Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/10/2009 - NORTH I-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DATE: February 10, 2009 WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF: Kathleen Bracke FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Mark Jackson SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) is conducting the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Interstate 25 corridor from Northern Colorado to the Denver Metropolitan area. CDOT has prepared a draft North I-25 EIS document and is continuing to gather input from communities and citizens within the project area. CDOT's goal is to develop a preferred alternative for long-range transportation improvements, both highway and transit, to link Northern Colorado to the Denver Metropolitan area. City staff and Councilmember Ben Manvel are continuing to participate in CDOT's North I-25 EIS process along with representatives from other North Front Range communities. CDOT staff and their consultants are hosting a series of workshops with community representatives to gather additional input and help build consensus toward a preferred set of highway and transit improvements for the Northern Colorado region. The purpose of this work session is to share this most recent information regarding CDOT's North I-25 EIS process and to request additional input and feedback from City Council regarding the proposed transportation improvements. Staff has attended the City Transportation Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board meetings in January to discuss CDOT's North I-25 EIS process and seek comments from Boardmembers. Staff is also scheduled to attend the upcoming Downtown Development Authority Board meeting and has requested attendance at several other City Board meetings over the next two months to continue seeking input and feedback from the Fort Collins community. This ongoing information and input from staff,City Boards,Commissions,and Council will be forwarded to CDOT as part of the City of Fort Collins' overall comments on the Final North I-25 EIS document, including recommendation for preferred improvements. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED I. What feedback would City Council like to share with CDOT and/or the other agencies and communities participating in the North I-25 EIS process? 2. Is there additional information that City Council would like to see CDOT provide as part of the North I-25 EIS process? February 10, 2009 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has commissioned the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The regional study area extends from Wellington at the north end to Denver Union Station on the south, and from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR)routes on the east. The regional study area spans portions of seven counties: Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld. The regional study area includes 38 incorporated communities and three transportation planning regions (TPRs): the Denver Regional Council of Governments(DRCOG),the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization(NFRMPO), and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission(UFRRPC). Major population centers in the regional study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and the communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area (Denver Metro Area). Please see attachment 1 (North I-25 EIS Executive Summary) for a map of the study area. The purpose of CDOT's North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to identify the type of facility improvements that will meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro Area and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. To meet long-term travel needs, the project must improve safety, mobility and accessibility, and provide modal alternatives and interrelationships. The need for the project is driven by the following four categories: • Increased frequency and severity of crashes • Increasing traffic congestion leading to mobility and accessibility problems • Aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure • Lack of modal alternatives The project needs relate differently to highway and transit components of the solutions. Highway alternatives were evaluated in addressing all four of these needs.Transit alternatives were evaluated in addressing two of the needs: increasing traffic congestion leading to mobility and accessibility problems, and lack of modal alternatives. Specific measures were developed for each of the needs in order to provide a means for evaluating the effectiveness of each alternative. The Alternative packages that address these stated needs are included in the attached "North I-25 EIS Executive Summary" document. CDOT has involved many cities,counties,and other agencies that are stakeholders within the North 1-25 EIS study area. Since CDOT began the North 1-25 EIS process, City Transportation staff has participated on the "Technical Advisory Committee" and City Council representatives have participated on the "Regional Elected Officials Advisory Committee." CDOT staff and its consultant team also held many public open house and meetings over the last several years of the EIS process. Comments received from the City's Transportation Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board at their recent January meetings were general in nature regarding the pros and cons of the various alternatives and questions regarding how the alternatives fit with local community values and visions for the future. Detailed meeting notes from the Transportation Board and Natural Resources Board are provided as attachments. February 10, 2009 Page 3 Staff and Councilmember Manvel recently participated in two regional workshops hosted by CDOT and their consulting team. The purpose of these workshops was to provide additional opportunities for community input with the goal of trying to develop consensus on a preferred set of alternatives for the proposed highway and transit improvements. To date, it seems that there is a convergence of preferences from most of the community representatives attending the workshops for the following improvements: (1) commuter rail service along the BNSF corridor to link to RTD's planned FasTracks commuter rail system connecting to the Denver and Boulder metropolitan areas; (2) High Occupancy/Tolled Express lanes along the center of I-25 along with regional express bus service from Fort Collins to downtown Denver; and (3) commuter bus service from Greeley to downtown Denver via the US85 corridor. CDOT has an additional workshop scheduled for February 12th to continue this consensus building process with the local representatives from the project area. Council input and feedback on this current convergence of ideas would be greatly appreciated so that staff and Councilmember Manvel can share that information with CDOT and other communities at the next workshop. Staff will continue to update Council on the progress of these workshops and the results of this consensus building process. City staff will continue to be actively involved with CDOT, FHWA, and FTA throughout the . development of the final EIS document in 2009 and will make every effort to convey the input and concerns from the Fort Collins' City organization, City Council, Boards and Commissions, and community members to influence the final recommendations for these significant regional improvements. Based on recent staff discussions with CDOT,there will be additional opportunities for staff input as well as input from City Boards,Commissions,and Council during the development of the Final EIS document in 2009. Staff is not asking City Council to make a formal recommendation for a preferred alternative at this time. Once input has been received from the City's boards and commissions, staff will bring this item back to Council in mid 2009 for another work session and then for formal action on the preferred alternative. There will be another round of formal comment period for the Final EIS document, which is anticipated to be released by CDOT in late 2009. Next Steps Staff will continue to bring the North I-25 EIS information to City Boards and Commissions during the first quarter of 2009 to gain their input and feedback regarding CDOT's DEIS document and the proposed packages of improvements. Staff is committed to continuing to work with CDOT,FHWA, and FTA throughout the completion process for the EIS in 2009 to ensure that Fort Collins concerns are addressed in the selection of the preferred alternative and in the Final EIS document. Timeline 1 st Quarter 2009 — City staff present North I-25 DEIS, including packages of alternatives to City boards and commissions as well as to Council at the February 10th work session. Local agencies work with CDOT to determine a preferred alternative. 2nd—4th Quarter 2009—CDOT finalizes preferred alternative and develops the final EIS document for public review. Detailed timeframes for requested Council action will be coordinated with CDOT. Staff is scheduling a follow-up work session with City Council for mid-2009 to continue the dialogue with CDOT. February 10, 2009 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. CDOT North I-25 draft EIS Executive Summary. 2. City letter sent to CDOT on December 30, 2008 documenting staff and Council comments on the draft EIS document. 3. Meeting notes from the City's Transportation Board. 