction, so effects described above should be considered representative of effects that could occur. Bald eagles frequently forage in prairie dog colonies and riparian areas along major streams and rivers in the regional study area, especially in winter. Long-term impacts from road widening or other project components could include loss of foraging habitat or displacement of eagles from foraging habitat. For the purposes of determining impacts to bald eagles from loss of important foraging habitat, the most important foraging habitat is assumed to consist of prairie dog colonies or open water within 3 miles of a nest or communal winter night roost. No large bodies of open water such as lakes or reservoirs would be affected by the proposed project. Table 10 shows expected impacts to important bald eagle foraging habitat. Table 10. Summary of effects to important bald eagle foraging habitat within 3 miles of nests and roosts. Nest or Roost within 3 Prairie dogs Open water Important Package A Package B miles of project area within 3- within 3-mile foraging impacts to impacts to mile buffer buffer(acres) habitat within prairie dogs prairie dogs • (acres) 3 miles within 3-mile within 3-mile (acres)2 buffer3 buffer3 Fossil Creek 846 2,169 3,015 28 38 Reservoir/Timnath roost; Windsor nest Longmont/St. Vrain nest; 824 1,355 2,179 7.8 2.0 Delcamino/Boulder Creek nest; St. V rain/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. -Prairie dogs(acres)+Open water(acres). 'Prairie dogs mapped by ERO in 2006. Impacts within project footprint. Wildlife Species of Concern Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog Prairie dogs occurring within the project area will need to be relocated, removed, or humanely euthanized according to CDOT's prairie dog policy (CDOT 2005). Implementation of CDOT's prairie dog policy will prevent black-tailed prairie dogs being crushed by machinery or buried in their burrows during construction. Prairie dogs could also be indirectly4111 affected by loss of habitat within the highway right-of-way as a result of construction and by 52 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO habitat fragmentation. Some areas temporarily disturbed during construction would likely be • recolonized by prairie dogs. Swift fox Direct effects to swift fox could include loss of foraging habitat and displacement during and after construction. Potential habitat for swift fox in the project area is low quality and is on the fringes of the occupied range for this species. Townsend's big-eared bat Direct effects to Townsend's big-eared bat could include loss of foraging habitat and potential displacement from foraging habitat during construction. No caves or mines that could provide roosting or hibernation sites would be affected. Birds Western burrowing owl The proposed project would affect prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. No work will occur in prairie dog towns while burrowing owls are present, thus avoiding direct affects to burrowing owls. Work will either occur outside the time the owls are present in • Colorado from March 1 to October 31 (Craig 2002), or prairie dog towns will be surveyed prior to construction to confirm that the owls are not present. No burrowing owls are known to nest within the project area. Ferruginous hawk Potential effects to ferruginous hawks include loss of winter foraging habitat during and after construction, especially if prairie dog colonies are affected. No ferruginous hawk nesting habitat would be disturbed. Black-necked stilt Potential impacts to the black-necked stilt are unlikely because this species is unlikely to occur in the project area. Great blue heron The Package A transit components could result in disturbance within the 500-meter(0.31 mile) buffer around a great blue heron nesting area at Ish Reservoir. The 0.31-mile buffer is based on recommendations by CDOW (NDIS 2006). No impacts are expected to occur within • the buffers around other great blue heron nesting areas. No direct impacts to great blue heron nesting areas would occur. Great blue herons could be affected by loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas. Indirect effects include noise, light, and human encroachment 53 WILDLIFE:TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO within this buffer during nesting season, which is approximately March 15 through July 31. Effects could include nest abandonment or reduced nesting success. Impacts to great blue • heron foraging areas would be similar to impacts for other riparian and aquatic species. Reptiles and Amphibians Common gartersnake The proposed project would affect habitat for common gartersnakes. This species could be affected by loss or fragmentation of riparian areas and wetlands as a result of construction. Direct effects could include mortality from being crushed by equipment during construction. Indirect effects include habitat fragmentation and reduced movement between habitat patches located on opposite sides of new or widened bridges or culverts. Indirect effects to this species could result from temporary declines in water quality from the proposed project. Midget faded rattlesnake Impacts to midget faded rattlesnake are unlikely because this species does not occur in the project area. Northern leopard frog The proposed project would affect habitat for northern leopard frogs. This species could be • affected by loss or fragmentation of riparian areas and wetlands as a result of construction. Direct effects could include mortality from being crushed by equipment during construction. Indirect effects include habitat fragmentation and reduced movement between habitat patches located on opposite sides of new or widened bridges or culverts. Indirect effects to this species could result from temporary declines in water quality from the project. Fish Plains minnow The plains minnow is unlikely to be affected by the proposed project because it does not occur in the project area. Common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat The proposed project could affect habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species such as the common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat. Potential adverse effects to these species during construction include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads, which would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species (Cordone and Kelley 1961). Working directly in streams could • increase sediment loads, which could change water temperature. Working directly in streams 54 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • could also interfere with seasonal movements of sensitive fish species. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through use of construction BMPs. Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, deicer, and the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials would increase, which could affect these species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Construction of new water quality ponds could result in an indirect benefit to state threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream. Construction of new culverts or lengthening of existing culverts would adversely affect sensitive fish species by increasing shading or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Stream habitat could be improved through the replacement of existing culverts with more numerous culverts or free-spanning bridges. Removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit sensitive fish species. Invertebrates Cylindrical papershell and stonefly Types of potential impacts to aquatic invertebrates from the proposed project would be • similar to impacts to sensitive fish species. Potential adverse effects to these species during construction could include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads, which would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species. Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, including deicer, and would increase the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials, which could affect these species. Construction of new water quality ponds could result in an indirect benefit to state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic invertebrates by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream. Butterflies and moths The sandhi]] fritillary, Argos skipper, Ottoe skipper, and dusted skipper would not be affected by the proposed project because they are unlikely to occur in the project area. Impacts to the two-spotted skipper, Moss' elfin, rhesus skipper, cross-line skipper, and modest sphinx moth could occur, but limited habitat for these species occurs in the project area. Any loss of native prairie could result in loss of habitat for these species. • 55 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL NICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Terrestrial Wildlife Big Game • Direct effects to big game species such as mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk could include displacement during construction and disturbance from increased light and human activity near the project area. The most substantial impacts to big game species would result from habitat fragmentation, disruption of movement corridors, and potential increases in collisions with vehicles as described below under Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors. Other Mammals The project could result in effects to other mammals from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway or railway rights-of-way. Potential direct effects of the proposed project would include loss of habitat, especially grassland habitat; dispersal of individuals to new territories, disruption of migration and other seasonal movements, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation due to increased distance between habitat on either side of the highway. Potential impacts to wildlife crossing areas and movement corridors are described in more detail below under Wildlife Crossing Areas and • Movement Corridors. Birds Raptors Direct effects to raptors could include loss of highway right-of-way hunting habitat. Loss of hunting habitat would most likely effect common, human-tolerant species such as red-tailed hawks and American kestrels. Raptors requiring large trees for nesting, or perching would be temporarily affected where trees could be cut down or where trees are located close to highway or railway improvements. Indirect effects include increased potential for raptor collisions with vehicles as a result of increased traffic, behavioral disturbance induced by encroachment of human activities within 0.25 to 0.33 mile of nests (Craig 2002), increased noise, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Some behavioral disturbance could be temporary as raptors adapt to the changed environment. Other migratory birds Potential effects to migratory birds from the proposed project would include habitat loss, displacement during construction, increased habitat fragmentation, and destruction of nests • during construction. A temporary loss of habitat would occur when grassy areas are cleared 56 WILDLIFE TECI INICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMHELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • and grubbed during construction, or when structures used for nesting are replaced. Ground- nesting birds would likely be most affected because the grasslands would be the habitat most affected by the project. Migratory birds using riparian areas could be temporarily displaced during bridge widening and replacement activities, and their nests could be disturbed or destroyed. Cliff swallows, which often nest on bridges and overpasses, could be directly affected by nest destruction or nesting disturbance during bridge replacement. Most direct impacts to nests will be avoided by implementing timing restrictions and other mitigation measures described in the mitigation section. Indirect effects include increased disturbance due to noise and light from vehicles, and increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. Reptiles and Amphibians The proposed project could affect habitat for reptiles and amphibians. In general, effects to reptiles and amphibians would result from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway rights-of-way. Direct effects could include mortality from being crushed by equipment during construction. Other potential effects could include loss of grasslands, riparian and wetland habitat; dispersal of individuals to new territories, disruption of migration and other seasonal movements, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality • from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Habitat loss for reptiles and amphibians could also result if roadside ditches are piped or drained as a direct result of the project or as a result of increasing urbanization indirectly related to the project. Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors Roads and transportation corridors have many potential effects on wildlife, including habitat fragmentation, reduced access to habitat, population fragmentation and isolation, disruption of dispersal patterns, and mortality from collisions with vehicles (Jackson 2000). Movement corridors for big game and other wildlife are typically located along riparian corridors and stream crossings in the project area, because bridges and culverts at these locations provide an opportunity for wildlife to cross under the highway or railway. Underpasses and culverts are used by many species of wildlife during seasonal migrations, or to reach suitable habitat on the other side of the highway or railway (Barnum 2003). Without access to crossing sites such as culverts or bridges, wildlife either avoid crossing, resulting in isolation from suitable habitat, or risk being killed by vehicles while attempting to cross the • highway. 57 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Big game movement corridors in riparian areas would be temporarily disrupted during bridge widening and replacement activities. Many species are more likely to use underpasses • that are wider or more open (Jackson and Griffin 2000; Barnum 2003). Replacement of culverts or bridges with larger culverts or bridges could benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the overall openness ratio. East-west movements of deer and other mammals 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 bathers to wildlife movements across the highway, and could change wildlife crossing locations if the current at- grade crossing sites are blocked by walls (Barnum 2003). Collisions with trains have been documented as a source of mortality for wildlife, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk (Wells et al. 1999). Therefore, the existing BNSF railway probably results in some mortality to wildlife. Currently, the BNSF railway and the proposed commuter rail alignment are not major obstacles to wildlife movement due to the sporadic nature of fencing along the alignment, the small size of the fences (three-strand barbed wire), and relatively low frequency of rail traffic. The Regional Transportation District(RTD) would •install 6-foot-high chain link fences along the entire commuter rail corridor for safety purposes. Fences on both sides of rail alignments can trap wildlife between walls without any escape route, resulting in mortality. Construction of new retaining walls along the rail alignment would also create new barriers to wildlife movement. Where retaining walls are present, the fences would be located along the top of the retaining wall. Implementation of the Package A transit alternatives would create a substantial barrier to wildlife movement because of the new fences and retaining walls, and would result in habitat fragmentation by isolating patches of wildlife habitat on opposite sides of the rail alignment. Retaining walls and fences typically funnel wildlife movements toward existing underpasses and crossing sites (Barnum 2003). Bridges and culverts would therefore become much more important for wildlife movement after construction of the proposed commuter rail. Sensitive Wildlife Habitats Impacts to sensitive wildlife habitats could include loss of wildlife habitat, disruption of wildlife movement corridors, potential loss of habitat for threatened and endangered species such as Preble's and bald eagle, and potential indirect effects to aquatic species. Potential effects are described under the impact sections for federally listed threatened, endangered, and • candidate species; wildlife species of concern; terrestrial wildlife; and aquatic resources. 58 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Aquatic Resources Potential impacts to other aquatic species would be similar to the impacts previously described for sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrates, and could include temporary loss of habitat due to work within streams, increased sediment loads during construction, and interference with seasonal movements. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, including deicer, and would increase the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials, which could affect aquatic species. Wider bridges would cause greater shading of streams, potentially altering stream temperature. New stations and parking lots would increase impervious surface area, leading to increased runoff to nearby streams. Construction of new water quality ponds could result in an indirect benefit to aquatic resources by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream. Construction of new culverts or lengthening existing culverts would adversely affect fish by increasing shading or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Stream habitat would be improved • through the replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts or free-spanning bridges. Removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit fish. Mitigation and Recommendations This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to wildlife, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife would be incorporated into the proposed project, including avoiding sensitive habitat, using BMPs to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. The proposed project area falls within the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative. In January 2004, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and public and private partners agreed on a"Shortgrass Prairie Initiative" as an alternative way to address species impacts in the eastern third of the state. The Shortgrass Prairie Initiative (initiative) provides programmatic clearance for CDOT activities on the existing road network in the eastern third of Colorado for the next 20 years. Covered • transportation projects include; 1) bridge repairs for all existing bridges, 2) approximately 4,310 miles of resurfacing/overlays and accompanying shoulder improvements, 3) 59 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LA RIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO maintenance along existing transportation corridors, and 4) safety, reconstruction, capacity and other transportation improvements (USFWS 2004b, Venner 2001). • The Biological Assessment (BA) includes all of I-25 within Colorado. A Biological Opinion (BO) was issued by the USFWS, which covers the bald eagle and 29 species of concern (USFWS 2003b). The BO includes a list of measures to minimize effects to the bald eagle, including protecting off-site shortgrass prairie habitat and implementation of on-site BMPs. The BO also includes proposed conservation measures for sensitive, nonlisted species including black-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, native fish and mussels (including brassy minnow, common shiner, plains minnow, and cylindrical papershell), and northern leopard frog. The BO lists BMPs for each of these species and provides that if any of these species are listed, the appropriate protective measures will be incorporated into the BO. The BO was amended in February 2008 to address the change in status for the bald eagle (USFWS 2008). The Shortgrass Prairie Initiative does not cover Preble's because CDOT is engaging in a separate consultation for this species in Douglas and El Paso counties (USFWS 2003 b). Other species explicitly not covered in the BO include black-footed ferret and Ute ladies tresses' orchid. • Specific mitigation recommendations, in addition to those in the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, are described below. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse • Mitigation measures for occupied Preble's habitat may be required as part of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS for impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species. Mitigation measures would focus on avoidance and minimization of impacts during construction. Avoidance and minimization measures include limiting timing of construction to Preble's inactive season (November through April) or use of visible barriers to limit the area of construction. • If culverts in Preble's habitat are replaced or upgraded, the new culverts could incorporate ledges to facilitate small mammal passage. • Where impacts are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation would be provided through replacement with suitable habitat for Preble's. Mitigation measures for Preble's could be combined with wetlands mitigation. Wetland mitigation measures may also replace any impacts to suitable unoccupied Preble's habitat. • 60 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER.LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other Federally Protected Species • Bald Eagle • A raptor nest survey (to include bald eagles)would be conducted prior to construction to identify bald eagle nests near the project area. If an active bald eagle nest is found within %2 mile of the project area, the buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by C DOW (no human encroachment within % mile of the nest from November 15 to July 31) would be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. • No construction would occur within '/ mile of active nocturnal roosts between November 15 and March 15. If perch or roost trees are removed during construction, they would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with cottonwood trees. • Mitigation for wetland impacts would also provide mitigation for impacts to riparian habitats used for foraging by bald eagles. Wildlife Species of Concern Black-tailed Prairie Dog Prairie dog distribution in the project area is likely to change between the time field surveys were conducted and the time construction occurs, so prairie dog colonies would likely need to be resurveyed prior to construction. • In areas where avoidance of prairie dogs is not possible, CDOT would follow its guidelines for mitigating impacts. CDOT's prairie dog guidelines include: • CDOT projects will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts to prairie dog colonies greater than 2 acres in area. • If a colony is less than two acres, but has the potential to expand into areas that are currently inactive(i.e., not constrained), the available and accessible habitat will be the determining size of the area to be considered. • In order to foster a heightened sense of CDOT's ecological stewardship by the public, projects involving towns less than 2 acres in area will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts, which may include the relocation of prairie dogs, so long as doing so will not increase the impacts to other resources (e.g., wetlands, historical properties, environmental justice issues, archeological sites, etc.) and is not cost prohibitive. • The area of prairie dog towns that will be affected by a project will be calculated before construction begins. • Relocation efforts for prairie dog towns greater than two acres shall be conducted in accordance with CRS 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or regulations. • • If a relocation site cannot be located for towns larger than two acres, the prairie dogs will be captured and donated to raptor rehabilitation facilities, or turned over to the USFWS for the black-footed ferret reintroduction program. 61 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTII 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AM)WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • At no time will CDOT authorize earth-moving activities that result in the burying of • living prairie dogs. If needed, humane techniques for the killing of prairie dogs within a town less than two acres in size (recommended humane techniques) will be obtained from CDOW. • Coordination with the CDOW District Wildlife Manager whose area the project is in will be initiated before any manipulation of prairie dogs or their colonies begins. • Due to the possibility of disease vectoring, until further notice, coordination with the Food and Drug Administration will be initiated if any prairie dogs, dead or alive, are to be transported. Western Burrowing Owl • Burrowing owl surveys would be conducted prior to any work in prairie dog colonies between March 15 and October 31 when burrowing owls are present in Colorado (CDOW 2007). If burrowing owls are present, prairie dog removal would be scheduled to occur outside this time period. • If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during preconstruction surveys, nests would be left undisturbed and additional avoidance measures would be developed in coordination with CDOW. No human encroachment or disturbance would occur within 150 feet of a known nesting site until after November 1, or until it can be confirmed that owls have left the prairie dog town (CDOW 2007). • Direct impacts to burrowing owls would be avoided by covering or destroying prairie • dog burrows prior to construction (prior to March 15) in order to prevent burrowing owls from nesting in the construction area. Prairie dogs would be humanely removed following CDOT's prairie dog policy prior to destruction of burrows. Great Blue Heron Direct impacts to nesting great blue herons would be avoided by avoiding work within the 500-meter (0.31 mile) buffer from nest sites recommended by CDOW (NDIS 2006). Impacts within this buffer would be limited during the great blue heron nesting season, which occurs from mid-March through July. Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog • Mitigation measures for wetlands and Preble's, including wetlands replacement and riparian enhancement, would also mitigate for impacts to northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. • Replacement of culverts with larger culverts or free-spanning bridges would also mitigate for potential impacts to northern leopard frog and common gartersnake. State Sensitive Fish The project would comply with SB40, which requires any agency of the State of Colorado • to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream 62 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO or its bank or tributaries. An application for SB40 wildlife certification would be submitted to • CDOW. CDOW would review the plans to ensure that the project adequately protects fish and wildlife resources, and would provide recommendations if the proposed project would adversely affect a stream. To offset temporary impacts to aquatic species from habitat disturbance, aquatic habitats will be restored after construction activities have ceased. The following design measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish: • Ripples and pools will be maintained and/or created. • Natural stream bottoms will be maintained where possible. • Culverts will be partially buried and the bottom will be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient. • Culverts to be replaced will be replaced with one of equal or greater size. • Culverts will not have grates, impact dissipaters, or any other features that would impede fish movement. • To avoid erosion-induced siltation and sedimentation, sediment/erosion control BMPs will be placed during each phase of construction. Upon completion of slope, seeding in • combination with mulch and mulch tackifier or blanket will occur within the limits set in Section 208 of CDOT specifications. • Erosion control blankets will be "wildlife friendly", consisting of 100 percent biodegradable materials. • Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. • No new fish passage barriers will be created. • Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or redesigned where possible. An example is the drop structure located east of the frontage road at 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 designed to offset impacts to wetlands and Preble's, including habitat replacement/enhancement and the replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, would also improve fish habitat. • 63 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Invertebrates The mitigation measures for state-sensitive fish species described above, including SB40 . certification and water quality BMPs, also benefit sensitive aquatic invertebrates such as the cylindrical papershell and Mesocapnia frisoni stonefly. Terrestrial Wildlife This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to wildlife, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife will be incorporated into the proposed project, including avoiding sensitive habitat, using retaining walls to avoid or minimize impacts, using BMPs to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. The following overall mitigation measures would apply to all project components. Big Game and Movement Corridors Impacts to big game will be minimized through construction of crossing structures that are designed to maintain wildlife movement corridors. In areas identified as important movement corridors, the following measures are recommended. These mitigation measures may not be feasible at all wildlife crossing areas due to cost or engineering issues. The locations where these mitigation measures will be implemented will be identified as the preferred alternative is identified and final design is undertaken. To maximize use of movement corridors by wildlife, bridge spans and culverts should have the following features: • A minimum clearance of 10 feet and width of 20 feet for deer(Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). Crossing structures sized for deer would be adequate for most common wildlife. The recommended minimum culvert diameter is 48 inches for medium-sized carnivores and 36 inches for small carnivores (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). • A minimum "openness ratio" of 0.75. The "openness ratio"is defined as the height of the structure multiplied by the structure width and divided by the structure length, measured in meters. A minimum openness ratio of 2.0 is recommended by some researchers (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). • Shrubs and vegetative cover placed at bridge underpass openings to attract wildlife and provide a "funnel effect." • For structures that periodically convey water, provide ledges or shelves as passage alternatives during high water. • 64 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD.DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • To avoid human disturbance to wildlife, trails should not be placed near wildlife • crossing structures, if possible. The wildlife corridor near Ish Reservoir does not occur along a drainage, and construction of a bridge or culvert at this location would be more difficult than at other wildlife corridors. Other recommended design elements include: • Avoid the placement of lighting near the crossing structures (where lighting is required, lights should be directed downward and covered to minimize light spill- over). • Avoid attracting wildlife to the ROW by keeping roadside vegetation height to a minimum. • Mitigate for traffic noise. Other Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians Many other wildlife species, such as small and medium sized mammals, reptiles, and amphibians use the same migration corridors used by larger animals, and would benefit from mitigation measures for wildlife movement corridors described above. Effects to other wildlife • from impacts to grasslands would be mitigated by mitigation measures described for vegetation. . Other sensitive wildlife habitat areas are generally located along major drainageways. Mitigation measures for impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and Preble's habitat would also benefit these areas. Birds Migratory birds For projects that potentially have an impact to migratory birds, CDOT will implement the following mitigation measures: • Tree trimming and/or removal activities will be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. In Colorado, most nesting and rearing activities occur between April I and August 31. However, since some birds nest as early as February, a nesting bird survey will be conducted by a biologist before any tree trimming or removal activities begin. • Bridge or box culvert work that may disturb nesting birds will be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. No bridge or box culvert work will take place between April 1 and August 31. If work activities are planned between these • dates, nests will be removed (before nesting begins) and appropriate measures taken to assure no new nests are constructed. 65 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Clearing and grubbing of vegetation that may disturb ground nesting birds will be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. If work activities 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 (Appendix D). Surface occupancy is defined as human-occupied buildings and other structures such as oil and gas wells, roads, railroad tracks, and trails. The USFWS typically considers that implementation of the CDOW buffers and seasonal restrictions fulfill compliance requirements of the MBTA for raptors. A raptor nest survey would be conducted prior to project construction to identify raptor nests in the vicinity of the proposed project. If an active raptor nest is found on-site, the recommended buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by CDOW (Craig 2002, Appendix D) for raptors will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. If disturbance of raptor nests is unavoidable, mitigation measures could include the • construction of artificial nests in suitable habitat or enhancement of prey habitat. Artificial nests would be constructed in the same general area as impacts. If raptor nests would be impacted by the proposed project, specific mitigation measures for impacts to nesting raptors would be developed in coordination with CDOW and USFWS prior to construction. Aquatic Resources The mitigation measures for state-sensitive fish species described above, including SB40 certification, design measures to benefit fish, and water quality BMPs, would also benefit other aquatic resources. Mitigation measures designed to offset impacts to wetlands and Preble's, including habitat replacement/enhancement and the replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, would also improve fish habitat. • 66 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • List of Preparers and Contacts Made Preparers: Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation Project Description and Plans Provided By: Felsburg, Holt&Ullevig Experts Consulted: Alison Deans Michael, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Sandy Vana-Miller, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Mike Sherman, CDOW Habitat Conservation Biologist Shannon Albeke, CDOW Fisheries Biologist Harry Crockett, CDOW Fisheries Biologist Sherry Huwer, CDOW Biologist Mark Vierra, CDOW Biologist Aimee Ryel, CDOW District Wildlife Manager Chad Morgan, CDOW District Wildlife Manager Mark Leslie, CDOW Area Wildlife Manager [any Rogstad, CDOW District Wildlife Manager Carol Parr, CDOT Region 4 Jeff Peterson, CDOT Endangered Species Biologist Jim Eussen, CDOT Biologist Doug Moore, City of Fort Collins Environmental Planner • 67 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO References . Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. Armstrong, D. M., M. E. Bakeman, A. Deans, C. A. Meaney, and T. R. Ryon. 1997. Report on habitat findings of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Boulder, CO. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Austin, J., M. Ferguson, G. Gingras, and G. Bakos. 2003. Strategies for Restoring Ecological Connectivity and Establishing Wildlife Passage for the Upgrade of Route 78 in Swanton, Vermont: An Overview. pp. 253-259. In ICOWET III Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Lake Placid, NY. August 24-29. Barnum, S. A. 2003. Identifying the Best Locations along Highways to Provide Safe Crossing Opportunities for Wildlife: A Handbook for Highway Planners and Designers. Colorado Department of Transportation, in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Baxter, G. T. and M. D. Stone. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 290 pp. Beane, R. D. 1996. Raptor Habitat Relationships at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. MSC. Thesis. University of Colorado at Denver. Denver, CO. Beuhler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. 506 (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Boyle, S. 1998. Spotted owl. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.). Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. • Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. 1998. Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Adopted March 1998, amended September 1999 and October 2000. Available at: http://www.fcgov.comiadvanceplanning/pdf/fossil-creek-doc.pdf. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2003. Guidelines for Senate Bill 40 wildlife certification developed and agreed upon by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado Department of Transportation. January. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005. Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy. Memorandum. March 4. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2001. Colorado Gap Analysis Project Land Cover Classification System. Available at: http://ndisl.nrel.colostate.edu/cogap/landcover. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2002. Unpublished black-tailed prairie dog mapping data. Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW). 2005a. Bald eagle species profile. Colorado Division of Wildlife website. Updated December 2, 2005. Available at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WllifeSpecies/Profiles/Birds/baldeagle.htm. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 20056. Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened, and Wildlife Species of Special Concern. Available at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/Lis • tOfThreatenedAndEndangeredSpecies.htm. Last updated December 14, 2005. 68 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTII I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER.BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005c. Confidential unpublished sampling data from study area, provided by S. Albeke, Fisheries Biologist. September 26. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005d. NDIS habitat metadata. Available at: http://ndi s.nrel.colostate.edu/website/mapi t/presentati on/support/metadata.asp?color—green. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2006a. Black-footed ferret species profile. Colorado Division of Wildlife website. Available at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WldlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcem/Mammals/BlackfootedFerret.ht m. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2007. Recommended survey protocol and actions to protect nesting burrowing owls. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1996. Vertebrate characterization abstract (Colorado)Zapus hudsonius prehlei. 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 Regional Study Area. Generated October 28, 2005. Cordone, A. J. and D. W. Kelley. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams. California Fish and Game. Volume 47, Number 2, pp. 189—227. April. Craig, G.R. 2002. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife. January 18. Crockett, H. 2006. Personal communication from Harry Crockett, CDOW to James Eussen, CDOT. August 1. Dexter, C. 1998. Great blue heron. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.) 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. EDAW. 2003. Resource Management and Implementation Plan for Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space. Prepared for Larimer County and City of Fort Collins. Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. Gamble, N. 2006. Bald Eagle Watch 2006 Report, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Field Office. Huwer, S. 2006. Personal communication from Sherry Huwer, CDOW to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18. Jackson, S. D. 2000. Overview of Transportation Effects on Wildlife Movement and Populations. Pp. 7-20 In Messmer, T. A. and B. West, (eds)Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. Jackson, S. D. and C. R. Griffin. 