4. Meeting notes from the City's Natural Resources Advisory Board. 5. CDOT's North I-25 EIS Presentation. ATTACHMENT Draft EIS NORTH October 2008 EISM informatim coopetaoat. trarspartatirn. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of What's In Executive Summary? Transportation (CDOT), have initiated this Draft Executive Summary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to ES.1 Summary of the Action identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation ES.2 Other Actions in the Regional Study improvements along the 61-mile Area 1-25 transportation corridor extending from the ES.3 Summary of Reasonable Alternatives Considered Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver. The ESA Summary of Major Environmental improvements being considered in this Draft and Other Impacts EIS would address regional and inter-regional ES.5 Other Federal Actions Required movement of people, goods, and services in the ES.6 Next Steps in the NEPA Process 1-25 corridor. The improvements are needed to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices. The regional study area (Figure ES-1) that encompasses these proposed improvements includes 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the regional study area • include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area (Denver Metro Area). Two multi-modal build packages (Packages A and B) are being evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit(BRT) on three different alignments. ES.2 OTHER ACTIONS IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA Two other major actions are being proposed in the regional study area by other governmental agencies. These are: ► Glade Reservoir and the Relocation of US 287. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is proposing to build a new reservoir in the northwestern corner of the regional study area. This would require relocation of a segment of US 287 north of Fort Collins. ► FasTracks Corridors. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is the existing agency providing transit service in the Denver Metro Area. RTD will build commuter rail along two corridors that will provide service to communities in the regional study area. The FasTracks • North Metro Corridor is located along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor just to the east of 1-25, terminating in Thornton. The FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor is located along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) corridor, which is located adjacent to SH 119 between Boulder and Longmont, on the far western edge of the regional study area. Executive Summary ES-1 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October2008 EIS infornanon cocperadon. trairsportation. • Figure ES-1 North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area LEGEND 4 G Burlington Northem Santa Fe 4A .- -————— Great Western Railway zar sv •------- Union Pacific Railroad - --------- Abandoned Railroad Right-of-Way Fort olltn US or Interstate Highway State Highway -•�^ _� �^•��. 28T LoveI nd _ Greele _ - LARIMER �r` m 779 ' Q ee WE Lon wont eouu " as Gould r ..�._._ - r Lw i..wn.ia f i n / ar.en JEFFERSON --- Unw Stntan �o a- s I Dett;ver r. Executive Summary ES-2 Draft EIS NORTH -2 October2008 information. co¢era[im.lrarxportation. ES.3 SUMMARY OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED An extensive process was undertaken to identify a range of alternatives that could be developed to meet the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives were then screened and combined to produce two build packages. These packages, together with the No-Action Alternative, are considered the reasonable alternatives for this proposed action and were fully evaluated in this Draft EIS. The No-Action Alternative (Figure ES-2) would include those transportation projects for which funding has been committed, including the two FasTracks corridors, widening of 1-25 from SH 52 to SH 66, replacement of the SH 66/1-25 interchange, modification of the US 34/1-25 interchange, and signalization of the SH 402 and the Prospect Road interchange ramp termini. The No-Action Alternative also would include rehabilitation of two structures on 1-25 at 84th Avenue and 104th Avenue, replacement of pavement on 1-25, installation of signals at five interchange ramp termini, and widening of 1-25 off-ramps at the Prospect/1-25 interchange. Package A (Figure ES-3) would include adding one additional general purpose lane on 1-25 in each direction, for a total of six lanes from SH 66 to SH 14 (plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60) and a total of eight lanes from E-470 to SH 52. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package A also includes a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown • Longmont. The new second track was eliminated for a 500-foot segment of the corridor in Loveland to avoid the historic Loveland Depot and in a second location — adjacent to a historic residential property at 122 81h Avenue in Longmont. This would result in bi-directional service along the existing single-track BNSF line near the proposed Loveland station and adjacent to the residential property in Longmont. Also included in Package A would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that would connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Package A also would include nine commuter rail stations and a commuter rail maintenance facility; a commuter bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west routes; and commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver and along E-470 from US 85 to Denver International Airport (DIA). Package B (Figure ES-4) would include adding one buffer-separated tolled express lane to I-25 except for the section between SH 60 and Harmony Road, where two barrier-separated lanes would be added. Tolled express lanes (TEL) would extend from SH 14 to 841h Avenue in Thornton. Tolled express lanes would be used by high-occupancy vehicles for free, by single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a toll, and by buses. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package B would also include 12 bus stations providing service along 1-25, along US 34 into Greeley, and along Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Along US 34 and Harmony Road, the buses would travel in mixed traffic. Package B also would include a bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west streets. In addition, bus service would be provided along E-470 from 1-25 to DIA. Executive Summary ES-3 Draft EIS NORTH I 25 October 2008 EIS information. co%eration. transportation. • Figure ES-2 No-Action Alternative LEGEND * Major Structure Rehab by 2030 Yrrar • Minor Structure Rehab by 2030 YYYY t Replace/Rehab Pavement by 2030 i • Minor Safety Modifications by 2030 i _ Ya rYx�aa® FasTracks Rail Line tr' YY WlY. ow Ya '. F In 'm"" Cro N Z9 L J LARIMER WY YYr 'TRU WELD r � .YY�N ll BOULDER txj n � n i 32 ari Am h. °° xr Y~L ROO RI rr"� AN .K. A YY � Y H Mws Y.Y. CYNIR • Y s s Y U Stebw -- Yerth DENVER Executive Summary ES-4 Draft EIS NORTH -5 October 2008 information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure ES-3 Package A i LEGEND I New General Purpose Lane (GPL)in Each Direction — ■ i New General Purpose Lane ((GPL)+Auxiliary Lane in Each birection �aw��$ Commuter Rail(CR) �';-`=t y o CommuterBus(CB)Serviceon Port Ilin us 85 smnratrarYnw.uc0' - YYYr e.�,e W. Lae .....�. r•=. Feeder Bus Service 0 Interchange Upgrades © enaos< Number of Lanes Love nd " Lwow-eNS ruar2 ",_,-•-,.•_••-.- fietlry- Q Commuter Bus Station!Stop owmmwu. -earw Greele y O Commuter Rail Station a mimes w so FasTracks Rail Line LAR3M_R �00 seFrars ,�„ © FasTraclalRTD Transit Station ■ Potential Commuter Rail • Operational&Maintenance --- — — - Facility ......,, ■ Potential Commuter Bus ear'msNes sffi,maYY,,,, Operational&Maintenance Longmont twv°",SW N"d Facility ud ve BOULDER nro I .w r^1 ^ Ot •eee6>tl Ol YHawrne oulder � NS egl.rd•Wr/ RR c f• r- nerL.Yrca L`� CertNar Yrr^� _ 1 -r JEFFER ON ,.I L.—.J ,- w N aWI —t • a� monh 2 t e a o Executive Summary ES-5 Draft EIS NORM 1-25 October 2008 EIS , information. cocpazdan. transportation. • Figure ES4 Package B LEGEND b saes t Buffer-Separated Tolled R Express Lane(TEL) Each Diradion in =•- - ■ 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled ... Express Lanes(TEL)in Each wiiiiiiww mn0 Di m '�DirectionIt aaaa� Co s Bus Rapid Transit BRT)Route unaam i xan sY ar _ ,�„ ..... (Uses TELs on 1-25) t25Ivxl naa-Fnn 01111m,, a.nd", U534 SWA.Lmanic Feeder Bus Service NY°"-1-25a°314 ter- a�roalm..m n.ma xar olar-mr..am 0 Interchange Upgrades © �y Lovel nd nd ft% Number of Lanes:General '•a Greele Purposerrolled Express Lanes Q®allY e.a.nwx J —L ..� Bus Rapid Transit Station ems• • ,.rr..a� ..w a.swm i-a>na al w. aaiiiiiiiiiiii FasTracks Rail Line ® FasTraciIs/RTD Transit Station LARI?NER N Potential Commuter Bus - - -� Operational Maintenance cnvw_ c Facility ongmont U LOER I•.�.� 11V � � • .msxss „a oulder w RO vlaWen •Tti t.�w — _ RaY CenNr_ t �Ya.M r Woe Y �•�•• Cp„w Y.ttr.r...r M IYI 1 JEFFER 0Y r L'— L. �.J u N V!}1 ^~ s Maf• • Executive Summary ES-6 Draft EIS NORTH I25 October2008 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ESA SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts of this Draft EIS include information describing environmental and other impacts to all resources in the affected area. Section 3.27 includes a summary of all impacts and Section 3.28 includes a summary of all mitigation. This section provides a summary of only the major impacts that would occur. Both build alternatives provide improvements in travel time compared to the No-Action Alternative. In the general purpose lanes, travel would be improved by 10 minutes with Package A and 15 minutes with Package B. Using the tolled express lanes, travel time would be 63 minutes faster than the No-Action Alternative. Commuter rail would be 37 minutes faster than driving in the No- Action Alternative and travel on bus rapid transit would be 58 minutes faster. Package A would result in a reduction in traffic on regional study area arterial streets of 4 to 12 percent while Package B would reduce volumes from 0 to 3 percent, compared to the No-Action Altemative.The No-Action Alternative would result in very little physical impact to social, economic, and environmental resources. Air pollution related to traffic congestion would continue to increase and noise impacts from increased traffic also would worsen. Over time, the No-Action Alternative could have a dampening effect on the local economy. Relocation impacts associated with Package A would include 59 residences and 33 businesses compared with 24 residences and 16 businesses associated with Package B. All acquisition or • relocation needed for this project would fully comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Air emissions associated with both build packages would be slightly greater than those anticipated under the No-Action Alternative because vehicle miles of travel would be expected to increase. These emissions in 2030 would however, be substantially lower than existing levels for all pollutants and in all alternatives. Traffic noise impacts would occur under both build packages as well as the No-Action Alternative. Package A would impact a few less sites (623 sites) than the No-Action Alternative (626 sites), while Package B would impact the most sites (756 sites). Mitigation of traffic noise is recommended for two areas under Package A and for seven areas under Package B. Noise impacts also would occur as a result of transit operations associated with Package A. Moderate noise impacts would be projected to occur at 167 residences along the commuter rail corridor. No severe impacts would be projected to occur. Mitigation is proposed for the majority of these locations. Vibration impacts, affecting 87 residences, would be expected as a result of commuter rail operations associated with Package A. Vibration mitigation would be installed. Wetlands and waters of the U.S. would be impacted along highway and transit corridors. Package A would impact approximately 19.34 acres of wetlands and waters of the U.S. Package B would impactjust over 20.38 acres of wetlands and waters of the U.S. Mitigation would be • provided for all wetland impacts in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act and requirements of Executive Order 11990. Executive Summary ES-7 Draft EIS NORTH E25 October 2008 EIS , information. cooperation.trauponation. • Impacts would occur to 100-year floodplains situated along the corridors. Package A would impact 16 floodplains (12.8 acres), while Package B would impact 12 floodplains (13.5 acres). All floodplain impacts would be mitigated in accordance with Executive Order 11988, 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650, and local regulations. Wildlife and aquatic species habitat would be negatively affected. Package A would impact 2.01 acres of terrestrial habitat and 1.82 acres of aquatic habitat. Package B would impact 2.35 acres of terrestrial habitat and 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. All impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible. There would be impacts to threatened, endangered, state sensitive and protected animal species. Package A would impact 283.35 acres and Package B would impact 358.98 acres. Most of these impacts would occur to bald eagle foraging habitat and black tailed prairie dog colonies. All impacts will be mitigated. There are many archaeological and historic properties along the transportation corridors. Ninety-one of these are either on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Package A would cause an adverse effect to five of these properties and Package B would result in an adverse effect to one of these properties. Mitigation for impacted properties would occur in compliance with (36 CFR 800) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are 43 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the corridors. Package • A would affect seven of these properties and Package B would affect eight of these properties. Mitigation for all impacts would be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and 36 CFR 800. ES.5 OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS REQUIRED The following is a list of other federal actions required for either build package: ► Section 404 permit, required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for discharge of fill materials into wetlands or waters of the U.S. ► Section 106 agreements, required from the State Historic Preservation Officer, related to determinations of effects to historic properties and Memoranda of Agreement (as needed)for adverse effects ► Section 4(f) coordination with the National Park Service, for use of land associated with parks, wildlife refuges, or historic properties ► Section 6(f) concurrence, required from the National Park Service, for land required from one park (Grant Park) which was purchased using Land and Water Conservation funds • Executive Summary ES-8 Draft EIS NoRTHI--2S October 2008 EIS M information. ccopwadm. nnspWaticn. ES.6 NEXT STEPS IN THE NEPA PROCESS This Draft EIS has been prepared in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500), FHWA and FTA environmental impact and related procedures for implementing NEPA and CEQ regulations on highway transportation projects (23 CFR 771), FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, and other applicable laws. This Draft EIS is available to interested parties for review and comment for 45 days. During the review period, a public hearing will be held and all comments recorded. The next step in the NEPA process following the Draft EIS review period is preparation of a Final EIS. The Final EIS will consider the comments received on the Draft EIS and will identify the Preferred Alternative for the project, its impacts, and commitments for mitigation measures. The Final EIS also will be made available for public review and comment. The final step of the NEPA process is preparation of a Record of Decision (ROD), which will document the federal agency decision for the project. The ROD will identify funding for the approved action consistent with regional transportation plans included in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's planning documents. It is likely that improvements identified in this Draft EIS will be broken into phases for future analysis in the Final EIS and ROD, due to the length of the corridor and funding availability. Examples of improvements that might be phased include provision of feeder bus service, addition of new lanes for only a portion of the corridor, construction of commuter rail by an • initial investment for a single tracked system with passing tracks, construction of only a few transit stations or interchanges, phasing in BRT by providing commuter bus service initially, or replacing only a few bridges initially. Executive Summary ES-9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ATTACHMENT 2 City of Planning, Development & Transportation Fort Collins Transportation Planning g Special Projects 250 North Mason Street P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221,6239-fax t cgov.coMransportation December 30, 2008 Carol Parr Project Manager,North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Colorado Department of Transportation—Region 4 1420 2"d Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMENTS ON NORTH I-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DOCUMENT Dear Ms. Parr, On behalf of the City of Fort Collins, enclosed are the summarized comments on the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)document. These comments include those from City staff as well as from City Council. Our comments on the DEIS provide our input as to the conceptual nature of the project and our concerns on the technical elements that we believe need further addressing during the next steps of the EIS process. At this time the City does not recommend to CDOT a preferred alternative. Overall, we believe the DEIS is thorough and adequately addresses the purpose and need identified during the scoping phase of the EIS process. We appreciate the opportunity to share this important feedback from our City with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)as part of the formal DEIS comment period and look forward to continuing our work with you and CDOT's North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) project team throughout 2009. City staff and Councilmember Ben Manvel will participate in the upcoming North I-25 EIS workshops. Staff will share the information on the North I-25 EIS project with various City Boards &Commissions and City Council in early 2009 to provide additional input to CDOT during the course to select a preferred alternative as well as throughout the year during the development of the Final EIS document. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding our enclosed comments. Sincerely L. rac e, A.I.C.P. Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director c: Bob Garcia, CDOT— Region 4 Director Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Jeff Scheick, Planning, Development, &Transportation Director Mark Jackson, Transportation Group Director City of Fort Collins Comments in Response to the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement December 30, 2008 Please note that these are high level, summary comments and not intended to serve as a detailed overview of the I-25 EIS. City of Fort Collins City Council Comments: Travel to Denver is emphasized to the exclusion of travel to Longmont and Boulder, which are apparently at least as important destinations from Northern Colorado. The analysis should address a broader spectrum of trips. For example the graphics of travel patterns in Figure 4-6 indicate no riders going to or from Longmont, assuming all passengers are going to Denver. Really? Connections to other transit options, in particular the North and Northwest routes proposed for FasTracks, are vital. How does each alternative interact with them? Does the analysis look to the future, anticipating high fuel prices, demand pricing of car travel, and possible alternatives to commuting? Do the transportation models incorporate the impacts of transportation alternatives on growth patterns and transportation oriented development? If growth shifts toward 125, away from city centers, what will happen with VMT? In Figures 4-6 and 4-7, the E-W ridership numbers are totally different. Why? The financial analysis in Chapter 6 is very skimpy. Is such a superficial analysis all that is possible? Is sufficient attention paid to freight transportation? The focus seems to be totally on moving people. Is there an overall picture of environmental damage, including impacts of transportation, infrastructure, dislocations, and induced development? I don't think so. Given the enthusiasm which citizens are showing for rail, is the estimate of transit ridership of the two alternatives accurate? It is important for the North 1-25 EIS and recommended improvements to address the link between transportation and environmental sustainability as well as to reflect the visions and values of the communities. It is important for transportation improvements to provide linkages between the core areas of our communities. This "core to core" link is a very important part of Fort Collins' community values. It seems that Package A addresses those core community values. This is not a statement of a preferred package,but more general thoughts and feelings for this alternative. ON of Fort Collins Staff Comments Transportation Planning Staff Comments: General comment: Transportation Planning staff agrees with the purpose and need of the North I-25 DEIS. CDOT, FHWA, FTA, and their consultant team, have been helpful to work with City staff over the years during the development of the EIS alternatives analysis process and development of the DEIS document. The DEIS packages "A" and`B"reflect input from City staff regarding compatibility with the City's Transportation Master Plan, Master Street Plan, Transfort Strategic Plan (currently being updated) and the Mason Corridor Master Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Preliminary Engineering documents. Either of the DEIS proposed packages can serve Fort Collins' transportation needs in the future to address both highway and transit improvements. It is important to note that further discussions are necessary with the Fort Collins Boards, Commissions, and City Council in 2009 to reach a formal recommendation to CDOT, and their partnering agencies, regarding a preferred package of improvements. The following summary includes a preview of staff comments for both packages and notes concerns that will need to be addressed by CDOT during the development of the preferred alternative and the Final EIS document in 2009. Travel Model: In terms of more specific comments and concerns, Transportation Planning staff recommends that future travel demand forecast modeling be updated by CDOT and their consulting team as part of the selection process for the preferred alternative and Final EIS analysis process to ensure that the most recent transportation and land-use data is used for determining long-term transportation improvements. Also, separate land use data assumptions should be developed for each of the two packages of alternatives based on the expected land use changes that would be driven by the proposed transportation corridor improvements to more accurate reflect the inter- relationship between land use and transportation planning. Also, the current results of the travel model show that many trips are moving within the North Front Range and to/from the Fort Collins and Longmont,Boulder areas along the US287 corridor. These inter- and intra-regional travel patterns, in addition to the Fort Collins to downtown Denver trips, need to be analyzed in more detail for each package of alternatives and as part of the process to determine the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative should address all of these trip purposes, not just the Fort Collins to downtown Denver trips along I-25. Interchanges Staff supports the analysis completed during the early stages of the North I-25 EIS process for each of the interchange areas (existing &potential) serving the Fort Collins area: Carpenter Road/SH392, Harmony Road, Prospect Road, Mulberry Street/SH14, and Mountain Vista Drive. Staff concurs with the conclusions and recommended conceptual designs developed by CDOT and their consultant team. Staff appreciates CDOT's efforts to include the City of Fort Collins staff and local property/business owners throughout the interchange analysis process and the design modifications that CDOT was willing to make to address our local concerns for adjacent land impacts. Package A The proposed improvements shown in Package A, the regional commuter rail service and addition of general purpose lanes on I-25, are very effective to address high-quality transit system improvements as well as general highway travel, safety, and freight improvements to serve the Fort Collins community and North Front Range region. Package A includes the commuter rail transit alternative using the existing BNSF railroad tracks through Fort Collins and staff agrees with the three passenger rail stations shown at the City's Downtown Transit Center, Colorado State University's Main Campus, and at the City's South Transit Center. Staff appreciates CDOT co-locating the commuter rail stations at the same stations as the City's Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit stations to allow for easy passenger transfers. This convenience and potential travel time savings could affect the transit ridership projections and that is one of the reasons for staff s request that future travel modeling(roadway &transit)be completed by the North 1-25 EIS team. City Transportation Planning staff does not agree with the need for double-tracking of the BNSF railroad tracks from Prospect Road north through Downtown and believes that the existing single track is sufficient to operate service through Colorado State University(CSU)main campus and through Downtown Fort Collins, as the DEIS states is shown for the downtown Loveland area. Staff has previously shared this comment with CDOT staff and their consultant team. From Transportation Planning's perspective, the regional commuter rail transit alternative,while initially more costly than bus service, is an effective transit configuration for Fort Collins' and Northern Colorado's long-term future because it centers high-quality regional transit service in the heart of the communities along the US287/BNSF railroad corridor to serve the largest population centers. Particularly for the Fort Collins community, the regional commuter rail corridor and three passenger stations are located along our highest density population centers such as Downtown, CSU, and the US287/College Avenue corridor. Locating the regional transit service along this high population corridor allows for easy access from local activity centers and neighborhoods and minimizes the need for people to drive or take local transit routes to access regional transit service. In addition, locating this major regional commuter rail line in the heart of the Fort Collins community will lessen the likelihood of future land development shifts occurring away from the existing central population & activity centers within our community. Fort Collins' adopted Transportation Master Plan and City Plan are based on compact urban development occurring within the core areas of our community. The proposed regional commuter rail alignment along the BNSF corridor supports these transportation and land use master plans. Also, the long-term return on investment that is likely to occur within Fort Collins due to the location of the three proposed regional commuter rail stations would be a strong economic catalyst for additional higher density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development (TOD) over and above what is currently envisioned as part of the Mason Corridor. The potential synergy of high quality local and regional transit service along this central corridor of the Fort Collins community will greatly serve