2000. A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Effects on Wildlife. Pp. 143-159 In Messmer, T. A. and B. West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: • Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. Jasikoff, T. M. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: ferruginous hawk. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. FWS/OBS-82/10.10. 18 pp. 69 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Jones, S. R. Burrowing Owl. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.) 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Kingery, H. E. (ed.) 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Martell, M. 1992. Bald Eagle Winter management guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reg. 3, Minneapolis, MN. Meaney, C. A., A. Deans, N. W. Clippenger, M. Rider, N. Daly, and M. O'Shea-Stone. 1997. Third year survey for Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. Boulder, CO. Under contract to Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2006. Wildlife Species Pages. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available at: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team (NSBERT). 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 76 pp. Opler, P. A., H. Pavulaan, and R. E. Sanford(coordinators). 1995. Butterflies of North America. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. Available at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/bflyusa.htm (Version 12DEC2003). Power, M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes, B. A. Menge, W. T. Bond, L. S. Mills, G. Daily, J. C. Castilla, J. Lutchonco, and R. T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the Quest for Keystone Species. BioScience 46:609-620. Preston, C. R. 1998. Ferruginous Hawk. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.). Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Probst, D.L. 1982. In Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's Little Fish: A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known Fishes in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 77 pp. Quinn, T. and R. Milner. 2004. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias). In E. M. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds [Online]. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/gbheron.htm. Downloaded on July 17, 2006. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2007. Unpublished Bald Eagle Watch Data. Ruediger, B. and M. DiGiorgio. 2007. Safe Passage: A user's guide to developing effective highway crossings for carnivores and other wildlife. Produced by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project. Ryel, A. 2006. Personal communication from Aimee Ryel, CDOW, to Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation. September. Ryon, T. R. 1996. Evaluation of historical capture sites of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in Colorado. Final Report. MSES Thesis University of Colorado at Denver. May 1. Sherman, M. 2006. Personal communication from Mike Sherman, CDOW, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. June 19. Smith, R. E. 1967. Natural History of the Prairie Dog in Kansas. University of Kansas • Museum of Natural History Misc. Publication No. 49. 70 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on • Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities Conservation Biology 14 (1), 18-30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Black-footed ferret survey guidelines for compliance with Endangered Species Act. Denver, CO and Albuquerque,NM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003a . Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. April 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 2003b. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Impacts to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Associated with FHWA Funding of CDOT's Routine Maintenance and Upgrade Activities on Existing Transportation Corridors of Eastern Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding for a Petition to Delist the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse in Colorado and Wyoming and Initiation of a 5-Year Review; Federal Register; 69: 16944- 16946. March 31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2004b. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. January. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004c. Survey Guidelines for Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. USFWS, Colorado Field Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005a. Letter to Jeff Peterson, Colorado • Department of Transportation Endangered Species Specialist, from Susan C. 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). 2007. USFWS Block-cleared Areas for Black- Footed Ferret Surveys in Colorado, July 2007. Map produced by USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2008. Amendment to the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. February 5. Vana-Miller, S. 2006. Personal communication from Sandy Vana-Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. February 27. 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. Wells, P., J. G. Woods, G. Bridgewater, and H. Morrison. 1999. Wildlife mortalities on railways: monitoring methods and mitigation strategies. p. 85-88 In ICOWET III International Conference On Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, Missoula, Montana, • September 13-16. Whicker, A. D. and J. K. Detling. 1988. Ecological Consequences of Prairie Dog Disturbances. BioScience, 38:778-785. 71 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO White, G. C. and T. M. Shenk. 2000. Relationship of Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Densities to Vegetation Cover. Colorado Division of Wildlife Report. • Winternitz, B. L. 1998. Black-necked stilt. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.). Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Witmer, G. W., K. C. VerCauteren, K. M. Manci, and D. M. Dees. 2000. Urban-suburban prairie dog management: opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of 19`h Vertebrate Pest Conference. T. P. Salmon and A. C. Crabb, Eds. Published at Univ. of California, Davis. Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's Little Fish: A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known Fishes in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 77 pp. • • 72 Ill APPENDIX A CDOT Impacted Prairie Dog Policy Ill Ill Appendix A i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • i MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THOMAS E. NORTON WO I OT Executive Director 4201 E.Arkansas Avenue, Room 262 Denver, CO 80222 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (303) 757-9201 DATE: March 4, 2005 TO: Executive Management Team FROM: Tom Norton SUBJECT: Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy Over the winter of 2004-2005 the Chief Engineer, RPEMs, and RTDs agreed upon the following policy for addressing Black-tailed prairie dogs that will be impacted by CDOT projects. These guidelines should be applied to all CDOT activities that affect Black- tailed prairie dogs. 1) CDOT projects will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts to prairie dog colonies greater than two acres in area; 2) If a colony is less than two acres, but has the potential to expand into areas that are currently inactive (i.e., not constrained), the available and accessible habitat will be the determining size of the area to be considered; 3) In order to foster a heightened sense of CDOT's ecological stewardship by the public, projects involving towns less than two acres in area, will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts, which may include the relocation of prairie dogs, so long as doing so will not increase the impacts to other resources (e.g. wetlands, historical properties, environmental justice issues, archeological sites, etc.) and is not cost prohibitive; 4) The area of prairie dog towns that will be affected by a project will be calculated before construction begins; 5) Relocation efforts for prairie dog town greater than two acres shall be conducted in accordance with CRS 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or regulations; 6) If a relocation site cannot be located for towns larger than two acres, the prairie dogs will be captured and donated to raptor rehabilitation facilities, or turned over the FWS for the black-footed ferret reintroduction program; 7) At no time will CDOT authorize earth-moving activities that result in the burying of • living prairie dogs. If needed, humane techniques for the killing of prairie dogs within a town < 2 acres in size, will be obtained from CDOW; Page 2 Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy March 4, 2005 • 8) Coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife's District Wildlife Manager whose area the project is in, will be initiated before any manipulation of prairie dogs or their colonies begins; 9) Due to the possibility of disease vectoring, until further notice, coordination with the Food and Drug Administration will be initiated if any prairie dogs, dead or alive, are to be transported. The matrix below outlines the steps and the order they are to be taken based on the preconstruction area of an affected prairie dog town. Preconstruction area of available prairie dog habitat' / \ greater than 2 acres less than two acres 1st Avoid and minimize impacts Avoid and minimize impacts 2nd Relocate Donate to ferret program and/or raptor rehab program 3rd Donate to ferret program and/or Humanely euthanize2 raptor rehab program • 41h Humanely euthanize2 1. Area of land able to be used by prairie dog that may or may not be occupied; calculated before a project begins. 2. Aluminum phosphate capsules, carbon monoxide gas cartridges or carbon dioxide gas cartridges are currently recommended, but not the exclusion of any future technologies that may be developed. Background On February 4, 2000 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classified the black-tailed prairie dog as a candidate species for protection under the Endangered Species Act. In October of that same year the State of Colorado designated the black- tailed prairie dog a Species of Concern. On January 8, 2002 I signed a memo outlining guidelines for the relocation of black- tailed prairie dogs impacted by CDOT activities. Subsequently, the USFWS has removed the black-tailed prairie dog from the federal candidate species list. However, the State of Colorado has retained it on their list of species of concern. It is important that CDOT adopt a statewide strategy that will assist in diminishing the negative effects that transportation related activities have on the continued survival and recovery of the species. Adopting a pro-active departmental policy under the authority of CDOT may help minimize the possibility of federal listing of the black-tailed prairie • dog in the future and is consistent with State and Transportation Commission policy direction. Page 3 Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy March 4, 2005 Policy Basis The Transportation Commission has adopted policy statements and policy statements and policy guidance in the 2020 Statewide Transportation Plant adopted November 2000, that direct CDOT activities. These include: "Statewide Transportation Policy on the Environment: CDOT will promote a transportation system that is environmentally responsible and encourages preservation of the natural and enhancement of the created environment for current and future generations. We will incorporate social, economic, and environmental concerns into the planning design, construction, maintenance and operations of the states existing and future transportation system. With the active participation of the general public, federal, state and local agencies, we will objectively consider all reasonable alternatives to avoid or minimize adverse impacts." and: "Environmental Policy Guidance: The Transportation Commission supports pro-active techniques to mitigate impacts of the transportation system on the environment by developing creative strategies that: • Comprehensively address anticipated environmental impacts of the state transportation system. • Consider project enhancements in affected communities in a cost effective manner consistent with the mission of the Department; and • Expedite project development." • S THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. S • APPENDIX B Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians Known to Occur in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado • • Appendix B S THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. S • 0 7O at h E •L R L .. v > a S e c6 Q C a u i 0 a u c.) r 73 L g 'O O 'O 'u 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O O -a O O 'O 'O 'O O O 'D E 'O W y au .J N O O D u O N u u N N u U u u u u u O O o �r/O 2 ,L ,% .i u a ^ c c ^ c c c "' c c ^ ".A c ^ A c c " c 6 c: 060: 00003 ,0005005000500000 02 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ L d 9 O :0 GJ cc 0 C • .9 R z V C CC co Z c 0 > .. 0 c 0 O v C L u .c ..3 E ?t C Ct Cp 'C m .1-) 6 u ° Vi ?o d a - '' c > L Z y z -. s 0. u �. o c - ' F rs. O S 000 - . c u Q O• o ` V c o o z : L - r - - .t c . ca-ii a W ¢ 0C h� Q 4 C1 ., cc W 4. U U' R, G 4, 4. Q Z R- h,' C Q 2 O C H C CJ el a ct ° s 7 to o o w ° c) 3O Co C E n h Q E -a .L -0 [i R O C C .. a e c, c ❑ u :a Y a o , o u 3 u u b E . -' m h u • 8 ti>. v E F o U R 0 N .Q ° o o G 0 o u u Q. :CO L - b p o o N j .9 h ° ¢ m U U O O 0 1 a a C ce F E. 3 u cQ V a .ro U -� a m U c O c ^ ^ ^ c c ❑ c c ❑ c - = m F" t t6 C 03 ca c0 ca cC ca @ @ F co cO ca et c] ca cC O ° p, 0 u v) o -c v U U O O O O O o u o O O O 'o 'C 'c 'C 'C. 'C 'C 0 - o — ❑ o m O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 O G o a 2 o ° .E an o ° u E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E x t a a a c c a a E A O N N Ui N N N V.' N ✓/ N • Ci E E E E E C., E E E '� •v b o 'o o "v a 10 to -o o v o 'o 7 o F ¢ ¢ -ct ¢ ¢ ¢ Q Q Q m m m m m c0 c0 m co c] m c cc c] co coca E R • eIll IJ is 'o 'o a is -o 9 'o is is 'o is is is is 'o 'o 'O 2] 'o -o IS 'o 'o 'o 'O E +0 U 0 C) H W O 0 2 0 3 d ° N V rN N o 0 C.) C) C.C. u ° C) O ._ .- ._ ._ ._ .- .- ... ._ .= .= ... ._ce. ._ ... ... .= .- ... ._cf. .'_n ........tin ._ .= .= ... O • • C C ^ ,'- ^ • c C C ^ ^ C C C c C c ^ C C •'; C C � h. 000000000005 50000005000006 CC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZ Z L aJ .fl C O CO a cc E O S - c -.3.2 eC ea z sti .y k C) �. K C a+ S C C C U C 'k e .. V C 3 � y e, c V c u ; '...E- -- „ F y E. C C L '� .,`p 71 v `�'' .pp C Z S 3 r V [ E o- o- • Co UOm V V Z -0 v •-— -——. -—"• "--- C". "CC Co' 4 to 4' ' O N 6 C Q C C x :C. u o f a y $ z 4.a V i C z T CO L U h C U C. U 4 a e "Cl: Z O O c 2 N C aJ - 0 o F ° o aq v Q o v L " Y 'a E on m 'a '¢. '� i 3 3 tli w m c. s 0 ca b U 2 o p 0 -o b m eCe C.) = i U o a^o 3 _to _ T w 3 = 0 a. c 3 a x h y o` 'w 3 3 3 �Y �o ° ° 3 0 0 o ^ — o s oL v u d m E ct O 3 > -a o n. C o,' rn E- .a P - y v u ❑ a 'D - .O 1 O rn y . X X Y 44 Y Y Y Y .L .Y X 1 .Y ,x X • .• _ E Et — —t = -63 m a A n m m m m m m m el m A C. ea m ti R co o co v ° y CO an m co C7 co co co CO m co C1 CO CO CO CC CO CO C1 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO a y "a O. La L 'O 'O ^7 `O 'oo -o o L 'O 'os. 'O 'O 'o -vp o -o 'o 'up O -0 'Q -o 'co: cn O -o up b 'O -o -o 'o Ct V L L_ L_ L_ C. L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L_ cC X 0] 0] 0] C] CO 07 C0 MM =m = CO m CO CO CO CO CO CO m CO SO CO M CO CO E o 0 • '° R L cle R L h d = R Ci CA d w b -c t -0 'D 'O '0 -0 '0 t '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 -0 b 'O 'O 9 E v U v d C) 200020 0 V .2 .� .0 .2 .� ... .2 .2 .I .6 �0 �0 �) C .N. ..N. .'.!' .1 ..N.. m m m 1 ' m m m O y' 00000000000800000505 550003 CO Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z z Z i 0 _ 0 0.1 u o E R A R z i s 06 'O i- u W N o c y c o .r.'2 £ •_ y -c _ N o c c C � n 6 u 'a. c i 'S, y z, cc y c -z as ,,: c C - y "• V O e U 0 U' a Q O §, .1 e w �°' w U ti -. 00 0. N c 00 Q c 0 x CA E R b -c E R <C - C -0 ILO "Cl Z Z 3 O U _ Y L • E s- a R OD •b EE c30 ti: o ^l U V� o N 3 = ._ O 9 17 y. raj G� U m x r at at'O E u 'a cxd m H m v m T o a m 'C �, `2" R V o o L c C>-. 3 3 m v ,_ 2 ,-03 ccl A A O '—° = C7 c 0 O T cy .G x mcts O ,, , ',73 U F^ 0 L L -- a -c y R CC 0 0 6 66 ;i5' ,22 m 3 3 B E 3 3 3 3 F. ... G o O s8... O o O o o O S. @ A 6 03 u m m m 1' co m m 00 Oc 00 0] 0] m m m m m cc m m m m U U U U h ▪ a L = �] 0 ^ 6 N N N N N N N N N V. N N c U 'O 'O ."0 'O -O 'O 'O -O '0 9 'O 'O 'O V 'O 'O 9 'O 'O 'D V 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O ce i. W cc OM cc 03 cc cc E 0c cc cc c0 co 61 m m m cc c0 m Oc c cc m corm E R • 7 2 • ] - — - — — al ] CI k § E \ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ7ZZzz } } } ) \ } ) } IC le E _ ( « S < - _ y _ - f ) \ / 0O , _ _ ` _' - \ � 5 ) \ \ . . , ' \ \ \ : ( - \ § a } ( _ - - _ : « ® \ \ • .< ± \ � ( ( � ' � \ \ \ \ \ ) \ \ \ \ \ \ / - 0000 - 7 � - 3 « \ z72G : : / \ \ / } } } / / \ ) ) \ / j \ \ = 4 et & k Z - ! ! , ! J , } \ e "0 ) : ; g \ \ » - O - \ ! - \ : ( \ \ / } ± k u / & ± ) f > \ ) G } } 7 ) � ® - 3d22y ; ; 2a f = nj9)cc LI] = ait,,- 0 / 000000 _ _ _ } \ ) j ) ) ) z - g ± 3 = - - - - 000000000 # uuuuuuG3Cr ( C / j / 0uu02Juuuuu CL L.wc � f ) / f5559 ) 59 ) 9955 ) 59 § g4 = g � = asEseEEaaEaaaaaaaaaa § 2 ± § 2G 2 - - -- - | 2 I • a a C c L 0.4 1. ea c rr U 6 c ea 6 A C b O O V Td(f, 'O 'O 'O 'O 'C 9 'O 'O ,O 'O 'O -c 'O .'O -o 'O -O -o o 'O t -o 'O 'O '0 -c E 00000000C) 000022200002 0 O 0 O O 0 V. O O O O U 2 2 O O O O 2 2 0 O 0 O f � � a s. O O O O O O O O tn 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O O R O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 00 Z Z Z z z Z Z z z Z z z 2 Z Z Z Z Z co, Z z Z Z Z Z Z i d b 7 O O, O 4'. ^ 'i c z ., c� o ,fl C (� 3 c. y c; -C oc a o W C+ L d t y " fi C v x C -- _ r ,v d u 7 V u C c , r r. Lt y > i �Ct r. i z s L. :� C - 3 'C ^ ^ E � O o t. e t C 0 c y ea ea s z t O a t i ' a E 0 - >, F c -0 .uo. -0 :n L ° = .0 •-• - S 3 p pp 3 t a E v �- .o , o co O o nq m o 0 OOO 0 fii 3 C7 o Ur. un v E E 0 • r5 o 'u . c >. a c G c " E 0, . °CO t E 0 up • (CO C 0 O O O 0 u OO O o scy m n m m N 0 > 0 R O O ° R E Ca U U U U U o p o 0 o m m m .0 m m .0 w w 'w a w w w o a. a CM it ©. L 7 © 1. N Vi ce, V: En vn U. r.c 6o VI con VD It o U. Vi V1 VI U. V, U 7. '2 p "O o 'O 'O 'o 'I 'o 7 'v 'o 7 o 'o 'o 'O 'o 'o 'C 'o 'O 'O 'o 'O (/ i.. L 1.. S. V L. _ ._ L L _ 4- V L. L _ L 1. R CC CC CO CC M CO m CC CO CO CO CO CO 07 CO CO OC CO CO m 0] CO CO CO 0:1 CO E c 0 ato i — — — — — — C cs L la E i. cs u ,at aJ _ Y Y Q cop U e. 9 O ✓ @ it, 'O 't b 'D - t b 'D 'a -J 'O 'O TJ 'O 'O 'v .O 'O 'D 'O 'D 'O b 'D 'O 'O E ° C.) 0 ° Cl ° C.). le C) O 0 U U 0 ° N ° C) C) C • h v, <n v: <n v, w v. En C. En h v, y, C C ^• C C C C • G C C ^ ir p n C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A O a O O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z cn Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z L d .O C C CC y • a s 04 'O 0 U G y 01 y z C .. w c., 44 zh •c+ 7 C :• i „ n 3 C > k•Q O ° G 3 0 0 " ^ u0 c 4 Y c v u ,c 3 L ▪ c a • ') e C 0 e g m a e e m` [r^ C� v e Q R" CV co 0. e a w 3 a a Y G u u F A cca o .. v t Z 0 _ u u 6 e 3 A C.) E o r 1-, E' G O ' ° 3 8. a Cth. 'o u 2 v ..u�. -o v z ." o — F-• .D a La- 0 V `� c . " a c`°i ° 3 u u c •a o a cmi .7-7. v 'a o 'e , o v 'o 3 at Lt' • ° m v ca. = c QC n v 3 > .� _ '3 5. 3 0 'D 'O u T >, >1 T T, R Cl 71 Ct A ' m CO 7 A R U C) NE ct ° ° R A A R CO A N 8222222222222 .4. R.; m 3 c7 J O 3 U 3 U U 3 L 3 c.7 3 J 3 3 c.7 3 3 3 C7 3 J z 2 cc P o• a L C U' 'O 7. 'O '0 'O 'O 7. 7. '0 C 7 'cc 0 'O 'd 'O2 L '0 'O 'O 7. '0 'd 'D ct 7, 'NO 7 R CO 07 co W 07 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 07 CO CC CO 07 CO CO CO CC 07 07 CO CC 417 E R 0 • 9 G R .:• t, U E T. a s an > S y L" VD o ✓ 5. (a, -0 O - 'O 'O 'O -0 ^J 'O 'O b 4 'O 'O 9 'O 9 b -0 'O 'O 'D N 'O 9 b E i N ti U O N u u o N i 0 0 o N a rN N u O N u Q y L r. C C C " C ^ C ^ C ^ C C ^ C C C ^ C 2 o ^ C 0 PCI z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z eA z Z Z it U 'D C O s E 9 z E © Z s c L c a 3 00 Q a w., ^y d 'y O i d Z [ o- d• O 'II u rc 5o CC ^_` s 'i �. F s N.-. ^, c. CS V V •v 3 .y. C 6 3 3 c; "a O d .Y u @ ., 0 v d' C c co ., O v y 0 r �' 3 c © o e ; ^ y c y z i v c c 0 C V N Y C �1 �1 y W C Y I-, C m C� G. Z11. 0 U C Cl U in C �' "11. 1; 3 © c 4 It G C., c E .a A x r Z e. O. p 0 x E O 3 o < E 3 bb t. ^ m u 3 6 ° V @ 6 G r 3 '0 a O ^ —'6 E1 L O @ O U 6 W 3 .G V- 0. '@ C o f F Y u u o .c o C a -a .