our long-range economic vitality and environmental stewardship values, as well as address our established transportation and land-use goals. The regional commuter rail service along the existing BNSF railroad tracks/corridor will also link Fort Collins into Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD) FasTrack"Northwest Rail Corridor"commuter rail line that begins in Longmont. This provides a cost-effective opportunity to link the North Front Range regional commuter rail improvements proposed in the North I-25 EIS to the already approved and funded FasTrack's Northwest Rail Corridor. This is a synergistic way to link regional commuter rail passengers from Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud to both Denver Union Station as well as to the Boulder area. In regards to adding the general purpose lanes shown along 1-25, these additional travel lanes will address safety concerns along I-25 and at the interchanges shown within Fort Collins area, as well as serve as an effective means to address current and future vehicle traffic capacity needs (automobile & freight traffic). These general purpose lanes will not limit the use of the new travel lanes to high-occupancy vehicles or require tolling. It is important for the EIS to address both passenger and freight transportation needs. Package B: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed CDOT's DEIS Package `B"that includes regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service originating from the City's South Transit Center and making stops at the intersection of Harmony& Timberline roads as well as at the Harmony& 1-25 Transportation Transfer Center and then traveling to the Denver area along the center of I-25 in the High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes, also referred to in the DEIS as the Tolled Express Lanes (TEL). The South Transit Center would be a primary connection point for passengers transferring to/from the regional BRT service to the City's Mason Corridor BRT service as well as other local Transfort routes. In addition, the regional BRT service would link into the City's future plans for the Harmony Road "Enhanced Travel Corridor" shown on the City's adopted Structure Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Transfort Strategic Plan. The down side of the regional BRT alternative is that it does not directly serve the core population and activity centers within Fort Collins such as Downtown, CSU, the central business, employment, and residential areas along US287/College Avenue. The regional BRT service along Harmony Road to I-25 will require people to drive to park & rides on the south end of the City or take local transit routes to transfer to the regional BRT service. The proposed 1-25 Tolled Express Lanes would help give advantage to travelers in high- occupancy vehicles such as the regional BRT or carpoolers/vanpoolers as well as support congestion pricing strategies to allow travelers who can afford to pay the toll for speed/convenience purposes. Staffs concern is that the major improvement would not address general travel needs for people who cannot afford the tolls nor do these specially designated lanes address the needs of additional highway capacity for freight vehicles. General Overall,Package "A" and `B" are both sound alternatives and propose important transportation safety and capacity improvements for highway users and transit passengers to address the purpose and needs identified for the EIS process. However, it is important for the North 1-25 EIS and community stakeholders to develop effective long-term solutions for our inter- and intra-regional transportation needs based on the anticipated future needs for travel, land-use, energy consumption, sustainability, and environmental concerns—not based on past needs and trends. The next 20, 30, and 50 years will bring significant changes to our communities, region, state, nation, and world and we need to be planning for the future—not based on the past. All of the proposed improvements (highway and transit) come at a steep price tag and CDOT, FHWA, and FTA will need to work collaboratively with all of the North Front Range communities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations to strategize workable financing options for any of these proposed future regional transportation infrastructure improvements. Transportation Planning staff will continue to be actively involved with CDOT, FHWA, and FTA throughout the development of the final EIS document and will make every effort to convey the input and concerns from the Fort Collins' City organization, City Council, and community members to influence the final recommendations for these significant regional improvements. Natural Resources Staff Comments: Natural Resources supports efforts to enhance multi-modal travel systems and supports the Transportation Planning staff s I-25 recommendations. Please note that the following comments are high level and not intended to serve as a detailed overview of the 1-25 EIS: Part I: Natural Areas General comment: The most troubling issue noted is the possibility of a chain link fence installation along the commuter rail through Natural Areas in the southwest portion of Fort Collins. The fence would be highly disruptive to wildlife movement. General comment: Maps for the EIS are not current and many City of Fort Collins' Natural Areas and Parks are not shown. 3.1: Land use. These figures only show land uses as of 2000 and should be updated. Figure 3.1.2 doesn't show any open space/parks in Fort Collins. Figures 3.1-3 through 3.1-6 do not show all of the Fort Collins area open space/parks. For example, Fossil Creek Regional Open Space is shown as an employment area, even in the 2030 projection. 3.10.5: Vegetation. Statement regarding"develop an acceptable revegetation plan" should note that the plan must be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins within its jurisdictional areas, not just acceptable to Latimer County. 3.10-5. Vegetation. Removal of large cottonwood trees at the Cache La Poudre and Big Thompson rivers will seriously impair the quality and functionality of the riparian habitat. Bald eagles and other raptors frequently use these areas to perch and hunt from. Similarly the continuous "thread" of riparian habitat is critical to wildlife movement up and down the river corridors. Also, it is not possible to mitigate the loss of a large-diameter native cottonwood tree. Table 3.12.2: Wildlife. Audubon Society has designated Fossil Creek Reservoir as an "Important Bird Area" and the high value for migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds is well- documented. This should be represented in the EIS. Wildlife: Commuter rail appears to be aligned on the McKee Farm which is Larimer County Open Lands property with conservation easements underlying the property that would prohibit new construction. Additional train traffic through the area would be a significant impact to recreation users (noise) and displace wildlife use within a 3,000-acre matrix of protected Fort Collins natural areas. Figure 3-18-1. Parks and Recreation. There are quite a few missing natural areas and open spaces on the map, including Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space, Coyote Ridge Natural Area, Long View Farm Open Space. Table 3-18-2. Parks and Recreation. This figure is not up to date. There is misinformation about Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area(confused with the Regional Open Space; location is east of Timberline, not Timber Lake; etc.). 3-18-3. Parks and Recreation. There will be direct impacts to Long View Farm Open Space, and Colina Mariposa, Hazaleus, and Red-tailed Grove natural areas, as well as indirect impacts (due to proximity) to other natural areas. The EIS states that no parks or recreational resources will be impacted by the commuter rail alternative; however that cannot possibly be true because it goes through and next to a number of natural areas. 3.06. Noise. Noise studies should be conducted at Arapaho Bend Natural Area in Fort Collins. Any expanded use as part of the alternatives analysis needs to consider this site. This open space managed by the City of Fort Collins fall into "Land Use Category A". City staff has noticed that noise levels likely exceed the maximum dB levels outlined by CDOT. This area on the northwest corner of I25 and Harmony Road in Fort Collins should be evaluated. 3.6.4.1. Noise. Any efforts to mitigate road noise (barriers) should consider wildlife movement (deer, antelope) and create wildlife crossings across 125 especially north of Fort Collins and including the Wellington area. Any barriers within the more"metro" area should provide occasional openings to permit the movement of wildlife across the interstate. Table 3.7-5. Water Quality. It is troubling that both action alternatives (Package A and B)will increase stormwater contaminant loading by 50% (for all modeled contaminants)within the Cache La Poudre watershed above the current situation or under the no-action alternative. 3.8-12 (line 39). Wetlands. The EIS identifies the "former rest area site north of the Cache La Poudre River" as a potential mitigation site. In fact that land was transferred to the City of Fort Collins and is not available as a mitigation site. 3.9-12. Floodplains. Impacts to natural vegetation and wetlands along Spring Creek and Fossil Creek need to be avoided or mitigated. Wetlands in these areas are highly valued by wildlife including sensitive aquatic species. More detailed analysis is necessary. 3.9-20 (line 6). Floodplains. The proponents of this project need to identify where wetland mitigation would take place. CDOT or private lands would need to be identified for the mitigation. 3.9 (General Comment) Floodplains. The mitigation measures for each creek, river, or other drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluate for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same four mitigation measures are identified for separate drainages. Revised, site specific mitigation plans for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate stakeholders to comment on. 3.13-9 Threatened Species—Environmental Consequences. The approach of conducting an effects analysis on a broad scale is not adequate and the"one size fits all approach"to mitigation is not adequate. Site by site and drainage by drainage analyses need to be conducted to ensure impacts are avoided at best, mitigated at worst. 3.13-12. Threatened Species. Additional lighting adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir will further impair the quality of the bald eagle roost site at the Reservoir. This could be mitigated by controlling light leakage or by eliminating lighting from the design of that interchange. Part I1: Air Quality General comments on air quality section: Induced land use Air quality in the Fort Collins community is dominated by vehicle emissions. A key issue for local air quality improvement is to reduce the growth of vehicle miles traveled, which depends, in turn, upon land use changes that support use of transit, cycling, and walking. For that reason, we believe that land use densification and transit-oriented development should be a key criteria in deciding among the alternatives. Changed conditions The recent volatility in gasoline prices suggest that the basis of long-range land use and transportation planning may now be in question. For example, what if the land use projections of 1-25 corridor communities prove incorrect under a scenario of$3.00/gallon gasoline, or$4.00, or $6.00? What if the trip-production rates used in transportation forecasting are incorrect for the same reason? The EIS should address the risk of making a poor choice from among the alternative due to the uncertainty of future gasoline prices. Greenhouse gases Several communities in the I25 corridor have adopted policies and/or plans to address their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction of transportation carbon emissions, which is directly proportional to vehicle miles traveled, is critical to the success of these community efforts and the EIS should address the contribution of the I25 decision toward their success or failure. Ozone Non-Attainment The DEIS refers to ozone designation inconsistently throughout the Air Quality chapter. All text should reflect the November 2007 non-attainment designation area for the 8-hour ozone standard. In addition the new, more stringent 8-hour promulgated in March 2008 should be discussed. PM2.5 The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5, presumably because there are no non- attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion of particulate matter levels in the Affected Environment chapter(page 3.5-7) acknowledges that PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of alternatives should be addressed. More Specific Comments: 3.5 Introduction The DEIS text in the introductory section of the air quality chapter should be updated to reflect that areas within the project have been designated non-attainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard in November 2007,per discussion in section 3.5.2, line 3.5.2- Affected Environment Figure 3.5-1 should be updated to reflect the non-attainment designation area for the 8-hour ozone standard. This non-attainment designation should be discussed clearly in this section, as well as the updated, more stringent 8-hour ozone standard that was promulgated in March 2008. The EIS states, on lines 13 and 14, that: "Other criteria pollutants are no longer pollutants of concern in the Front Range area." In fact, particulate matter levels even below the federal health standards impact the health of individuals with respiratory sensitivity. The City of Fort Collins has a policy to "continually improve air quality as the city grows". Table 3.5-2 should be updated to reflect the second ozone monitoring site that was established in west Fort Collins in 2006 and should be updated to reflect data reported through 2007, not 2005. Discussion of criteria pollutants should acknowledge that the Fort Collins West monitoring site had the highest 8-hour ozone reading of the entire Front Range in 2007 and has recorded several 8-hour values that exceed the standard. Greenhouse gas emissions should be discussed in the Affected Environment section, not only briefly addressed in the Cumulative Impacts section. Within the DIES study area, the communities of Fort Collins, Boulder and Denver has active commitments and plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The State of Colorado also has a Climate Action Plan. Regional transportation planning and projects are one of the major avenues for reducing greenhouse gas emission from the transportation sector. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide fit within the definition of"air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act ("Act") and the EPA is now in the process of determining whether, in its judgment, greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution "which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." It is conceivable that greenhouse gas emissions will need to be addressed more rigorously in future NEPA processes. 3.5.3.4 - PM analvsis The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5;presumably because there are no non- attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion of particulate matter levels in the Affected Environment chapter(page 3.5-7) acknowledges that PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of alternatives should be addressed. Parks & Recreation Staff Comments: Comments on the DEIS from the view point of affected City of Fort Collins parks and trails: No-Action Alternative: No impact on Fort Collins parks and trails. Section 3.18 Parks and Recreation, Review: Archery Range, Creekside Park, Lee Martinez Park, Old Fort Collins Heritage Park and Washington Park listed as being in the area of the project. Only affected park is the Archery Range. Package A: Archery Range impact of 0.09 acre. Construction would be coordinated to minimize impacts with the use of BMPs to limit erosion, public safety and City vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the proposed alternative are developed. Package B: Archery Range impact of 0.14 acre. Construction would be coordinated to minimize impacts with the use of BMPs to control erosion, public safety and City vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the proposed alternative are developed. Advance Planning—Historic Preservation Office Staff Comments: The City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office has reviewed those sections of the North I- 25 Draft EIS document pertaining to historic properties within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Staff concurs with the findings that there will be no adverse affects on any historically designated or eligible properties arising from the implementation of the North I-25 project. Regulatory and Government Affairs Division Staff Comments: Please note that these are high level comments and not intended to serve as a detailed overview of the I-25 DEIS. Section 3.7 Water Resources 3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations General Comment: While the CDOT MS4 requirements described are generally only applicable in MS4 areas, please note that all local MS4 construction and development requirements must also be met within the local MS4 jurisdictional boundaries. Table 3.7-5 Both packages A and B are projected to increase stormwater contaminant loading by approximately 50% for all modeled contaminants within the Cache La Poudre watershed above the current situation or under the no-action alternative. Runoff intensity and volume and higher pollutant loading are some issues commonly associated with increased imperviousness. The modeled pollutant loadings are before the application of best management practices. Does this include both those used during construction and permanent water quality structures? With packages A &B, a much larger percentage runoff from the roads and other impervious surfaces will be treated via water quality ponds or other BMPs than the current situation or the no-action alternative. This area is figured based on current and projected future MS4 areas and the area available for BMPs within the right-of-way. The pollutant removal rates for structural BMPs are given as follows: TSS - 50-70% Total P - 10-20% Zn - 30-60% Cu - 1.4-30% Chloride -not given While this may appear that the increased pollutant loadings will not be adequately treated for all parameters, increased impervious area will be treated with packages A&B. City of Fort Collins Water & Wastewater Utilities Department Staff Comments: No comments ATTACHMENT 3 ***DRAFT*** MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD January 21,2009 6:00 p.m. Community Room 215 North Mason Street Fort Collins,CO 80521 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Gary Thomas 482-7125 Vice Chair: Ed Robert 2244864 Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416-2029 Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Olga Duvall Mark Jackson,Transportation Group Director, 416.2029 Bill Jenkins Polly Bennett,Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601 John Lund David Kemp, Transportation Planning,416.2411 Kip McCauley Ed Robert Garry Steen Gary Thomas James Clausen Shane Miller Scott VanTatenhove ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Sara Frazier Councilman and Board Liaison Wade Troxell 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Thomas at 6:01 p.m. with a quorum present. 