- ° o c.„) ct m a y `J u. vFi 3 m [= .o E N. a co " ro 0 a v> >- 3 • x x s ' . C' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 C. = A 0' @ 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 2 S S Y S S r S 'S S = Y -] J -) J ._] -J -J .-1 .J H t a L O O m L v, v.. v: .n w v, w vi rn ti y z y z v, r.1 'O 'o 'o 'O 'D -O 4 'O 'v '0 9 b 'o 'O v 'o 'UO 9 b 'O V v 'o 'O 'O 'o II v S. L i. L ,. h. L V. L i. Y-. L L 1. 4 Y. S. L i. L i.. Ts on CO CO cc m CO CO c] CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Ca CO CO CC1 CO CO CO CC CO E cet 0 it S § _ it _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,, _ 6 \ \ § \ / J I \ \ ZZ fe ZZZZZZZZZZ ) / ) } ) Z2ZZZZZ2Z k © a(ct cis ) . � \ -.- -z— \ - _ • : _ E ' _ ` _ ) f \ \ \ : \ ( ) \ \ \ \ { ( \ \ \ ( ~ � , - " \ § ) - \ ) : ® ) % Trl2 ; , § z ; • \\ � � \ ` : ^ _ ° - % / / 2 \ ) } / \ \ \ } { / \ \ § \ } ) a : » . [ \ '. , ' _ , � 44 _ : c � 7, lz ) » \ ! ° > -o } \ \ j \ j \ } \ j j \ \ \ \ / } \ / 262 / » 2 ) ) § waj et▪. E \ ~ i 7 < § ! : ) j \ - . ` % , / \ & 3 ® � { � { _ ! / ( ® O , $ 9 ® � a ■ ; / yU005 : 3 c a : [ % = , 3 ; E 03� : el - � ® -gaa * } \ \ .% CD E \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ \ E _43 - ® ( ( ) ) 55 -=--- \ \ \ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) \ zuuuuj § / ) ) 22 / 5 ) / } ) 2zzzzzzz oi fir � 7 ) f995 ) 959 § ) 5959953555 ) $ 59 a33asEEaasaseeEas3 , 3a3 .65 CB 76EI - 2 — - — - - - - - | 2 0 • t c m ,.: Ill C a L ea y r7 L N NIL ' 0 a N R I; = 0 L 7 -O 10 b 7 'O a w w V '0 9V 7, "0 '0 b N 'C V 'C 'C E 0 p C) N N O b u N CJ O u N CJ o O C) U T V 0 N N C.) L Q7 Z Z Z ,Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z. Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Lc. v) Z Z Z Z L ' et © eC O C it d v _0. tiv E .v z € a 04 'O O S. C u o p 3 C • u ,n u zII c, c, oSc - c - 0 ,� g F Y E E. - - i '4 V U e Q C-) C � a. II V O II, Li, C 4' U UEE,' U K u U 4 C 3 O c 3 h v 0, c R C, L eSc 0 3 0 o .C z On O u `m C7 O. c 3 C _ F E o 0 i ?o 3 a cz Ua. E 3 o w .� m - °' 2 i o a cr. 2 av'i s u v Q, o'o A u ", 3 @`o t7 o CO y a] � C) u '. O sr. O O O O r E. LEA. v > c c"i b' C C ^ 'p. 'm 0 .y J -E- C. 2 Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 O O O C- C. 0. o- n. a c. .c o. a c_ a a a m CG It a L O 6 r Er ct m h vl ct v, w cn v; h En cn cn rn cn cl, cn w vn u, v, cn a; v, H 'C 'O 'O 'C ^2J 'D 'C 'C b 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C b 'C 9 'C 'C O El I C] = o] co on co 00 co m c0 01 m m m 0] m co 9 co m co co co c0 0] 0.1 a O 2 / ] — - — — - ) CO \ CO Ct k2 \ } ) ) } } } } } ) ) } ) } ) } ) ) } ) } ) } ) ) } } k \ § � } e ] j § _0 _ _ . cc ] 2 \ 2 � _ ` � ' 7 \ \ k ( j � � „Jr,' ' - ` � 0 act : _ / \ ) \ \ ( ( \ \ \ } \ ) } \ } \ } ] \ \ } } 2 3 » \ \ \ ) \ / } , \ / } { \ \ \ \ } / / \ / / } \ ) ( 4 ) � \ - , E ■ ` { } ) { \ ( \ \ / } 2 E t ) ` • -oZ } e 7 � c \ \ - .o = s ea ° Z O o ut, 1 a C 3 I 0 0 ) E ! O 2 = ) o e , _ » _ ) \ p6Y2 ± ± e ; 2ta , '; 4 ( _ co ri, t / $ j ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) } \ } ) ) } } } / ) \ ) } CO . . { 7 Lir \ / ) ) 5 ) 595 # § 555 § 55 § 55955 + ) 55 co 5353aEaxaEaEasE53533aa3a E ' — — - - — — — - - q 2 • • t ICI G a b CO U CO C 5 CA C A L .o CC y N L y a v = N C a 'o 4.4 r U it CO C n V C 9 4 9 9 9 'Q b 4 9 9 b b 9 9 b U E N N rJ i N O Ut U. U i C.) C.) O U i U V .2 .) .0 .0 .Ut 8 U - -- r .-- "A .- .v .0 .1 0 ≤- m en o A C ^ ^ .- C ^ ^ G C C C C C C ^ C C U C. �' 00000000000000000000000 C) 00 C: Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ts. 2 Z L u 'O 7 O �, "O• o a r o, _ z a s Z 3 d x Q O C C - f G k 3 • '€ V C .+ v C L p F V ^t ,\ ^ '� F a. --F. C y = o; it d c C. - £ y e c c o Ca a u u c ' ? .^ - _ z y i 4 - g a c . '- o i 3 c fi Gz cc c L . _ ' c -a r o °t c m " U k U Q C' v U 2. EC Cs. U e ti Q 'Y 'C� L 2 CS.J E Y 4.7 ¢ Q a O e co) U O v ) CI E T s z L n u G _ 3 33 < E O T U M N ,fl" ,fl' _G w a v) _ 3 C © ` U a0 h o vii L O m m o t "O .c^^0 `C" 'O' O 'm O a c m .a'CJ N I.. q ^ c on _J m t 'I C - £a. v c u 0] c [a7 d v C, C) 'O .a - 0 O CCO a4 •C C > T .`! O C C c C O O O 0 0 o . CO C 'J O O Q. CC cd A CC N c6 tC 0 U U C) U ^ L' ^ ^ C ^ C CC O 0 0 0 C. C. Ca Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr Cr v) CG c a a L 0] O ^ L on N on co co co (" N N on on N co co. Ut N N. cri /`/1 'o 'o 'a a 7o 'o 'o -o -o -o -o 'vi. -o 'o -o -o •'oLo- -o 'o o o o'o 7o - - - 'a a m m m m m m n CC CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CC DC CO CO CO CO X E a • bI - C CI d E 07 L ri, d 7 C R u CI b 4 Gam. -0 ,0 ^J ^J 'D 'O 'O '9 'O t 'O '9 'O 'O 'tl 'D 'O 'O 'D 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'C `E O o O CJ U W O U. V U. u U N C 0 O N V N N o N O o 0 pc O " ^ ^ C ^ C' ^ C ^ ^ C C C C C ^ C C ^ C C ^ C C -. L' 000000000000000000000000 R 0 CC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 'Z Z Z Cn Z L v 0 O 07 y .. © E z Ca Ca Z C c t d al O C.� R, ., tk ,� G C G p y „L-� Z C C E C tt C C ` c C ., . "z C O C S G •L U CI) Y .C G e, 0, 70T y o ] O t v 0 Y - v L ,\C y • C G N G V C 'y y c o i c , c £ d ".%, C.) 4 'v U CZ CJ 2 > Y Q E•-•-' U CJ COC U �' C > > vi ,- 4.s 3 © G ^.C H C u R_ E .0 a t z x a o = Cl 0 o 1 O O a © a 5 „o c' ., c d E a z F or. A 3 ct N 3 3 .R > o a55 O o cl U F,cor 4- o o o v' u , :o ;cc i° ri > F- o vC u rC 0] m C7 clo T Z to ' o. .� "ro ro P. 3 3 c' c x `° -o cot a —z .co .yo p v N co y o 0. L 7 CO 0 V h `n in w v, in v, :n Lc 's; v, `n en m m 'O "y 'C 'O "2 'O 'O '~O 'O 'D 'O 7 'D 'O 'O 'O 'O 'D V2 "2 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O �a m m m co m co co co CO CC m CO CC CO m CO CC] CO CO m m m m CO CO CO a R • • b To et b a Nu ECO G C ttl L .o C v L z A a) 7 a t e ia) c7 ti O to it o co C Liz 'o no no 'o -o b in -o co -o -o -o n0 9 Po -o -o -o ° 'C -o -o -o no no -o EE. " o 3 m a? C.) o m CD ° 2 2 d ° N ID 2 0 I _ o • •- = C G C • C C C C C C c C C b C •G C.• c L 0 O 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O y O 0 O O 0 0 O z z z z z z Z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Y. CU ' a © Qa u z s E - E 0 C C < o, C R z c i o nc (, C cc x .J c _ c s i V s Z ., c z , a C' L aJ d C S d 3 C G S 3 c o. u o s c -Z * ? "8 .� 'a .i .---. .r.: z a .� - 8 4 .V c Q O "c V zs W c = , , o c o --. - •_• V ic v`; 'v O Q PC C 'v ? i� N C Ci J N Q v U U hC W C S [— C C 0 c C aV cet E aR 3 .- s G. C3 _ ` . C - 3 c� A k y o`°n k t o 3 ° I V < E 3 c ‘t ,,,r,c °U" Z `a `� ct U rig C) co - o o E o P 3 m o v p b o -C a i N M C o •5 V R t b' ° 5' ° A 3 n c v o o c °a° r )'-' on o —'' a 3 °'. CI U Y 2 VD v: cn I-- 3 C o U E a o o co E '5 .o 3 3 c `c. E v. y, as u 2 N 0i o 2 6 0 2 2 EJ o m v � & o .a ro o ° ° y rra CJ 000000 u 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0. r -o ni s.. a [2" C L N N. h Vi Vi V: Vi y I Vi N Va N. ID V 'O 'O 'O 'O -o 7. 'O 'O 'O 'O -o 'O 'O 'C 'C 'O 'O 7. 'F. 'O 'O 'o 'O 'C 'C 7. y _ i. _ _ L_ S. C - _ _ L_ L_ _ L_ L_ L' _ L_ 1. _ L'. _ L_ L' _ C 0] CO CO CO M CO CO CO CO CO °] CO 0] co 0] co c7 0] CO 0] CO CO CO CO CO O] E E C SS S / 2 - - - - - -O Q., 2 . \ o. E on a % 2 \ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ) } ) } } ) } } ©tt co o § � } e ) ) ) - _ _ aE ) f5 \ • ' - ) \ \ ) j ) � E % 3 > ± a , ) ) / « • k ) } � ( ' : ; lam \ y / J ; ! fo § \ \ ( / § } \ \ j \ \ \ ) \ } ! . % / \ / a ! , ' 3 \ \ / / \ \ ) \ ) ) \ / ) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 2 \ \ } } \ © ci & \ 2 � 2 2 cza ) / \ k ; \ ( \ \ ( s & § B 2 \ J » \ e } E = a � a ; gtws ; asJ2 / E ° 2 / / . aJ CI t / } ) / / 22 § } \ 7 « \ 6 ; 27 § 7 \ 3 ., ! ( ( } ( ( zaJ4gJElee } » \ mja } } 222 « 2y ) ) \ \ } \ \ \ \ ) } \ ) ) / \ \ \ / . wi § 2 . . § J ; § ; l ; m ; / ; ! § § / ( § § 2 } IC-.1. 5 $ § r § Ee § ; § # e § CE ; EE ; a 5 = sa = 3 E2222272222222222 CI CO - - - - - - — - 2 2 • • a d R a s.: o CaJ d L N R a 0 a N II m-p u u It a a a a a a a a a a t a a a a a a a a a a a a a a r V U. N 0 C) C.) N 0 O O 0 a0+ ) N C.) C) 0 O Cl 0 TO C) O 0 cc ti; cn <ilO G L ^ L. O F ^ ^ ^ O ^ G C G o r' C C G ^ 0 ^ C. 6000000000000000000000 o 0 O 0 0 z z Z Z z z Z Z z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z z. z Z Z Z C m t O CO a, ^a ,..cocis es .- C :B 3 c x• , Q O a+ _ - _ C - a _ ' u 3 v .1 v v .� v • E G H _ - - W V 1 ' H _ d _ fi - a o e z Q Y "O co) 'o " 3 c c z - s m y = yr V C 4 ri Dr -C r C c 1 i Z. i e G Ca y cc ¢ s a c c d 3 a ¢ :, s E � y C O e w c ad o R cr E to L R a j Z a C) E O O C - h Q _ -- C7 O a o Fa ss v .= '� C 01 2 ..„.>' 75..., N 3 v i o CI ° r ° v o 45" a ''' o o a a3i 3 a a a L o �; c R Co) o U C 2 0 x 7 o is ° o 2 � o > Vj U O U v) F. ce2 Q, .p O 4' C7 U sc A .� a > c 'C o “ C) > ' Q .E X bO 'a n M a m Cl m c c r' c cd o u a'ai ao cc-, 0LE, 3 es n ,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >, y c..) a o o w a Li.. 0 0 x 2 2 2 .] -1 -1 2 2 2 2 O; CM 'O d l Nz zViz L., zNz zN V.' z z ✓. Nz z N Nco co N z co L cC O cE co N N 0 O Ct co O co it co cd cC cc, 0 co it co co cC cot coca G7 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ^c E E E E E E E E E H V n CC m E E CC ccO ccaa coc m ro coc CC ca CC co m cct co ccO cEa co cco N CC F. co E R f I C cis s: d) o E g tL F� L L at O d yd Y N C C to L G `C C v E QJ ca L lz az 'O 'O 'O 'D 'O 'O b 'O 'O td 9 O 'D 'O 9 'D t - 'O 'O 'O 't7 'O 'O az E O U U u V O O O O Uti: ta. u a.) o N V U a) T o .) N U d N N. N v u, m N. y' O co O O O O O O O O R O O a yO O O �-Os q O O O O OOO m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z co Z Z Z 4 Z Z Z L). Z Z Z Z Z Z Z L CI) .fl 7 O g y 6 cd cd - z m L V 3 Z ;,� .z`z L G :El dti L' L V _ C C - ` 1„ `l '. C u- S .C ' O d G y z- -- d C C N ° ° E oo '� o s x' C. _ c ° i i 4- U c' 4zj `� e h O 4, 0 0 4 a. O [r c U N E Fn Y v '� m cc O C x c y L. U CI V O 0 z)071 CY G C O L G E c o o . 0 c � O o y 0 0 0 'O .". 0 0 O ct Q > b > a 3 v o ai a) n U > c c C7 c°. C C 0 ct°�a i ea u o E s, . h O c .E •_ 'ro C E - E z Q. 2 O > N o c x — a .m, u CO .- 42 .. - - L a) `) h .� � C E. 0 m La,, r' V' a O O r. 0 O OO 0 ❑ O 0 O O - 'V O d .e .el 0 O T ro c o z z z z o o 'a a a a a a a z x z ce Ler Pt 0. N N N U. Cr. N N N N Vi N N N N N V' N N J' N N N N N 7 cc m cd cd m cd cd m cd cd CO n CS cc cd cd cd n cv cd m n cd cd m ro pl yo, E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E cca z m cc ccv cc cca z c'v z z ccd ccd ccd m ccd m cued ccd ccd ccd z m m ro m Tet 22222222222222272222222222 R 0 • it § ] - — — es 2 / CO E \ 2 } CO | / ) ) / \ ) / \ \ } ) \ / / ) / \ / \ / { \ ) ( \ \ ) zzZZZZ ) ) ) ) ZZZZZZ CZ ZZ77ZZ } ) ) ) \ / § ) ) . \ } o f [ . e.bc ) ) ( \ : \ : : _ _ ! - _ - : \ \ \ • ) f \ \ / CZ' - - : � \ \ _ \ \ \ - k \ \ a \ ) < a - ! ieia / \ \ tz \ { \ \ , - aO. O' 0 \ \ a � » y , : 4 ± \ ) § / { \ ( \ [ ( \ } \ \ / / \ \ ) \ ( \ ( ( [ \ \ a3 w ; � , � } $ 3 } 225 » \ J $ » 3 / 62 » ± 32 / C 4 C \ g \ 2 cn ; \ « 7 / \ . 2 ' ° � 7 \ ; x .1)0 ! U < ! a / ] , ) ® a § - o ® .= \ s ± , � , , , ] | J ; 3 ) ) } « \ f ( ° ! ( ( ) ® se \ f ± } ® ] uis ; a � aJrwsyf2 = , w2 = 55 .; ± * = z` z 2 r2 ; = : , ® ; ; ; u .l , mmee « - ® � O — > 000J93 ; a } 5 ; z : ; / j \ 0 >. - C k V7y « VIz ® / & !-.> & & ayy } a3 ± e A ` } g Cl) � r � , Z � , � zzzzzzzCcnutcncnccu, m = ® ° / / ; § E « ! § § / ; § / E ! E § / § E § j / j 2 [ ( t ; ; ; t § ; r § ; § ; ; ; ! § < ; ! r ( EEZ in 777227772277272777727722Q : § — — — - - — — - - 2 0 7 2 / 2 CO ] C., = } kca 2 4 % 2 QUO OOOO V ClOVU0JC) CDUO2O ,1) i zzz zz ) } ) ) } } ) ) } } ) ) ) ) ) a a+ ci © } _ - - \ � ) k \ -c , \ LaaC ' \ 2 ° \ , ) ( + \ / \ 3 \ ) � - \ � • 0.0 0. : / « } - \ \ ` - _ _ C. n uII / ) \ ( \ / In 1u n � 3 / 2 ) / j / 23 / 3 \ ± / \ jfa2 / ± k ) / & r. 2 , / \ E _ - j ea 2 \ a \ ) .__.0 \ ) bo) \ \ \ ) } ^ - / LA� , \ - a ` V ` k cn u \ \ } ) } \ ) ) \ / / 77 } \ ) \ \ \ } I , CPC k / ; ; 6 & ; ; ; : ; 6 ; ; ; ; ; ; : 64 , ) ) ZZ ± fttt \ ZJ ± « % ZZZZ \ Z % ( A a4 » A A a 2 ice : a 2 A G a 2 a : 2 # a ) | — — - ® 2 2 el . APPENDIX C Fish Species Documented in the North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area • • Appendix C • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • -o E C O ei OC w O 'O 0 7 U C C O R " C73 -o 'O -o -o 'o 'o C - -a o -o -o b F -o -o b -o -o -0 9 -o b "J t b -o 0 PO 9 " 22222222222222222222220222222a Si:0 ' 0 0 0 . °, 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =)• ^ 0 G F 0 C 0 0 GO 0 0 t 0 0 006 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 „'a, 5 0 0 0 0 0 C C _ _ F C v: F. C F _ _ u. F C C F F F F _ .- vi F F C C F C 0 d L '0D '09 '00 '0 0 O '0 Qt co F co co co A ad 00 0 0 C 0 o U U U U U E C O 0 0 E .O w v ✓ vp i O O '0 9 -O -o -0 O O -0 O 0 b 4 4 b 0'o O C . -0 L G O 0 u 0 U .G.. 4- O y0 U 0 0 0 0 O yO C., CUJ - o N C o C F o m C C N m C o N o O C C 0 C ❑ ❑ a) a) C O O C F C R -- .- 0 ._ C C .>. �> C O .. _> C .> .. .. ._ 0 0 .- C o C .- �- C .> .> C O Z @ M m F m itl M — F t3 M F _ N id tC — id c1 Z Z = Z .-. Z Z _ Z Z E Z Z Z Z , Z .C. E Z Z '' Z Z C C v L 4- 0 S e C Y Y • t E L V is Y T C Z • co cU 'Ci 0 - - .3 v' — — Z •y 1 •-..., ,y — C ^l F z k Q C '` V v • CL 0 i 0 .0 0 v .0 0 C , r. ^ U C y o U ? Q C, �, J i U E., U � UU ? L. a, O Z U -4 -7 U W W , C U C' Ua "o C ca a Q E It z V C U a U E C o o E C o C v o0 m o o :_ O E V) � av' .c E 5 0 0 C U N -' s - '' J R C 0 C s C] v) 3 a U o CO� U 0 V = y x co 0 E E y am° v �v- :g b a O °c c c s E u u u o u' ct 0 O 3 ^ E E ` = N -o 'a 0 1 F F 0- c 0 X 99 C C C C C m 2 2 2 0 0 A o o >, >, 7, 3 oo m x m o] o] m m m Oo U U U U U n. .0 C7 o C7 S S S o o -. -J -J 2 Z 0 is e 70 2 ) ) } ) ) } ) ) } 222 If / ) 777777Z7 # ) ) _ ) ) \ \ \ \ fl ic \ E \ e \ 932 372 « 3In \ \ sss C CM / ) \ § \ § § jj \ \ jjj \ \ 77227jj7 / j 4 zzzzzz _ zz = _ = zz = = : = = zzs : z [ \ ; \ \ • ca ) cc :74 _ \ \ / o. 2 { : - \ ct ci 3 z : > 32r § # J } \ \ 3 % \ [ [ Eg , a VC w � i32 ) / : f \ \ \ cc a . a = y4 � : = zawe _ � _ -. -- , E. � / � / } ; \ a _ _ _ K / 4Z3 ) ) � / ( E � > Ee 2 ) \ § 2 \ \ \ \ ( \ ) \ \ § \ \ \ ) ) \ \ c \ \ ) e / \ / \ / \ C-5CS 0 2 & x234 & Ga4 ; Q3 ( f c -C ) ) / 4,4 > - \a ! ) 3 { / Lel § \ 2 0 0i- i—= ) \ \ / 3 / � / ) = � \ 3ftes & ; e@ , , ya ea / , \ » ) s = / } y ) : a2egly $ / K \ 3 ( k » m2ua7 / { � / \ } \ / \) } j / } \// \ ) \ 2 \ \ \ \ \ / ) j \ \ • . APPENDIX D Recommended Buffer Zones for Colorado Raptors • • Appendix D • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTOR NESTS *These zones and seasonal restrictions are recommended as guidance and may be subject to change. They do not represent official Division policy Prepared By Gerald R. Craig Colorado Division of Wildlife Updated 1/18/02 Tolerance limits to disturbance varies among as well as within raptor species. As a rule, ferruginous hawks and golden eagles respond at greater distances to human activities than do ospreys and kestrels. Some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity at a proximity that would cause the majority of the species to abandon their nests. Other individuals become sensitized to repeated encroachment and react at greater distances. The tolerance of a particular pair may change when a mate is replaced with a less tolerant individual and may cause the pair to react to activities that were previously ignored. Responses will also vary depending upon the reproductive stage. Although the level of stress is the same, the pair may be more sensitive during egg laying and incubation and more demonstrative when the • chicks hatch. The term "disturbance" is also ambiguous and experts disagree on what actually constitutes a disturbance. Reactions may be as subtle as elevated pulse rate and as extreme as vigorous defense or abandonment. Impacts of disturbance may not be immediately evident. A pair of raptors may respond to human intrusion by defending the nest, but well after the disturbance has passed, the male may remain in the vicinity for protection rather than forage to feed the nestlings, Golden Eagles rarely defend their nests, but merely fly a half mile or more away and perch and watch. Chilling and over heating of eggs or chicks and starvation of nestlings can result from human activities that appeared not to have caused an immediate response. A 'holistic' approach is recommended when protecting raptor habitat. While it is important for land managers to focus on protecting nest sites, equal attention should focus on defining important foraging areas that support the pairs nesting effort. Hunting habitat of many raptor species are extensive and may necessitate interagency cooperation to assure the continued nest occupancy. Unfortunately, basic knowledge of habitat use is lacking and may require documentation through telemetry investigations or intensive observation. Telemetry is expensive and may be disruptive so a more practical approach is to assume that current open space is important and should be protected. Although there are exceptions, the buffer areas and seasonal restrictions suggested here reflect an informed opinion that if implemented, should assure that the majority of individuals within a • species will continue to occupy the area. Measurements are somewhat imprecise (fractions of a mile) and reflect the need to maintain some flexibility to adjust buffer zones depending upon intervening terrain and vegetation screens that obscure the activity, This document is intended to be modified and refined as additional information becomes available, hence the need for a revision date. BALD EAGLE, Nest Site: Year round closure to surface occupancy *(beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile radius of nest. No human encroachment from November 15 through July 31 within 1/2 mile radius of the nest. This closure is more extensive than the Northern-States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan due to the generally open habitat used by Colorado's nesting bald eagles. Aside from four Colorado sites in coniferous forests, all others are in cottonwood riparian zones that don't have the vegetational density, and therefore obscurity offered by the habitats in the lake states. Recent evidence suggests that pairs nesting at lower elevations frequent and maintain their nests throughout the year. If it is necessary to work within the '/z mile buffer, the intrusion should be restricted to August 15 through October 15. Winter Night Roost: Activity should be eliminated within 1/4 mile radius of winter roosts between November 15 and March IS. If periodic visits (such as oil well maintenance work) are required within the buffer zone after development, activity should be restricted to the period between 1000 and 1400 hours from November 15 to Match 15. Limited restrictions may be necessary out to 1/2 mile if there is a direct line of sight from the roost to the activities. • Hunting Perch: Diurnal Perches associated with important foraging areas should also be protected from human encroachment. Preferred perches may be at varying distances from human encroachment and buffer areas will vary. However, at least 2 management plans recommend zones that range from 1/8 mile (200 meters) to % mile (400 meters) depending upon topographic or vegetational screening. GOLDEN EAGLE Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile radius of the nest site and associated alternate nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest and any alternate nests from February 1 to July 15. OSPREY Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile of the nest site. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest from April 1 to August 31. Some osprey populations have habituated and are tolerant to human activity in the immediate vicinity of their nests. • Surface occupancy means non-human habitation. examples would be oil and eas wells. roads. tracks. trails. etc. • FERRUGINOUS HAWK Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/2 mile radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest and any alternate nests from February 1 to July 15. This species is especially prone to nest abandonment during incubation if disturbed. RED-TAILED HAWK Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/3 mile radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Some members of this species have adapted to urbanization and may tolerate human habitation to within 200 yards of their nest. Development that encroaches on rural sites is likely to cause abandonment. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment should be in effect from March 1 to July 15. SWAINSON'S HAWK Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Some members of this species have adapted to urbanization and may tolerate human habitation to within 100 yards of their nest. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest from April 1 to July 15. • PEREGRINE FALCON Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/2 mile of the nest site. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/2 mile of the nest cliff(s) from March 15 to July 31. A 1-mile buffer with a closure from February 1 to August 31 was originally stipulated in the approved Recovery Plan,but recent field evidence suggests that the zone can be reduced to 1/2 mile. Due to propensity to relocate nest sites, sometimes up to 1/2 mile along cliff faces, it is more appropriate to designate 'Nesting Areas' that encompass the cliff system and a 1/2-mile buffer around the cliff complex. PRAIRIE FALCON Nest Site: No surface occupancy * beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/2 mile radius of the nest site. NORTHERN GOSHAWK Reynolds- et al- (1993) proposed 30 acres for the nest, a post fledging family area of 420 acres, and a foraging area of 5400 acres in size that encompasses habitat for squirrels, rabbits, jays, woodpeckers and grouse. For purposes here, it seems that a buffer of 1/2 mile around the nest should protect the integrity of the nesting and post fledging area. Occupancy of the nesting and brood rearing area takes place from early March through late September. • * Surface occupancy means non-human habitation, examples would be oil and gas wells. roads. tracks. trails, etc. BURROWING OWL . Nest Site: No human encroachment or disturbance within 75 yards of the nest site from April 1 through July 31. This period is necessary to avoid disturbing nesting owls. However, owls may be present at burrows up to a month before egg laying and several months after young have fledged. Therefore it is recommended that efforts to eradicate prairie dogs or destroy abandoned towns not occur between March 1 and October 31 when owls may be present. Although owls may occur throughout a prairie dog colony, there is a propensity for them to frequent the colony margins and buffer zones should be applied to the colony perimeter. Measures that protect and enhance prairie dog colonies will benefit this species. Buffers Documented in the Literature Species Period Optimal Authority Incubation Brood Distance Ferruginous Hawk 380-488 yd. 619-781 yd. 781 yd. (.45 mi.) Holmes Red-tailed Hawk 448-553 yd. 428-604 yd. 604 yd. (.34 mi.) Holmes Swainson's Hawk 171-203 yd. 309-382 yd. 382 yd. (.22 mi.) Holmes • Prairie Falcon 500-1000 m 1000m Holthuijzen et al. 546-1093 yd. 1093 yd (.62 mi.) Perch Buffers The following buffers for perches were recommended by T. Holmes (1994) to prevent flushing of 90 % of raptors wintering in rangeland and agricultural habitats. SPECIES BUFFER AREA (Radius) American Kestrel 75m Merlin 125m Prairie Falcon 160m Rough-legged Hawk 210m Ferruginous Hawk 140m Golden Eagle 300m • * Surface occupancy means non-human habitation. examples would be oil and gas wells. roads. tracks. trails, etc. • REFERENCES Call, M. 1979. Habitat management guides for birds of prey. Technical Note No.338, U. S- Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 69pp. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group 1996. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Management Plan: 1995 update. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 47 pp. Grier, J.W., F.J. Gramlich, 1. Mattisson, J,E. Mathisen, I.V. Kussrnan, J.B. Elder, and N.F. Green. 1983. The bald eagle in the northern United States. Bird Cons. 1-44-66. Holmes, Tamara L. 1993. Behavioral responses of grassland raptors to human disturbance MS Thesis. Colo. State Univ, Ft. Collins. 62p. Holthuijzen, A.M.A., W.G. Eastland, A.R. Ansell, M.N. Kochert, R.D. Williams, and L.S.Young. 1990. Effects of blasting on behavior and productivity of nesting prairie falcons. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:270-281. Martin, D.J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446- 456. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team. 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 75p. Reynolds, Richard, R.T. Graham, H.M. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the • northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217- Ft. Collins, CO. U.S. Dept of Agri., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90pp. Richardson, Cary T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(3):634-638. Rocky Mountain/Southwest Peregrine falcon recovery Team. 1984. American peregrine falcon Rocky Mountain/Southwest population recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. 105 pp. Squires, J.H., S.H. Anderson, and R. Oakleaf. 1993. Home range size and habitat use patterns of nesting prairie falcons near oil developments in northeastern Wyoming. J. Field Ornithology. 64:1-10. Swenson, J.E. 1979. Factors affecting status and reproduction of ospreys in Yellowstone National Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:595-601. Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport. Condor 73:177-192. • Surface occupancy means non-human habitation. examples would be oil and gas wells. roads. tracks. nails. etc. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • N oRm I-25 EIS 1124 information. cooperation. transportation. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • • • NORTH 125 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Memorandum BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES II Prepared by: _ _. . JE JACOBS - w'• e • . I•wry. ,►'• • •..•X� . '*•' ♦�,�V , 9 1 R~ r",.. ♦ � + �, tea, .•�� ' �ti_p i-��' M .•� •t 4 .•1w/�M1..+ S ♦'1I_ � r"y� 4 yl•: L.,�• ^�,.•t• " ♦ •♦___} •1+. • Ie •.'4 "; i• Pa. year ;.s{i - Yom. .. fS _ 'Sal S. •I Ea • - - �. I i i - • . 3 ( � " October 2008 t • i .. ` • ••, • NI / iki 47-` ' 4 • NORTH 1-25 . EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information cooperation transportation. Table of Contents Page No. Introduction 1 Regulatory Background 1 Methodology 1 Existing Conditions 2 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 2 Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 2 Environmental Consequences 13 No-Action Alternative 13 Package A 14 Component A-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 14 Component A-H2: General Purpose Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 15 Component A-H3: General Purpose Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 18 Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 20 Component A-T1: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 21 Component A-T2: Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 27 • Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver and DIA 29 Package A: General Indirect Effects 29 Package B 30 Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 30 Component B-T1: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver 31 Components B-T2 : BRT : Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA 32 Package B: General Indirect Effects 32 Mitigation 33 References 34 • NORTH I-2) ~'- E1S Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities , information cooperation. transportation. List of Figures Figure 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Regional Study Area 3 List of Tables Table 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the North 1-25 Corridor 4 Table 2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the US 287/BNSF Corridor 5 Table 3 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along US 85 7 Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North 1-25 Corridor 8 Table 5 Potential Future Facilities Along the Highway 287/BNSF Corridor 11 Table 6 Component A-H1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 15 Table 7 Component A-H2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 16 Table 8 Component A-H3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 19 Table 9 Component A-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 20 Table 10 Component A-T1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 22 Table 11 Component A-T2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 27 Table 12 Component B-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 30 Table 13 Impacts from Queue Jumps: US 34 32 • • NORTH 125 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. INTRODUCTION Bicycle and pedestrian (bike/ped) facilities include sidewalks, marked and unmarked bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, and a variety of trail types. On-street bicycle routes typically include signing and striping to separate bicycles from vehicular traffic, or they may exist informally, established by consistent use by bicyclists. On-street bicycle routes are designed to promote local trips, regional commuting, and connections to off-street trails. Off-street bikeways, trails, or paths are typically physically separated from vehicular traffic through the use of barriers or by following separate routes. These off-street bikeways can provide regional links for bicyclists, pedestrian, equestrians, or other recreational users. This technical memorandum is prepared in support of the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The analysis that follows documents bike/ped facilities within the regional study area and evaluates the potential for impacts to these resources. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Recent legal and regulatory changes reflect an increased emphasis on the planning and protection of bike/ped facilities. Related requirements include: ► 23USC 109(m) Protection of Non-motorized Transportation Traffic. States the • Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for non-motorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists. ► Section 5304 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Requires Departments of Transportations (DOTs) through their plans and programs to "...provide for the development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as an intermodal transportation system for the State and an integral part of and intermodal transportation system for the United States". A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policy issued in 1999 entitled Design Guidance, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel:A Recommended Approach states, "...bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist." METHODOLOGY The regional study area includes numerous communities, each having varying degrees of existing and planned bike/ped facilities. To document the bike/ped facilities within the regional study area, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, public bicycle/trail maps, comprehensive plans, and a variety of planning maps were collected from local jurisdictions • and state agencies. The mapping included trails, paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes. 1 NORTH 1-25 , EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Due to the size and complexity of the study area, sidewalks were not included as bike/ped facilities unless specifically designated on a locally approved plan or map as being for the sole purpose of recreation. Bike/ped facilities within approximately 750 feet of proposed improvements are included in the analysis. EXISTING CONDITIONS Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Three major regional trails are located in the regional study area (Figure 1). These trails represent collaboration and planning efforts within and between municipalities and other state agencies. The American Discovery Trail (ADT) corridor is comprised of both on- and off-street facilities. This trail is part of a larger, national system that allows bicyclists a route across the United States. The Colorado Front Range Trail (CFRT) corridor is a collaborative effort that is being overseen by Colorado State Parks. The CFRT corridor has existing and proposed sections from numerous municipalities that allow for non-motorized vehicles to travel along the Front Range from New Mexico to Wyoming. The Saint Vrain Valley (SVV) corridor is a portion of the CFRT; however, this is a loop trail that connects many communities within the center of the regional study area. Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Most of the trails in the study area can be categorized as local. They provide opportunities • to go from one place to another but usually in the same community and not for long distances. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There are numerous existing bike/ped facilities within the regional study area. Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 include the facilities that are within approximately 750 feet on each side of the corridors identified for improvements or station and maintenance facility locations. On-street facilities represent sidewalks identified by locally approved plans as being solely for recreation. Bike lanes are designated bike lanes located within the roadway edge of pavement. For the purposes of this study, some facilities were provided names that may differ from what they are referred to by others. Some facilities may have been added or changed since data collection occurred. • 2 NORTH 1-25 Pki EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Figure 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Regional Study Area 1 krvi NoR i 1-25 •--..• : -, LEGEND Bs /%1 Alternative Corridors "—•- . • �• ySIY', nn •� /\/ HighwaysL?%1 . -- l "./ Arterial Roads !� ��Ii" s'Local Streets i _s-tr - - 1 P.ttcc\. L'J Regional Study Area ' i n / r _ ') ' Fort7• Ilrns City Boundaries - — _ ' . -....- ►• Adt o Cities & Towns in Project Area I .�� ;�' :257! 1, ._'��. ,.. tl . Proposed or Envisioned Trail \ ��=� +�►�d* _ _ 1 t ii -isu •.rnadr _. Existing Trail ' I ' � �n �,r•• I 4 s`"`""" r.,t,x. , American Discovery Trail (ADT) I I r i �" 1 walk LI.— Colorado Front Range Trail t St. Vrain Valley Trail I �i CR �tij�dre River'Irat Gre , eley 1 I \ s+ j . �= Proposed US36 Alignment Trail /7341^- ? i�„ =_ -•�T?0th `rp' h\' 4': �^ Garden. rtr .-i - / -___ut_ 34 . - � -r , r LA Salk /• _ I_Vitt On II 1 7' . 1 J j1la j Ilan e.— ——• ' a re- r I 2 5 ip f, k • i 1 ii L r 1 i` — —I !keel „ 1% JJ/ 1 / Karr. .,., . . I ; I . 1C r !S 1+ 1 1 1► v r L7e .�► t ' •j � li L.! im --, - ' ! j Ic it .e'r Willmar / - NV 1; r - ?ctneatme • '.-� r/. � fig, Warr t,,, Ipw, I '— /� v ��. /`'t lrxEarrd ti Idi `4 — I -- thi st.vta'►�`. I - vsl•r.yR 1 (I•Boulder ri 7 ' �� _ S.a,r:, . di .�; •~\. ^fin• il� r, ' .a v Somr..eid +M �-t •1. . ictli - 'N, fir, . t t.\ G 'k ,� � ..'��..��'•t'.� � 0XN 01 36 - cleaty 1 1r • t'.er r J e ! ce/JJ �r.�.t•� ry�� --. w .+l _t�r,.r 40.000 0 i� ��.•==---• : .s''i :1�� Feet North - ri!A - r!�1'�� • 3 NORTH 1-25 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/ Orientation to 1-25 Richards Lake Road On-street facility Larimer County Perpendicular along Richards Lake Road Frontage Road (Richards Parallel between Richards Lake Road to Mountain On-street facility Larimer County Lake Road and Mountain Vista Drive) Vista Drive Mountain Vista Drive On-street facility City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Mountain Vista Drive Vine Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Vine Drive Frontage Road (Mountain Parallel east of 1-25 Vista Drive to Mulberry On-street facility City of Fort Collins between Mountain Vista Street) Drive and Mulberry Street Parallel west of 1-25 Southeast Frontage Road On-street facility City of Fort Collins between Prospect Street and Mulberry Street Harmony Road (SH 68) Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Harmony Road Highway 392 West On-street Larimer County Perpendicular along (32 Road) improvement Highway 392 • 30 Road Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along CR 30 Crossroads (26 Road) Lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along improvement Crossroads Boulevard Parallel east of 1-25 just Clydesdale On-street facility City of Loveland south of Crossroads Boulevard McWhinney Boulevard On-street facility City of Loveland Perpendicular just north of Highway 34 Highway 34 Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along Highway 34 Hillsborough Ditch Trail Off-street facility Towns of Johnstown Perpendicular just north of and Milliken Highway 402 SH 66 On-street facility Weld County Perpendicular along SH 66 Colorado Front Range Trail Underpass Colorado State Parks Perpendicular just north of (Saint Vrain Trail) Highway 119 Highway 52 On-street facility Town of Frederick Perpendicular along Highway 52 Big Dry Creek Underpass Cities of Thornton Parallel just north of and Westminster 128th Avenue 128th Avenue On-street facility City of Thornton Perphendicular along 128 Avenue 120th Transit Station Underpass City of Northglenn Perpendicular just south of 120 Avenue Community Center Drive On-street facility City of Westminster Parallel just south of 120thAvenue Farmers Highline Canal Off-street City of Westminster Parallel just south of facility • Avenue 4 NORTH 1-25 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Location/ Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency p Orientation to 1-25 Perpendicular just north of Kennedy Street On-street facility City of Northglenn 104 Avenue Lincoln Street Parallel east of 1-25 just (Northglenn Drive) On-street facility City of Northglenn north of 104th Avenue Perpendicular 104`h Avenue On-street facility City of Northglenn along h 104 Avenue Parallel along Thornton Parkway On-street facility City of Thornton Thornton Parkway Parallel around Coronado Parkway Trail Off-street facility City of Thornton 88 Avenue 88th Avenue On-street facility City of Federal Perpendicular along Heights 881h Avenue Table 2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the US 287/BNSF Corridor Location/Orientation • Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency to US 287/BNSF Corridor Parallel along Howes Street Bike lane City of Fort Collins Howes Street Perpendicular along LaPorte Avenue Bike lane City of Fort Collins LaPorte Avenue Mason Street(Cherry Bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel along Street to Laurel Street) Mason Street Perpendicular along Olive Street Bike route City of Fort Collins Olive Street Parallel just north of East Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins University Avenue on the CSU Campus Parallel just north of West Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins University Avenue on the CSU Campus Perpendicular along University Avenue Bike lane City of Fort Collins University Avenue Perpendicular just CSU Campus Underpass City of Fort Collins east of University Avenue Pitkin Street Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular kinStetalong Pitkin Street Perpendicular along Lake Street Bike lane City of Fort Collins Lake Street Perpendicular just • Spring Creek Trail Underpass and trail City of Fort Collins south of Prospect Street 5 NORTH 1-2D - Fr'''''.:2 EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the US 287/BNSF Corridor Location/Orientation Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency to US 287/BNSF Corridor Drake Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Drake Road West Harvard Street Bike route City of Fort Collins Perpendicular just south of Drake Road Swallow Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Swallow Road Manhattan Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel just south of Horsetooth Road Horsetooth Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Horsetooth Road Mason Street Parallel along (Horsetooth Road to Bike lane City of Fort Collins Mason Street Harmony Road) Perpendicular just Boardwalk Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins south of Horsetooth Road Perpendicular just Troutman Parkway Bike route City of Fort Collins north of • Harmony Road Harmony Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Harmony Road Perpendicular just Fossil Creek Trail Off-street facility City of Fort Collins south of Harmony Road Trilby Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Trilby Road (US 34) Shield Street(parallel to Parallel along Shields railroad) Bike lane City of Fort Collins Street (turns into Taft Avenue) 37th Street Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along 37 Street 29th Street Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along 29 Street Lake Drive (parallel to Parallel along the railroad) Bike route City of Loveland east side of Lake Loveland Garfield Avenue Bike route City of Loveland Parallel just east of (parallel to railroad) Lake Loveland US 34 Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along US 34 US 287 Bike route City of Loveland Parallel along US 287 1st Street Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along 151Street Big Thompson River Underpass and trail City of Loveland, Perpendicular just Colorado State Parks south of 1 Street • 6 NORTH I-25 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the US 287/BNSF Corridor Location/Orientation Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency to US 287/BNSF Corridor PaRoosevelt Avenue Bike lane City of Loveland 14th e just south of 14 Street Perpendicular along 14th Southwest Street Bike lane City of Loveland h 144 Street Perpendicular just Welch Avenue On-street facility Town of Berthoud south of Mountain Avenue Perpendicular just 21st Avenue On-street facility City of Longmont south of Highway 66 Perpendicular along Mountain View Avenue On-street facility City of Longmont Mountain Avenue Perpendicular Longs Peak Avenue On-street facility City of Longmont just south of 9 Avenue Perpendicular just 4th Avenue On-street facility City of Longmont north of 3rd Avenue Parallel just east of Collyer Street On-street facility City of Longmont US 287 j. Main Street On-street facility City of Longmont Parallel along Main Street Perpendicular west of Alpine Street On-street facility City of Longmont Pace Street north of 3rd Avenue Table 3 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along US 85 Location/ Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Orientation to US 85 Parallel just south of 3r° Rogers Road On-street facility City of Longmont Avenue Perpendicular just east of the intersection of 119th Street On-street facility City of Longmont 3rd Avenue and Ken Pratt Boulevard SH 119 On-street facility City of Longmont Parallel along SH 119 Ken Pratt On-street facility City of Longmont Parallel along Ken Pratt Boulevard Boulevard Parallel along Highway 85 Existing on-street facility City of Evans Highway 85 around the City of Evans American Existing on-street facility City of Evans Parallel generally follows Discovery Trail Highway 85 Parallel along • US 85 Existing on-street facility Town of Platteville Highway 85 around the Town of Platteville 7 NORTH 127 ' .r EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along US 85 Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/ Orientation to US 85 SH 66 Existing on-street facility Town of Platteville Perpendicular along SH 66 Parallel just south of Denver Avenue Existing on-street facility City of Fort Lupton SH 66 along Denver Avenue Colorado Front Existing on-street facility City of Fort Lupton Parallel to the east of US Range Trail 85 Potential Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There are numerous proposed bike/ped facilities in the regional study area. Table 4 and Table 5 include the potential future bicycle facilities that are within 750 feet of the corridor identified for the alignments. In addition to the proposed facilities included in the tables, there is one potential future facility near the US 85 station areas: Evans has proposed an on-street facility along 31St Street. Figure 1 graphically shows the bike and pedestrian facilities with the regional facilities highlighted. Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor • Name/Reference Description Municipality/ Location/ Agency Orientation to I-25 Box Elder Creek Proposed off-street Town of Wellington Parallel just south of facility Wellington Douglas Road Proposed on-street Larimer County Perpendicular just south of facility Wellington along CR 54 Mountain Vista Drive Proposed on-street City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along facility Mountain Vista Drive Vine Drive Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along improvements Vine Drive Frontage Road Proposed on-street Parallel east of 1-25 (Mountain Vista Drive to facility City of Fort Collins between Mountain Visa Mulberry Street) Drive and Mulberry Street Weicker Drive Proposed on-street City of Fort Collins Perpendicular just north of facility Mulberry Street Mulberry Street (SH 14) Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along improvements Mulberry Street Frontage Road Proposed bike lane Parallel west of I-25 (Prospect Street to mprovements City of Fort Collins between Prospect Street Mulberry Street) and Mulberry Street Southeast Frontage Proposed on-street Parallel west of 1-25 Road facility City of Fort Collins between Prospect Street and Mulberry Street Timnath Bike Route Proposed on-street Town of Timnath Parallel east of 1-25 south facility of Prospect Street Baker Lake Trail Proposed off-street City of Fort Collins Parallel east of 1-25 around facility Mulberry Street • 8 NORTH I-25 . . EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Municipality/ Location/ Name/Reference Description Agency Orientation to I-25 Prospect Road Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along improvements Prospect Street City of Fort Collins, Proposed trail Colorado State Parallel west of I-25 south Poudre River Trail improvements Parks, Town of of Prospect Street Timnath Parallel east of 1-25 south Box Elder Ditch Proposed trail City of Fort Collins of Harmony Road Frontage Road Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel east of I-25 south (36 Road to 38 Road) improvements of Harmony Road 36 Road Proposed on-street City of Fort Collins, Perpendicular along improvements Town of Timnath Kechter Road (US 36) Proposed off-street Parallel east of 1-25 just Timnath#1 facility Town of Timnath south of Kechter Road (US 36) Colorado Front Range Proposed trail Larimer County, Parallel west of 1-25 north Trail improvement Colorado State of Highway 32 Parks Frontage Road (SH 392 Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel west of I-25 south West to 36 Road) improvements of Kechter Road (US 36) . SH 392 West(32 Road) Proposed on-street Larimer County Perpendicular along improvements SH 392 Crossroads (26 Road) Proposed lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along improvements Crossroads Boulevard Proposed off-street City of Loveland Parallel east of 1-25 south Loveland #1 facility of Crossroads Boulevard Loveland and Greeley Proposed underpass City of Loveland, Perpendicular north of US Canal and trail Town of Johnstown 34 20E Proposed lane City of Loveland Perpendicular south of US improvements 34 Big Thompson River Proposed path City of Loveland, Perpendicular south of US Trail improvement Town of Johnstown 34 402/18 Proposed lane Towns of Johnstown Perpendicular along improvements and Milliken SH 402 Ditch/Creek Proposed trail Towns of Johnstown Parallel south of SH 402 (South of 402/18) improvement and Milliken Johnstown#1 Proposed on-street Towns of Johnstown Parallel east of I-25 just facility and Milliken north of SH 56 46 Road (SH 60) Proposed on-street Towns of Berthoud, Perpendicular along improvement Johnstown, Milliken 46 Road SH 56 Proposed on-street Towns of Berthoud, Perpendicular along SH 56 improvement Milliken, Johnstown Little Thompson River Proposed trail Towns of Berthoud, Perpendicular just south of improvement Milliken, Johnstown SH 56 Colorado Front Range Proposed trail Colorado State Perpendicular just north of Trail (Saint Vrain Trail) improvement Parks SH 119 • NORTH 1-25 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/ Location/ Agency Orientation to 1-25 Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street Town of Frederick Parallel approximately one facility mile east of 1-25 north of SH 56 Lower Boulder Ditch Proposed off-street Town of Frederick Parallel west of 1-25 just Trail (West) facility north of SH 52 Lower Boulder Ditch Proposed off-street Town of Frederick Parallel east of 1-25 just Trail (East) facility north of SH 52 CR 15 Proposed trail Town of Frederick Perpendicular just north of improvement SH 52 Erie#2 Proposed trail Town of Erie Parallel west of 1-25 just south of SH 52 Dacono#2 Proposed off-street City of Dacono Parallel east of 1-25 just facility south of SH 52 Union Pacific railroad Proposed off-street Cities of Broomfield, Perpendicular just north of alignment facility Dacono, Thornton Leon A Wurl Parkway Stanly Ditch Proposed off-street Cities of Broomfield, Parallel just south of facility Dacono, Thornton Leon A Wurl Parkway Dacono#3 Proposed off-street Cities of Dacono Perpendicular east of 1-25 facility and Broomfield just south of Leon A Wurl Parkway Broomfield Trail Proposed off-street City of Broomfield Perpendicular just north of • facility SH 7 Regional Trail 5 Proposed off-street Perpendicular just north of g facility City of Broomfield SH 7 Leon Wurl Parkway Proposed on-street Town of Erie, City of Perpendicular along TSail t Vrain Legacy facility Dacono Leon A Wurl Parkway rSH 7 Proposed on-street City of Thornton Parallel east of 1-25 along facility SH 7 Bull Ditch Proposed off-street City of Thornton Parallel east of 1-25 just facility south of SH 7 160`"Avenue Proposed on-street City of Thornton Perpendicular along facility 160th Avenue Thornton#1 Proposed off-street City of Thornton Parallel just north of E-470 facility E-470 Proposed off-street City and County of Perpendicular along E-470 facility Broomfield Westminster#1 Proposed trail City of Westminster Perpendicular west of 1-25 just north of 144th avenue Westminster#2 Proposed off-street City of Westminster Parallel east of 1-25 just facility north of 128th Avenue Big Dry Creek Existing trail Cities of Thornton Parallel just north of and Westminster 128`hAvenue Westminster#3 Proposed trail City of Westminster Parallel around 128'"Avenue Thornton #2 Proposed trail City of Thornton Perpendicular north of 128`"Avenue • 10 NORTH 1-25 ..;*„...„' ‘,*k- EIS EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Municipality/ Location/ Name/Reference Description Agency Orientation to 1-25 120`"Avenue Proposed on-street City of Westminster Perpendicular along facility 120th Avenue Tuck Lateral Proposed off-street Cities of Thornton Parallel west of 1-25 south facility and Northglenn of 104'"Avenue Civic Center Park Proposed off-street City of Thornton Parallel east of 1-25 just facility north of Thornton Parkway Table 5 Potential Future Facilities Along the Highway 287/BNSF Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/Orientation to US 287/BNSF Corridor Perpendicular along Mountain Avenue Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Mountain Avenue Mason Street Proposed off-street multi- Parallel along (Laurel Street to use path City of Fort Collins Mason Street Fossil Creek Drive) Proposed on-and off- Perpendicular just south Fossil Creek Drive City of Fort Collins • street facility of Harmony Road Midway Drive to Proposed multi-use path City of Fort Collins Perpendicular just north Skyway Drive of Trilby Road Railroad alignment Parallel east of 1-25 just (57th Street and Planned path City of Loveland north of Trilby Road northward) Perpendicular 57th Street Planned trail City of Loveland along 57thStreet Perpendicular just north 7th Street Proposed bike route City of Loveland of 1 s'Street Perpendicular just north Heron Lakes Trail Proposed bike trail Town of Berthoud of Berthoud Reservoir Perpendicular just north Berthoud Reservoir Proposed bike trail Town of Berthoud of Berthoud Reservoir 49th Street(west of Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud Parallel just east of railroad) Sunnyslope Reservoir Railroad alignment Parallel just north of (Little Thompson to Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud CR 6C Heron Lakes) Perpendicular just south CR E-10 Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud of Berthoud Reservoir Proposed on-street Town of Berthoud Parallel just north of US 287 bypass facility SH 56 Perpendicular just north Bunyan Avenue Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud of SH 56 Perpendicular along Proposed on-street Mountain Avenue facility Town of Berthoud Mountain Avenue • (SH 56) 11 NORTH I-25 v .y,. EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities IIinformation. cooperation. transportation. Table 5 Potential Future Facilities Along the Highway 287/BNSF Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/Orientation to US 287/BNSF Corridor Neilson Trail Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud Perpendicular just south of SH 56 First Street Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud Parallel just south of (at railroad) SH 56 Little Thompson Proposed major bike trail Towns of Berthoud, Perpendicular just south RiverJohnstown, Milliken of SH 56 Vermillion Road Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility Vermillion Road Park Ridge Avenue Proposed on-street Perpendicular just north (proposed road facility City of Longmont of SH 66 extension) SH 66 Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility SH 66 Railroad alignment Proposed off-street Parallel just south of (21 Avenue to facility City of Longmont SH 66 Highway 66) Lanyon Park Trail Proposed off-street City of Longmont Parallel just south of facility SH 66 17th Avenue Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility 17th Avenue to Proposed on-street Perpendicular just south • 11 Avenue facility City of Longmont of Mountain View Avenue 9th Avenue Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility 9th Avenue Collyer Street Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just east of facility US 287 Coffman Street Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just west of facility US 287 2"'Avenue Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just south of facility SH 119 15t Avenue Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just south of facility SH 119 Martin Street Trail Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular just east facility of US 287 Sugar Mill Road Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just south of facility SH 119 County Line Road Proposed on-street Perpendicular along facility City of Longmont County Line Road Colorado Front Perpendicular just east Range Trail Proposed trail Colorado State Parks of I-25 and SH 119 (Saint Vrain Trail) Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street Town of Frederick Parallel just north of facility SH 52 Cottonwood Proposed off-street Towns of Frederick Parallel just south of Extension Ditch facility and Erie SH 52 Community Ditch Proposed off-street Parallel just south of • Town of Erie facility SH 52 12 • NORTH 1-25 „4„ . EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5 Potential Future Facilities Along the Highway 287/BNSF Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/Orientation/BNS to US 287/BNSF Corridor SH 52 Proposed on-street Towns of Erie and Perpendicular along (Mineral Road) facility Frederick SH 52 Proposed off-street Parallel just east of the Erie#1 facility Town of Erie intersection of 1-25 and CR 10 Parallel just east of the Proposed off-street Erie#2 facility Town of Erie intersection of 1-25 and CR 10 Town of Erie, Cities Parallel along the Union Pacific Proposed off-street of Dacono and proposed commuter rail Railroad facility Broomfield alignment just north of Leon A Wurl Parkway Proposed off-street City of Dacono Perpendicular just north Dacono#1 facility of Leon A Wurl Parkway Town of Erie, Cities Perpendicular just north Stanly Ditch Proposed trail of Dacono and of Leon A Wurl Parkway Broomfield Leon A Wurl Proposed on-street Town of Erie, City of Perpendicular along Parkway (Saint Vrain facility Dacono Leon A Wurl Parkway Legacy Trail) • Dacono#2 Proposed off-street City of Dacono Perpendicular just south facility of Leon A Wurl Parkway Proposed off-street City of Dacono Perpendicular just south Little Dry Creek facility of Leon A Wurl Parkway Bull Ditch Proposed off-street Cities of Dacono and Parallel just south of facility Broomfield SH 7 168th Avenue Proposed on-street City of Thornton Perpendicular along facility 168th Avenue Proposed off-street Cities of Thornton Perpendicular just north Big Dry Creek Ditch facility and Westminster of SH 7 SH 7 Proposed on-street City of Thornton Perpendicular along facility SH 7 German Ditch Proposed off-street City of Thornton Parallel around SH 7 facility ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bike/ped facilities along the 1-25 corridor. However, programmed safety improvements to interchanges and standard maintenance to existing structures may result in minor effects. • 13 NORTH I25 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. The No-Action Alternative includes several projects that would provide traffic signals at existing interchange areas to improve safety. This would improve circulation to the following existing and proposed bike/ped facilities: ► Mountain Vista Drive ► Prospect Street ► Crossroads Boulevard ► 402/18 ► SH 60 ► SH 56 ► WCR 34 Also, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) plans to rehabilitate several existing structures along 1-25, which could result in temporary closure or nuisance impacts (e.g., increased construction noise) to several bike/ped facilities during construction. SH 52 and SH 66 are existing bike/ped facilities near this proposed structure work. Proposed facilities that could be affected (if they exist during time of construction) include: Lower Boulder Ditch Trail (West); Lower Boulder Ditch Trail (East); and Colorado Front Range Trail (St Vrain Trail). Under the No-Action Alternative, traffic congestion would worsen, and increased vehicle emissions would continue to deteriorate regional air quality. This could affect bike/ped • users, particularly near heavily-used roadways. Package A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS). Table 6 through Table 10 present the consequences of each Package A component to the bike/ped facilities previously described. The following sections summarize these impacts. Component A-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 Safety improvements along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would directly and indirectly impact bike/ped facilities (see Table 6). Overall, these improvements would facilitate future bike/ped travel. Component A-H1 would involve reconstruction of two roads at their 1-25 crossings where bike/ped facilities are planned—Mountain Vista Drive and Vine Drive. The reconstructed roadways would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders to accommodate bicycle travel. This component also would require realignment of two 1-25 frontage roads where bike/ped facilities are planned. The reconstructed frontage roads would include 10- foot shoulders to accommodate bicycle use. • 14 NORTH 1-25 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 6 Component A-Hl: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Box Elder Creek Proposed off-street Extending box culvert *Temporary Closure facility Douglas Road Proposed on-street Trail would go under I-25 No impact facility Richards Lake On-street facility Proposed bridge would Direct—Beneficial Road include sidewalk and shoulders. Frontage Road Proposed on-street Improvements would Temporary Closure (Richards Lake facility require some realignment Direct—Beneficial Road to Mountain of road where facility is Vista Drive) proposed. Proposed frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders. Construction impacts. Mountain Vista Proposed on-street Proposed bridge would Direct—Beneficial Drive facility include sidewalk and shoulders Vine Drive Proposed bike lane Proposed bridge would Direct—Beneficial • improvements include sidewalk and shoulders Frontage Road Proposed on-street Improvements would Temporary Closure (Mountain Vista facility require realignment of Direct—Beneficial Drive to Mulberry road where facility is St.) proposed south of Vine Drive. Proposed frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders Weicker Drive Proposed on-street Interior roads proposed to Indirect—Potentially facility improve circulation in NW Beneficial quadrant of interchange. Roads would include 10- foot shoulders. 