2. INTRODUCTIONS—OLGA DUVALL,New Board Member Ms. Duvall became a US Citizen recently, and immediately applied to join the Transportation Board. She rides the bus every day, relying on it to get her anywhere she needs to go. She is the Social Services Director for the Salvation Army, so helping senior citizens is a passion. 3. AGENDA REVIEW The Council Work Session discussion item will move to third position under Action Items. Kathleen will present her item at the Natural Resources Board prior to presenting here, so her item will move down. With those changes, the Board approved the Agenda unanimously. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (November 2008) Page 4— Thomas— The FTA should be RTA. At the end of section 8 The BNSF line is considered too curvy for high-speed rail. Steen moved to approve the November 2008 Transportation Board meeting minutes. Van Tatenhove seconded. With the changes, the motion carried unanimously. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Wade Troxell, Council Liaison Mr.Troxell.will be a more regular attendee,as the Electric Board changed their meeting dates. The Council had a number of greatly qualified applicants,but Olga stood out. [The following is the North I-25 Discussion item only. The meeting notes regarding other items are not included] 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Update—North I-25 DEIS—Bracke This is CDOT's presentation. The CDOT rep couldn't be here tonight, so Kathleen is the messenger. We are in the public and agency review portion of the process. The formal comment period ended in December 2008 though on-going opportunities are being provided by CDOT. The final EIS is planned to be completed by the end of 2009. We are not seeking formal action from the Transportation Board this evening, although we will receive comments and/or concerns from you. CDOT is hosting workshops over the next month. Purpose: Meet long-term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and the rapidly growing population centers along the I-25 corridor north from Fort Collins to the Wellington area. (boundary: 287 to the west/85 east) Two packages are proposed. The end product will likely consist of elements of both. The interchange improvements are the same in Package"A" and Package`B." Package "A" encompasses the BRT and/or light rail along the existing BNSF rail line with added transit stops. Package "B" concentrates on I-25, with no general purpose widening. There is a no-action alternative showing level of improvements without additions. No action S57M; Package "A" S2.433B; Package B S2.006B (all costs 2005). Schedule: Preferred alternative established early 2009. Final EIS —remainder of 2009. Phased implementation. Limited funding available. CDOT Project Manager: Carol Parr, carol.parr(a)dot.state.co.us www.cdot.info/northi25eis 970.352.5455 or 303.779.3384 Thomas: CDOT is paying for high-speed rail study, but it isn't included in this EIS. It should at least be acknowledged. Robert: Do these figures include costs of O&M? Bracke: It is reflected in the EIS document. There is a cost for capital and a cost for O&M. VanTatenhove: In Package"A" are the rails jointly shared? Bracke: It would show double tracking. There shouldn't be double tracking from Prospect through downtown. There is enough room south of Prospect within the RR corridor for double tracking without affecting other property. Bracke: Over the next few months CDOT will pull information from communities along the corridor, the FHWA and the FTA and begin making decisions on the preferred alternative. There will be a public process. The Board will have an opportunity to weigh in on that. Jackson: This project is too far out for the stimulus package. Environmental clearances aren't complete yet. Bracke: CDOT is getting this EIS ready so that our region can be poised for future funding opportunities. ATTACHMENT 4 Natural Resources Advisory Board 21 January 2009—Regular Meeting Minutes—Excerpt North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director addressed the group regarding the CDOT North I-25 draft Environmental Impact Statement. • Kathleen stated the purpose of her visit was share where they are in the process and to get feedback to share with CDOT as they move forward with the EIS process this year. She also handed out a newsletter from the North 1-25 EIS with an overview of the project. • CDOT released the draft EIS document at the end of October, 2008, with a 60-day comment period. CDOT has extended the comment period and Kathleen encouraged the group to comment if they wanted to. CDOT is hosting a community workshop in Denver on January 221 2009, and Ben Manvel plans to attend. He was appointed Council liaison in Diggs Brown's absence. • Kathleen also informed the group they can contact CDOT on line or through a link from the Transportation website. The NRAB can also give their comments to her and she will pass along to CDOT. She pointed out there were several opportunities to give input on this project. o Public Review- Oct 31 to Dec 30 o Hardcopy available at 26 locations o Public Hearings ■ Nov 18 - Longmont ■ Nov 19—Fort Collins ■ Nov 20—Loveland o Web Access, throughout review period • The City's Transportation staff has reviewed the document and has been involved with CDOT on a technical advisory committee. They provided top level comments from various departments and Council. CDOT projects it will take a year before the EIS is finalized. Kathleen presented a Power Point presentation prepared by CDOT to the group. She also provided the comments from Council regarding the EIS for the NRAB to read. It was her intention to add the NRAB's comments to this list and share with CDOT. The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to meet the long-term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and the growing population centers along the I-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. The goal is to determine the long-term picture for regional transportation. • Needs of the I-25 corridor project are: safety concerns, aging infrastructure, mobility and accessibility and modal alternatives. o CDOT's definition of the I-25 Corridor is from US-287 on the west to US-85 on the east and from Denver on the south and Wellington on the north. • CDOT has developed two alternative packages, the components of which can be mixed and matched. o Package A ■ The I-25 interstate improvements would widen one lane in each direction for use as general purpose lanes. ■ The west transit component would have commuter rail service on the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont. It would stop at the Fort Collins downtown transit center, CSU and the Fort Collins' proposed new south transit center. It would then go south and tie into RTD's FasTrack system in Longmont and continue south to either Denver or Boulder. ■ The east transit component would be express bus service down US 85 from Greeley to the Denver metro area and then along E-470 to Denver International Airport. o Package B ■ Most of the improvements would be along I-25 rather than in the population centers along the edges. ■ Bus service would begin at the Fort Collins' new south transit center on Harmony and then down the center of I-25 in two high-occupancy tolled lanes with 12 bus stations. ■ There would also be bus service from Greeley to Denver along US 85 and laterally to I-25 via US 34 and then along E-470 to DIA. o There is also a"No Action" alternative - existing funding improvements. • Kathleen pointed out both Package A and B have the same improvements shown at the interchanges for basic safety. • Initial cost estimates projected is in 2005 dollars. All cost estimates will be updated to current year for FEIS. In addition, they will be updating the travel and land use forecasts. o Package A=$2.433 billion o Package B =$2.006 billion o No Action= $57 million • Project schedule for remainder of year o DEIS review o Public hearing o Compile comments o Establish Preferred Alternative—will take several months. o FEIS -Remainder of 2009 o Analysis and address public comment o Develop document o Agency review o Public hearing • Kathleen stated they have received many public comments and much interest in the commuter rail option. Discussion • Alan Apt commented the NRAB does not have enough information for a formal recommendation to Council at this time. However, members of the board can comment as individuals. 