'It is assumed that any proposed trail that would cross I-25 at an existing culvert location would use that culvert,the widening of that culvert,or proposed culvert as an 1-25 underpass. Component A-H2: General Purpose Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 Component A-H2 would add one general purpose lane to northbound and southbound 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60. Several existing bike/ped facilities would experience temporary impacts during construction, including possible temporary closure (see Table 7). • 15 NORTH 1-25 fix, EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. This component includes a number of new structures over 1-25. These new highway bridges would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders. A modified bridge over 1-25 at Harmony Road would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders which would connect to and extend the existing bike/ped facility that exists to the west of 1-25. Table 7 Component A-H2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Mulberry Street Proposed bike lane Interchange improvements Direct—Beneficial (SH 14) improvements would improve bike/ped circulation since proposed trail would be grade- separated over SH 14 Frontage Road Proposed bike lane Interior roads proposed to Indirect—Beneficial (Mulberry Street to improvements improve circulation in SW Prospect Street) quadrant of interchange. Roads would include 10-foot shoulders. Southeast Proposed on-street Realignment of proposed Temporary Closure Frontage Road facility bike/ped facility. Proposed Direct— frontage road would include Potentially Beneficial 10-foot shoulders. Construction impacts. • Timnath Bike Proposed on-street Improvements would require Temporary Closure Route facility some realignment of road Direct—Beneficial where facility is proposed. Proposed frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders Baker Lake Trail Proposed off-street No crossing of 1-25 currently. No Impact facility Highway widening would increase length of any future structure Prospect Road Proposed bike lane Proposed bridge over 1-25 Direct—Beneficial improvements would include sidewalk and shoulders Poudre River Trail Proposed trail Proposed structures over Direct—Beneficial improvements Cache La Poudre and over Harmony would provide greater clearance for future bike/ped Harmony Road Bike lane Proposed bridge over 1-25 Direct—Beneficial (SH 68) would include sidewalk and bike lanes Box Elder Ditch Proposed trail Proposed frontage road south Direct—Potentially of LCR 40 would cross Adverse proposed trail. • 16 NORTH 1-25 EIS . Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Table 7 Component A-H2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Frontage Road (36 Proposed bike lane Improvements would require Temporary Closure Road to 38 Road) improvements realignment of road where Direct—Beneficial facility is proposed. Proposed frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders 36 Road Proposed on-street Proposed bridge over 1-25 Direct—Beneficial improvements would include sidewalk and shoulders Timnath #1 Proposed off-street Proposed culvert would Direct—Potentially facility provide potential 1-25 crossing Beneficial where one does not exist. Colorado Front Proposed trail LCR 40 to 36—no impact, CR No impact—LCR 40 to Range Trail improvement 36 to SH 392—improvements 36,Temporary Closure— would require realignment of CR 36 to SH 392 road where facility is proposed. Frontage Road Proposed bike lane Improvements would require Temporary Closure (SH 392 to 36 improvements realignment of road where Direct—Beneficial Road) facility is proposed. Proposed frontage road would include SH 392 West(32 On-street 10-foot shouldersInterchange improvements Temporary Road) improvement would have temporary impacts to existing facility during construction 30 Road Bike lane Highway improvements would Temporary have temporary impacts to existing facility during construction; Proposed interior road west of 1-25 would include 10-foot shoulder; provide connectivity to existing trail. Crossroads (26 Lane improvement Highway improvements would Temporary Adverse; Road) have temporary impacts to Direct—Beneficial existing facility during construction; Proposed interior road west of 1-25 would include 10-foot shoulder; provide connectivity to existing trail. Clydesdale On-street facility Existing trail to remain No impact Loveland #1 Proposed off-street Realignment of proposed Temporary Closure facility facility due to hwy widening Direct—Beneficial and reconfiguration of interchange (1-25 & Hwy 34) 17 NORTH 1-25 EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 7 Component A-H2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Loveland and Proposed underpass Proposed culvert would Indirect—Potentially Greeley Canal and trail increase opening for potential Beneficial 1-25 crossing. McWhinney On-street facility 1-25 widening would impact Temporary Closure Boulevard small portion of existing bike/ped facility. US 34 Bike lane Temporary impacts to existing Temporary Closure facility during construction 20E Proposed lane Proposed bridge over 1-25 Direct—Beneficial improvements would include sidewalk and shoulders Big Thompson Proposed path Proposed bridge would Direct—Beneficial River Trail improvement provide greater clearance for future bike/ped Hillsborough Ditch Off-street facility Temporary impacts to existing Temporary Closure Trail facility during construction 402/18 Proposed lane Proposed bridge over I-25 Direct—Beneficial improvements would include sidewalk and Indirect—Adverse shoulders- Carpool lot could increase traffic Ditch/Creek Proposed trail Proposed culvert would Indirect—Potentially • (South of 402/18) improvement increase opening for potential Beneficial 1-25 crossing. As with Component A-H1, the highway widening associated with this component would require realigning several frontage roads along 1-25. The new frontage roads would include 10-foot shoulders. New drainage structures are proposed in several locations. Two proposed culverts would be larger than the existing ones, which could provide an opportunity and potential 1-25 crossing for planned bike/ped facilities. One culvert would be constructed where one does not currently exist. Several new bridges over waterways would provide adequate area underneath to accommodate planned future trails. Component A-H3: General Purpose Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 Component A-H3 would add one general purpose lane to northbound and southbound 1-25 between SH 60 and E-470. As shown in Table 8, these improvements would not adversely affect existing bike/ped facilities. Of the estimated 23 proposed facilities in this area, 15 would not be affected by this component. Two proposed facilities are located along frontage roads that would need to be realigned; the reconstructed frontage roads will include 10-foot shoulders. Two reconstructed roads under and over 1-25 would accommodate future bike/ped use. • 18 NORTH I-25 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8 Component A-H3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Johnstown #1 Proposed on-street Realignment of road where Temporary Closure facility facility is proposed. Direct—Beneficial Proposed frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders 46 Road (SH 60) Proposed on-street Improvements to SH 60 Direct—Beneficial improvement under 1-25 would include sidewalk and bike lanes SH 56 Proposed on-street Realignment of road where Temporary Closure improvement facility is proposed. Direct—Beneficial Proposed frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders Little Thompson Proposed trail Proposed bridge would Direct—Potentially River improvement provide greater clearance for Beneficial future bike/ped SH 66 Proposed on-street Existing overpass to remain No Impact facility Colorado Front Proposed trail Existing underpass to No Impact Range Trail (Saint improvement remain • Vrain Trail) Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street Outside of Impact Area No Impact facility Lower Boulder Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain *No impact Ditch Trail (West) facility Lower Boulder Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain *No Impact Ditch Trail (East) facility CR 15 Proposed trail Trail connection to Lower No Impact improvement Boulder Ditch SH 52 On-street facility Improved facility would Direct-Beneficial include new sidewalk Erie#2 Proposed trail Outside of Impact Area No Impact Dacono#2 Proposed off-street Proposed trail terminates at *No Impact facility existing culvert Union Pacific Proposed off-street Trail would cross 1-25 at No Impact railroad alignment _ facility existing underpass Stanley Ditch Trail Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain *No Impact facility Dacono#3 Proposed off-street Proposed trail terminates at No Impact facility existing frontage road Broomfield Trail Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain *No Impact facility Regional Trail 5 Proposed off-street Proposed culvert would Direct—Potentially facility provide potential 1-25 Beneficial crossing where one does not exist. • 19 NORTH I-25 EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8 Component A-H3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Leon Wurl Proposed on-street Proposed access road to Indirect-Adverse Parkway (Saint facility park and ride would cross Vrain Legacy Trail) proposed trail SH 7 Proposed on-street Improvements to SH 7 Direct—Beneficial facility would include sidewalk and bike lane Bull Ditch Trail Proposed off-street Interchange modifications Temporary Closure facility might require some realignment of proposed trail 160'"Avenue Proposed on-street Existing overpass to remain No Impact facility Thornton #1 Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility E-470 Proposed off-street Existing structure to remain No Impact facility Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 Component A-H4 would involve upgrading structures on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36. • As shown in Table 9, these upgrades should not affect any existing or proposed bike/ped facilities in this area, except for the existing trail at Big Dry Creek which may require temporary closure during construction. Table 9 Component A-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Westminster#1 Proposed trail Outside of Impact area No Impact Westminster#2 Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility Big Dry Creek Proposed off-street Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure facility lengthened Westminster#3 Proposed trail Trail connection to Big Dry No Impact Creek Thornton #2 Proposed trail Existing underpass to No Impact remain (connection to Big Dry Creek) 128'"Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to No Impact remain 120`"Avenue Proposed on-street Existing overpass to No Impact facility remain 120`"Transit Underpass Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure Station lengthened Community Center On-street facility Existing underpass to No Impact Drive remain • 20 NORTH 1-25 d9p,., EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation_ Table9 Component A-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Farmers Highline Off-street facility Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure Canal Trail lengthened Kennedy Street On-street facility Existing overpass to be No Impact replaced Lincoln Street On-street facility Outside of Impact area No Impact (Northglenn Drive) 104`"Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to No Impact remain Tuck Lateral Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility Civic Center Park Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility Thornton Parkway On-street facility Existing overpass to No Impact remain Coronado Off-street facility Existing underpass be No Impact Parkway Trail replaced 88th Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to No Impact remain Clear Creek Trail Off-street facility Existing underpass to No Impact remain • *It is assumed that any proposed trail that would cross I-25 at an existing culvert location would use that culvert,the widening of that culvert,or proposed culvert as an I-25 underpass. Component A-T1: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont This component would involve providing a commuter rail line and facilities along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) alignment from Fort Collins to Longmont. Component A-T1 is not expected to impact 14 of the 44 existing bike/ped facilities within this portion of the BNSF corridor. Approximately 22 existing facilities currently cross the BNSF railroad tracks, and this component would add an additional track these facilities would need to cross. Bike/ped traffic at these at-grade crossings currently must wait for freight trails using the BNSF line to pass. The proposed commuter trains would result in similar delays to bike/ped travel, although these trains generally would be shorter than the freight trains. The at-grade facilities would be temporarily impacted during construction. Similarly, two existing trails that cross under the BNSF (Spring Creek and Big Thompson River) may require temporary closure during construction, but would not experience long-term impacts. Component A-T1 is not anticipated to impact 5 of the 25 proposed bike/ped facilities within this portion of the BNSF corridor (see Table 10). This component would add an additional rail track that would have to be crossed by 16 proposed facilities if they are constructed at- grade. • 21 NORTH 1-25 1,n, , EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 10 Component A-Tl: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Howes Street Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact LaPorte Avenue Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Mason Street Bike lane Commuter rail station, additional rail Direct (Cherry Street to track along corridor Laurel Street) Mountain Avenue Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing Olive Street Bike route One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Mason Street Existing/propose Additional rail track along corridor Direct (Laurel Street to d off-street multi- Fossil Creek use path Drive) East Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact West Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact CSU Campus Underpass Existing underpass to remain No Impact Pitkin Street Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Lake Street Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Spring Creek Trail Underpass and Proposed bridge construction may Temporary Closure • trail require temporary closure of trail Drake Road Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing West Harvard Bike route One additional railroad track at Direct Street existing crossing Swallow Road Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing University Avenue Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Manhattan Drive Bike lane No Impact Horsetooth Road Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Mason Street Bike lane Additional rail track along corridor Direct (Horsetooth Road to Harmony Road) Boardwalk Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact Troutman Parkway Bike route One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Harmony Road Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Fossil Creek Drive Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct and off-street crossing facility Fossil Creek Trail Off-street facility Outside of Impact Area No Impact • 22 NORTH I-25 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 10 Component A-T1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Midway Drive to Proposed multi- One additional railroad track at Direct Skyway Drive use path existing crossing Trilby Road Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Shields Street Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact (parallel to railroad) Railroad alignment Planned path Outside of Impact Area No Impact (57th Street and northward) 57th Street Planned trail One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing 37th Street Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing 29th Street Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Lake Drive Bike route Outside of Impact Area No Impact (parallel to railroad) Garfield Avenue Bike route One additional railroad track at Direct • (parallel to existing crossing railroad) US 34 Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing 7th Street Proposed bike One additional railroad track at Direct route existing crossing US 287 Bike route Outside of Impact Area No Impact 15t Street Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Big Thompson Underpass and Proposed bridge construction may Temporary Closure River trail require temporary closure of trail Roosevelt Avenue Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact 14th Southwest Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct Street existing crossing Heron Lakes Trail Proposed bike Connection to railroad alignment No Impact trail (Little Thompson to Heron Lakes)) Berthoud Proposed bike Connection to railroad alignment No Impact Reservoir trail (Little Thompson to Heron Lakes)) 49th Street(west of Proposed major One additional railroad track at Direct railroad) bike trail existing crossing Railroad alignment Proposed major Proposed trail follows commuter rail Direct (Little Thompson bike trail alignment; proposed trail may need to to Heron Lakes) be realigned CR E-10 Proposed major One additional railroad track at Direct bike trail existing crossing US 287 Bypass Proposed on- Outside of Impact Area No Impact • street facility 23 NORTH 1-25 , ' tvws EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities . information. cooperation transportation. Table 10 Component A-Tl: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Bunyan Avenue Proposed major One additional railroad track at Direct bike trail existing crossing Mountain Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Welch Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Neilson Trail Proposed major Connection to railroad alignment No Impact bike trail (Little Thompson to Heron Lakes)) First Street (at Proposed major One additional railroad track at Direct railroad) bike trail existing crossing Little Thompson Proposed major Proposed bridge would provide Temporary Closure River bike trail greater clearance for future trail; Direct—Beneficial construction may require temporary closure of trail Vermillion Road Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing Park Ridge Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct Avenue (proposed street facility existing crossing road extension) Highway 66 Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing Railroad alignment Proposed off- Proposed trail follows commuter rail No Impact III (21t1 Avenue to SH street facility alignment; proposed trail will need to 66) be realigned 21st Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Lanyon Park Trail Proposed off- Construction could require trail Temporary Closure street facility closure. 