0 1 o Kathleen offered to provide more in-depth information on the components of the EIS and that the NRAB has a year to comment to CDOT. She will return at a later date to get a formal recommendation from the NRAB. • Alan commented that, personally, he preferred adding a rail line. Adding lanes to I-25 would cause more car traffic and gridlock and is not a sustainable solution to transportation. He also pointed out nothing in the EIS addresses the escalating price of gasoline. • Liz stated she appreciated Council's and staff s comments on the deficiencies in the EIS. In light of our current economic situation, she thought we may be on the cusp of a new way to travel and we need to take a hard look at the issues of growth, land use and how they affect the area between here and Denver. She agreed that continually adding lanes onto I-25 is not sustainable. • In answer to a question from Liz, Kathleen Bracke stated taking mass transit from Fort Collins to DIA is not efficient. She also stated the busses will probably run on alternative fuel. • John Armstrong pointed out staff comments had similar questions as heard tonight and they also identified the need to have this plan be compatible with the Climate Action Plan. • Heather asked if CDOT is addressing wildlife migration corridors. Kathleen stated there were drainage improvements that could be designed to be for wildlife migration, but didn't see that purpose listed. • Phil Friedman asked if anything is said about the feasibility of getting the project to reality. The costs are substantial and the state has huge demands across the entire state for transportation projects. Has anyone figured out which plan has the most likelihood of getting done. Kathleen did not think CDOT has worked on the"probability" aspect. For any of the projects to move forward, CDOT would have to identify funding in the final document. Each phase goes forward as funding is identified. • Heather pointed out that down the road, maintenance of mass transit would be less expensive than maintaining more highways. • Ethan Billingsley pointed out Environmental Impact Statements mostly deal in quantitative information and suggested CDOT consider the project's future impacts on related things such as air quality and the impact of more emissions on health. • Kathleen informed the group that Transportation has been discussing the benefit of putting transit where the people are rather than make them go out of their way to get to transit. • Clint stated he preferred the idea of building roads versus bus rapid transit and rail because of the difficulty in training people to effectively use rapid transit. He also suggested CDOT investigate the likelihood and cost for moving freight trains out of Fort Collins and not waste time on it if it is not feasible. He also wondered what the shelf life of the plan is. Kathleen pointed out the commuter trains will share the tracks with freight. She also stated if the plan is done in phases, it can be kept alive while they are doing incremental implantation. If nothing is done in 5-10 years it would have to be redone. She feels confident the region will make transportation improvements on a continuing basis and not let the plan lapse. • Kathleen encouraged the group to look at the CDOT website—www.cdot.info/northi25is/ . She also has a hard copy in her office for public review. • John Armstrong asked how the Transportation Board was responding to the North I-25 EIS and if any other boards are actively engaged in this. Kathleen stated her group has contacted all the boards and commissions. She hasn't heard yet from the Transportation Board, but she has had interest from the Downtown Development Authority. • Clint wondered what is the most effective way to make recommendations. Kathleen responded the things that need more analysis need to be shared with CDOT as early as possible. Input on preferred alternatives would probably be within the next five months. • Liz asked how a commuter train rail line could be added downtown and wouldn't it mean more trains going through downtown Fort Collins. Kathleen stated commuters could access the train downtown on Mason. South of Harmony a second track is proposed so freight and commuters would take different tracks. • In summary, Kathleen stated each package has many pros and cons and is a difficult choice. She thanked the NRAB for their time and suggested they call her with any questions or input. North 125 Purpose & Need � EIS -) PURPOSE Meet long -term travel needs between the Denver metropolitan area and Overview the rapidly growing population And centers along the 1 -25 corridor north to the Fort Collins -Wellington area . What ' s Next Ft . Collins City Council J NEEDS U Safety Concerns February 10 , 2009 U Aging Infrastructure Mobility & Accessibility DOT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Modal Alternatives IS rR _ khmiu m exp" blMyOfIMi011. �® 1 Package A Package B LEGEND LEGEND u n>• i New General Purpose Lane J Misimai I Buffer-Separated Tolled (GPL) in Each Direction `v^` Express Lane (TEL) in Each \ Direction an ' ■ O N I New General Purpose Lane (GPL) t Auxiliary Lane inEach '•' O a m m 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled Direction aeortk•rYw Express Lanes (TEL) in Each rr^ r da•'�'r a ) ® Direction t Commuter Rail (CR) clu-Mmatialoins rM CO a a•'•M as ranra maiiiiiiin Bus Rapd Transit (BRT) Route �•+ .r+ ntnar Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort Ilin (Uses TELs on 1.25) - - "" •�aa•arrrs>t us 85 rareruwor• .. !ar- v�rr4- wr. Mara ra Iw •..«.-.. s Feeder Bus Service 'm•ar" --'•' Feeder Bus Service - _ r•> """ 0 Interchange Upgrades •' 0 Interchange Upgrades Lowl rid .. © Number of Lanes u Love nd "' © Number of Lanes. General �„ • r ` Gfaala trrr M-r _ Purposerrotled Express Lanes rerg yrr rr,a Q Commuter Bus Station ! Stop Y• ar. ��• GfNla I orrrr a w Bus Rapid Transit Station a Commuter Rail Station • y w • maiiiiiiin FasTracks Rail Line •rarer n r_ FasTfaCks Rail Line ° r a �� '� �• O FasTracls f RTD Transit Station r I a PoteFasTntial RTDuterB TransA s Ion . rn � Potential Commuter Bus ■ Potential Commuter Rail Operational & Maintenance "Nye , Operational & Maintenance _ • Facility Facility • ,c .. a,a rer-tararn � N Potential Commuter Bus . '�- r Y Loo=d ® ongmont Operational d Maintenance Lon Longmont - �.�,� -wait r• //ly x Facility 9 w.r.� H C•' •ww� M ar r.r ra r a- older ra �' ` •terra 'Ito Ylder n •, � •ter _ M -fl1yMdMq u, Aar,w r er.rrr,ua. ••rr ro.acr.tr ,�,. _ jn Yo.rt•r - � �c.,,r„ r•r n•rw wo.e MN ICCCCN VrI rno N j • Gan r - Denver . M• r 2 No -Action Alternative LEGEND * Major Structure Rehab by 2030 , n.a b • Minor Structure Rehab by 2030 0 Replace ! Rehab Pavement Capital Costs • Minor Safety MOEificaDons by 2030 2030Minor Y� Ib.e. Ns ub FasTracks Rail Line tee YN nrR • ma. eb. Ja. Fort 6 line a • , .... • - No Action ( $ 57 M ) - Package A ( $ 2 . 433 B ) >. 7 Lmrel nd �„ � �.wM. $ 1 . 3 B : 1 -25 GPL -- — $ 1 . 1 B : Commuter Rail WELD — $ 28 M : US 85 Commuter Bus • Package B ( $ 2 . 006 B ) �, "•�-• — $ 1 . 85 B : 1 -25 TEL M " — $ 150 M : 1 -25 BRT - an. a. ❑ T Ba.e4b Rd I� � w -- These costs are 2005 dollars . All cost estimates will be updated to current year for FEIS . =r � n Obr Steen �br Nerle nbNV1N 3 EIS Process SCOPING PURPOSE & Project Schedule NEED DEVELOP Early 2009 ALTERNATIVES Establish Preferred Alternative Screen Alternatives Level One • FEIS - Remainder of 2009 Level Two — Analysis and address public Level hre comment — Develop document DRAFT EIS — Agency review We PUBLIC & AGENCY REVIEW — Public hearing Are Here FINAL EIS PUBLIC & AGENCY REVIEW N ,. RECORD OF DECISION ( ROD ) rl � 4 Committee Involvement • Technical Advisory Committee Process to Identify a — Technical staff representative from each municipal agency (towns , cities , Preferred Alternative counties ) • Regional Coordination Committee — Elected Official representative from each municipal agency (towns , cities , counties ) • Committee members previously attended workshops and meetings for scoping , purpose and need , alternatives development and screening NORTH NORTH I-2 EISM III WWMG M. exp"6m. awpaution. - , inform:. 5 Criteria TAC/ RCC Workshops • DEIS Public Comments January 22 • Conduct workshops with the TAC/ RCC to recommend a preferred alternative which will — Public and local agency be further analyzed in the FEIS comments — May be one of the 3 alternatives identified or a combination of the components that — Criteria make up the two build packages — Develop VISIOn Of Preferred — Considerations • Purpose and Need Alternative • Regulatory considerations-such as — Summary of areas of agreement LEDPA and Section 4 (f) and disagreement • Social , economic and environmental impacts January 29 • Long -term regional vision • Public comment received on the DEIS — Continue development Of • Ability to Implement Preferred Alternative vision 'wam NORTH I--25 EIS I I 6 TAC/ RCC Workshops Phased Implementation cont . • Next scheduled workshops : Limited funding available for construction • Establish logical phases - February 12 and February 26 - Independent utility • Continue defining the Preferred — Address Purpose and Need Alternative — Environmental impacts/mitigation • May begin discussions on Phasing • Prioritization • Cost considerations — Need • Environmental and Social impacts — Logical sequencing discussion — Available funding • Record of Decision — Commitment to Phase 1 — Intent to construct remaining phases "wam NORTH I--25 EIS I 7 Questions and Comments ? Contact CDOT : Carol Parr , Project Manager Carol . Parr(a),dot . state . co . us How to stay involved : www . cdot . info/ northi25eis/ 970 , 352 . 5455 or 303 . 779 . 3384 NoRm I-25 Iqq 4 EIS mWa w mW"w «��alw 8