17th Avenue Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing Mountain View On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct Avenue existing crossing 11th Avenue Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing 9t"Avenue Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing Longs Peak On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct Avenue existing crossing 4th Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Collyer Street On-street facility Outside of Impact Area No Impact Main Street On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Coffman Street Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing 2nd Avenue Proposed on- Outside of Impact Area No Impact street facility • 24 NORTH I-27 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Table 10 Component A-T1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts 1s'Avenue Proposed on- Proposed trail follows commuter rail Direct street facility alignment; proposed trail will need to be realigned Martin Street Trail Proposed on- One additional railroad crossing, one Direct street facility additional track at existing crossing Alpine Street On-street facility To the north of rail line No Impact Rogers Road On-street facility To the north of rail line No Impact 119`"Street On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Sugar Mill Road Proposed on- Outside of Impact area No impact street facility SH 119 On-street facility Commuter rail would span existing No Impact trail Ken Pratt On-street facility Outside of Impact area No Impact Boulevard County Line Road Proposed on- Additional crossing (2 tracks) Direct street facility Colorado Front Proposed trail Proposed bridge would accommodate Temporary Closure Range Trail (St. future bike/ped; construction may Direct—Beneficial Vrain Trail) require temporary closure of trail • Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off- Proposed bridge would accommodate Temporary Closure street facility future bike/ped; construction may Direct—Beneficial require temporary closure of trail Cottonwood Proposed off- Additional crossing (2 tracks) Direct Extension Ditch street facility Community Ditch Proposed off- Outside of Impact area No Impact street facility SH 52 (Mineral Proposed on- Commuter rail would span existing No Impact Road) street facility trail Erie#1 Proposed off- New culvert proposed. Temporary Closure street facility Erie#2 Proposed off- Outside of Impact area No Impact street facility Union Pacific Proposed off- Proposed trail follows commuter rail Direct railroad street facility alignment but proposed outside of BNSF right-of-way; proposed trail may need realignment. Dacono#1 Proposed off- Proposed bridge over Stanley Ditch Direct—Beneficial street facility could accommodate future bike/ped Stanley Ditch Proposed trail Proposed bridge could accommodate Direct—Beneficial future bike/ped (intersects with Dacono#1) Leon a Wurl Proposed on- Proposed access road to park and Indirect—Adverse Parkway(Saint street facility ride would cross proposed trail Vrain Legacy Trail) • 25 NORTH 1-25 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 10 Component A-Tl: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Dacono#2 Proposed off- Trail terminates at commuter rail Temporary Closure street facility alignment, proposed trail may need slight realignment Little Dry Creek Proposed off- Proposed bridge could accommodate Direct—Beneficial street facility future bike/ped Bull Ditch Proposed off- Proposed bridge could accommodate Direct—Beneficial street facility future bike/ped 168`"Avenue Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing Big Dry Creek Proposed off- Existing bridge could accommodate Indirect—Beneficial Ditch street facility future bike/ped SH 7 Proposed on- To the south of rail line No Impact street facility German Ditch Proposed off- Outside of Impact Area No Impact street facility A proposed trail along the Little Thompson River may require temporary closure during construction if the trail exists when construction occurs, but would not have permanent adverse impacts. • Fort Collins recently constructed a bike lane extending from along Mason Street from the Fossil Creek Trail north to Cherry Street. Construction of the South Transit Center as part of Package A station would include a pedestrian overpass to avoid conflicts with transit and trail users. The trail would be relocated directly east of the east platform to avoid impacts; the pedestrian bridge would span the trail and connect the platforms with the parking/bus facility. A future trail is planned north of Prospect Avenue as part of the Mason Transportation Corridor. The commuter rail line proposed as part of Package A would impact approximately 3,000 feet of the trail, as it's currently planned. If Package A is identified as the Preferred Alternative, CDOT would work with the City of Fort Collins to avoid and minimize impacts. The railroad alignment between Little Thompson and Heron Lakes is shown on mapping received from the City of Berthoud as running along the BNSF corridor. However, since the city plans for this proposed trail to be constructed as part of future development in the area, it would be located parallel to but outside of the BNSF right-of-way. Impacts to this trail would depend on its future location. The three feeder bus routes from 1) Greeley to Windsor to Fort Collins, 2) Greeley to Loveland, and 3) Milliken to Johnstown to Berthoud would not noticeably affect bike/ped facilities, other than providing an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to access commuter rail via the bus service. Other indirect effects are described below. • 26 NORTH I-25 ,,,.; EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Component A-T2: Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro This component would involve providing a commuter rail line and facilities from Longmont along a new alignment parallel to SH 119 to WCR 7, then south to the existing UP line to North Metro Denver (Longmont/North Metro Connection). Along this corridor, six existing bike/ped facilities exist. The improvements would not impact four of these, but would add an additional track at two existing trail crossings. A number of facilities are proposed along this corridor. The improvements would result in no impact to seven of these, but would add one or two additional tracks at five proposed trail crossings (see Table 11). The Town of Erie's Master Plan includes a future trail running along the Union Pacific railroad alignment north of Broomfield to Highway 52. Since this facility is proposed to be built as development occurs in the area, it is assumed this trail would run on private property outside of the existing railroad right-of-way where improvements would occur. Any impact to this trail would depend on its future location. A number of new bridges would be constructed as part of this component. Since these new bridges would increase the horizontal and vertical clearances associated with these waterway crossings, they would provide added room for any future bike/ped facility. The proposed feeder bus service would not directly affect bike/ped facilities, but would provide an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to access • commuter rail via the bus service. These features could add to noise levels experienced by bicyclists and pedestrians. Table 11 Component A-T2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Coffman Street Proposed on-street facility One additional railroad Direct track at existing crossing 2nd Avenue Proposed on-street facility No impact 1S1 Avenue Proposed on-street facility Proposed trail follows Direct commuter rail alignment; proposed trail will need to be realigned Martin Street Trail Proposed on-street facility One additional railroad Direct crossing, one additional track at existing crossing Sugar Mill Road Proposed on-street facility No impact County Line Road Proposed on-street facility Additional crossing (2 Direct tracks) • 27 NORTH 1-25 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 11 Component A-T2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Colorado Front Range Proposed trail Proposed bridge could Temporary closure Trail (St. Vrain Trail) accommodate future Direct—Beneficial bike/ped; construction may require temporary closure of trail Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street facility Proposed bridge could Temporary closure accommodate future Direct—Beneficial bike/ped; construction may require temporary closure of trail Cottonwood Extension Proposed off-street facility Additional crossing (2 Direct Ditch tracks) Community Ditch Proposed off-street facility No Impact SH 52 (Mineral Road) Proposed on-street facility Commuter rail would No Impact span existing trail Erie#1 Proposed off-street facility New culvert proposed. Indirect Erie#2 Proposed off-street facility No Impact • Union Pacific railroad Proposed off-street facility Proposed trail follows Direct commuter rail alignment; proposed trail will need to be realigned Dacono #1 Proposed off-street facility Proposed bridge over Indirect—Potentially Stanley Ditch could Beneficial accommodate future bike/ped Stanley Ditch Proposed trail Proposed bridge could Direct—Beneficial accommodate future bike/ped (intersects with Dacono#1) Leon a Wurl Parkway Proposed on-street facility Proposed access road Indirect—Adverse (Saint Vrain Legacy to park and would Trail) cross proposed trail Dacono#2 Proposed off-street facility Trail terminates at Temporary Closure commuter rail alignment, proposed trail may need slight realignment Little Dry Creek Proposed off-street facility Proposed bridge could Direct—Beneficial accommodate future bike/ped • 28 NORTH 1-25 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11 Component A-T2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Bull Ditch Proposed off-street facility Proposed bridge could Direct—Beneficial accommodate future bike/ped 168`"Avenue Proposed on-street facility One additional railroad Direct track at existing crossing Big Dry Creek Ditch Proposed off-street facility Existing bridge could Direct—Beneficial accommodate future bike/ped SH 7 Proposed on-street facility No Impact German Ditch Proposed off-street facility No Impact Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver and DIA Component A-T3 would provide commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and Denver Union Station, while Component A-T4 would provide commuter bus service along • E-470 between US 85 and Denver International Airport. As with Component A-T2, neither Components A-T3 nor A-T4 would directly affect bike/ped facilities, but would provide an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians. Package A: General Indirect Effects As discussed in the Land Use Technical Memorandum, commuter rail proposed in Package A would facilitate a shift in growth toward urban centers within the study area, particularly along the BNSF rail line. Increasing development densities in these urban areas would help facilitate bike/ped travel since denser development is more conducive to these transportation modes. It would also focus investment in future bike/ped facilities within these areas. Commuter rail would increase noise levels for users of nearby bike/ped facilities. Other transportation improvements, including the 1-25 widening, could increase noise levels along some bike/ped facilities. Also, as previously discussed, commuter rail would increase delays for users of facilities that cross the BNSF line at-grade. Overall, Package A is expected to improve regional air quality over the No-Action Alternative, resulting in corresponding benefits to bicyclists and pedestrians. However, transportation improvements associated with Package A (e.g., 1-25 widening, new stations, park and rides) would move vehicles closer to bike/ped facilities in some areas. Since mobile source air pollutants are more concentrated near the edge of roadways and dissipate further from the roadway, these improvements could result in localized adverse • effects. 29 NORTH I25 .� EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities . information. cooperation. transportation_ Construction activities would result in temporary nuisance impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians, including construction noise and dust. As described above, some bike/ped facilities would require closure during construction. Package B Package B consists of four highway components and three transit components (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS. Table 12 and Table 13 present the consequences of each Package B component to the bike/ped facilities identified under Existing Conditions. The following sections summarize these impacts. Impacts for Component B-H1 (Safety Improvements) would be the same as those described for Package A: Component A-H1. Similarly, Component B-H2 (Tolled Express Lanes) and Component B-H3 (Tolled Express Lanes) would have the same impacts as Components A- H2 and A-H3, respectively. As discussed below, impacts would differ between Components B-H4 and A-H4 (see Table 12). Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 This component would add one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36. It is not expected to impact six of the existing bike/ped facilities in this area. Three of the facilities likely would experience temporary construction impacts, including possible trail closure. Impacts to proposed trails would not be • anticipated. Table 12 Component B-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Big Dry Creek Underpass Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure lengthened 128"'Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to be No Impact replaced 120m Transit Station Underpass Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure lengthened Community Center On-street facility Existing underpass to remain No Impact Drive Farmers Highline Off-street facility Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure Canal Trail lengthened Kennedy Street On-street facility Existing overpass to be Temporary Closure replaced Lincoln Street Trail Outside of Impact Area No Impact (Northglenn Drive) 104`"Avenue On-street facility Proposed bridge over 1-25 Direct—Beneficial would include sidewalk and bike lanes Thornton Parkway On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact Coronado Parkway Off-street facility New pedestrian overpass, Direct—Beneficial Trail improved pedestrian circulation • 30 NORTH 1-25 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 12 Component B-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts 88th Avenue On-street facility Proposed bridge over 1-25 Direct—Beneficial would include sidewalk and bike lanes; improved pedestrian circulation Clear Creek Trail Existing off-street Possible trail closure during Temporary Closure facility construction of BMPs Westminster#1 Proposed trail Trail is to the west of 1-25 No Impact Westminster#2 Proposed off- Trail is to the west of 1-25 No Impact street facility Westminster#3 Proposed trail Trail connection to Big Dry No Impact Creek Thornton #2 Proposed trail Existing underpass to remain No Impact (connection to Big Dry Creek) 120th Avenue Proposed on- Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure street facility lengthened Tuck Lateral Proposed off- Trail is to the west of 1-25 No Impact street facility Civic Center Park Proposed off- Trail is to the east of 1-25 No Impact street facility • 'It is assumed that any proposed trail that would cross 1-25 at an existing culvert location would use that culvert,the widening of that culvert,or proposed culvert as an 1-25 underpass. Component B-T1: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver The proposed BRT service mostly would occur within existing right-of-way and therefore would not directly impact bike/ped facilities. However, proposed queue jumps along US 34 (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS) would require acquisition of some new right-of-way within Greeley. Table 13 shows potential impacts to facilities near this proposed right-of-way. The improvements would require realigning roughly seven existing facilities. These facilities would be affected by construction-related noise, dust, detours, and temporary closures. • 31 NORTH I25 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. • Components B-T2 : BRT : Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA Components B-T2 would not directly affect bike/ped facilities. Table 13 Impacts from Queue Jumps: US 34 Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts 10th Street(Hwy34) Existing and Realignment of trail required Direct proposed on at queue jump locations street facility 71st Avenue Existing on street Realignment of trail required Direct facility at queue jump location Hunters Cave West Existing and Outside of Impact Area No Impact proposed off street facility 63rd Avenue Existing bike Outside of Impact Area No Impact lane/bike route 59th Avenue Existing and Realignment of trail required Direct proposed on at queue jump location street facility 54th Avenue Proposed on Outside of Impact Area No Impact street facility 47th Avenue Existing on street Realignment of trail required Direct facility at queue jump location • 43rd Avenue Existing and Realignment of trail required Direct proposed on at queue jump locations street facility 35th Avenue Existing on street Realignment of trail required Direct facility at queue jump location 28th Avenue Existing on street Realignment of trail required Direct facility at queue jump location Package B: General Indirect Effects As discussed in the Land Use Technical Memorandum, the introduction of BRT along the l- 25 corridor would represent a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and would not spur the denser development along the BNSF line envisioned under Package A. Consequently, the benefits to bike/ped travel associated with denser development, discussed for Package A, Indirect Effects, would not be realized. Since growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 corridor, construction of future bike/ped facilities would be concentrated along this corridor. Localities would continue to look to developers to provide many of these facilities as part of their development plans. Similar to Package A, proposed improvements under Package B would improve regional air quality and therefore generally benefit bicyclists and pedestrians. However, as with Package A, moving vehicles closer to bike/ped facilities in some areas could create localized adverse effects. Package B improvements would increase noise levels for users of nearby bike/ped facilities. • 32 NORTH 1-25 ;; ,r , EIS • Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. For example, since mobile source air pollutants are more concentrated near the edge of roadways and dissipate further from the roadway, these improvements could result in localized adverse effects. Construction activities would result in temporary nuisance impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians, including construction noise and dust. As described above, some bike/ped facilities would require closure during construction. MITIGATION CDOT and FHWA prioritized accommodating bike/ped movement early in the project development process. Consequently, new frontage roads along 1-25 and grade-separated highways crossing 1-25 will include features to accommodate bike/ped travel. Also, proposed drainage structures will provide opportunities for bike/ped crossings under 1-25 and other roadways. Despite some adverse effects discussed above, Packages A and B both will provide net benefits to existing and proposed bike/ped travel. Therefore, no specific mitigation measures are identified. Measures to minimize construction impacts are discussed in Section 3.22 of the DEIS. • • 33 NORTH 1-25 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. REFERENCES Adams County Open Space Plan Trail map. Bicycling Metro Denver Route map (by the Denver Bicycle Touring Club. Boulder County Comprehensive P/an—County trails map and County On-Street Bikeways Plan Brighton Comprehensive Plan, 2003 CDOT Bicycle Pedestrian Program, 2001. City and County of Broomfield Open Space Plan. City of Boulder, Transportation Information System (website—GIS map). City of Brighton Open Space and Trails Plan, 2006. City of Louisville, Department of Land Management, Open Space Program Callahan property trail improvement. City of Loveland, Parks and Recreation Trails location Map. • City of Northglenn Greenway/trail system map, January 2000. City of Northglenn Parks and Trails Master Plan, 2005. City of Thornton Parks and Open Space Master Plan, 2003. City of Thornton Proposed Community and Regional Trail Network map. City of Thornton Parks and Open Space and trails map, winter 2004. City of Westminster Trails Master Plan map, June 2001. Colorado Front Range Trail Corridor Plan, April 2002. Colorado Front Range Trail Project, CO State Parks, 2003. Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2003. Denver Metro Trails Guide, GOCO, 2000. Denver Parks and Recreation Game Plan, 2003. Firestone Draft Master Plan, 2006. 34 NORTH 1-25 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Fort Collins Bicycle Map (Smart tips) March 2003. Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan, 2004. Greeley Parks and Trails Master Plan, Jan 2001. 1-25 Corridor Plan. Johnstown Milliken Parks, Trails, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, June 2003. Lafayette Comprehensive Plan, 2003. Larimer County Open Lands Plan. Larimer County Transportation Plan (September 2000). Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan (Bikeways Map). Longmont Open Space and Trails Master Plan, 2002. Longmont Multimodal Transportation Plan (Bike Vision Map) property trail improvement. • Loveland Bikeways and Recreational trail map (2003-2004) Master Plan. Poudre River Trail Corridor Master Plan, 1995. South Platte River—Greenway Trail map. Denver Department of Parks and Recreation. St. Vrain Valley Open Lands and Trails Plan. St. Vrain Trail Master Plan, 2004. Timnath Comprehensive Plan, 2005. Timnath Future Land Use Plan, 2005. Timnath Trails Plan, 2005. Town of Berthoud Master Land Use Plan, 2001. Town of Berthoud, Parks and major bike trails map, Feb 2001. Town of Erie Parks and Open Space Master Plan, 2002. Town of Frederick Parks and Open Space Master Plan, 2006. Town of Frederick—Potential Trails and Open Space map, April 2004. • 35 NORTH I25 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. • Town of Mead, 2004 Comprehensive Plan, 2004. Town of Mead, Proposed sidewalk/trail system, Dec 2000. Upper Front Range 2030—Regional Transportation Plan Draft. US 36 Regional bicycle map. Weld County Comprehensive Plan (1999)—Structural Land Use Plan Map. Westminster Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2004-2009. Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2006. • • 36 Hello