FasTracks Corridor Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Technical Memorandum

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 17 FasTracks Corridor Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Technical Memorandum TO: FROM: Chris Quinn, RTD Nadine Lee, RTD Liz Telford, RTD Northwest Rail Corridor Project Team DATE: October 31, 2007 (Revised April 10, 2009) SUBJECT: Technical Report for Proposed Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility at UPRR 36 th Street Yard and Properties West 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is examining the location of a centralized commuter rail maintenance facility (CRMF) as part of the FasTracks program to serve the Gold Line, Northwest, East and North Metro Rail corridors. A CRMF would provide supporting infrastructure for commuter rail operations and would be used to repair, maintain, clean, fuel, and store commuter rail vehicles. A maintenance facility would also include a maintenance shop, employee facilities, administrative offices, and parking. This technical report details the site selection process impact analysis that occurred in 2007 for the CRMF. 1.1 FASTRACKS BACKGROUND The RTD FasTracks Plan is a twelve-year comprehensive plan to build and operate commuter and light rail transit service and expand and improve bus service and park-n-rides throughout the Denver region. The Plan was approved by voters in 2004, and includes approximately 119 miles of new light rail and commuter rail. Based on the ongoing work of the required environmental analyses in support of the FasTracks program, four transportation corridors (Gold Line, Northwest, East, and North Metro) have selected commuter rail technology for their rail service. Figure 1.1, Approved FasTracks Corridor Alignments shows the RTD commuter rail corridors and how they correspond with the planned comprehensive rapid transit system Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO Phone: Fax:

2 Figure 1.1 Approved FasTracks Corridor Alignments FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility 4/10/2009 Page 2 of 17 Source: RTD, 2007

3 4/10/2009 Page 3 of 17 It should be noted that the Northwest Rail line referenced in this document includes rail from Denver Union Station (DUS) to Longmont via Boulder. Northwest Rail has been referenced separately in the previous US 36 and Longmont environmental studies. However, after FasTracks was approved in 2004, the environmental work on the rail for those two sections was combined and henceforth referred to as Northwest Rail. 1.2 PREVIOUS TECHNICAL REPORT This technical report builds on a previous maintenance facility report prepared in the early stages of the US 36 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Site Evaluation for Commuter Rail Maintenance and Layover/Storage Facility Technical Report (URS, 2006) presented the site selection and analysis of candidate sites for a multiple-corridor (US 36, East and North Metro) FasTracks commuter rail central maintenance facility and a US 36-only commuter rail layover/storage facility. The technical report narrowed down the sites for a centralized maintenance facility for further consideration based on an evaluation of environmental impacts and recommended one preferred site. The technical report also identified a US 36-only preferred alternative; however, this earlier evaluation was conducted based on the then undetermined need for a shared and centralized maintenance facility versus the need for a US 36- only maintenance facility. A shared maintenance facility would have been needed in a scenario where one corridor in addition to Northwest/US 36 Rail selected commuter rail, whereas a US 36-only maintenance facility would have been needed if no other corridor selected commuter rail. Since the development of this earlier technical report and with the passage of FasTracks in 2004, environmental studies initiated on some of the other FasTracks corridors have identified commuter rail as the preferred alternative. The Gold Line, North Metro and East Corridors have all selected commuter rail in addition to Northwest/US 36, and therefore a shared, central maintenance facility is needed for the FasTracks program. This technical report builds on the analysis from the previous technical report and updates and evaluates the impacts of the refined design for the CRMF. 1.3 STATUS OF NEPA PROCESS FOR FASTRACKS CORRIDORS Each of the independent environmental studies for the various FasTracks commuter rail corridors is at a different stage in the study process. East Corridor is currently anticipated to be the first study completed and as such has been identified as the study where the maintenance facility should be further analyzed. However, it is possible that one of the other studies will finish first. In such an event, RTD may decide to have the maintenance facility considered in one of those other studies. Environmental and traffic impacts for the CRMF preferred location will be presented in this technical report. Public outreach activities for public input will be conducted through the East Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), or whichever FasTracks DEIS is first to be completed among the Gold Line, East, Northwest Rail and North Metro Corridors. 1.4 TECHNOLOGY SELECTION AND ITS IMPACTS In addition to the selection of commuter rail as the preferred technology, the four corridors must also select a technology power type (for example, electric multiple unit (EMU) or diesel multiple unit (DMU)). Regardless of the technology choice for the four corridors, a central maintenance facility is still

4 4/10/2009 Page 4 of 17 required to serve the commuter rail service. At this time, Gold Line and East Corridor have selected EMU as their preferred alternative. North Metro Corridor and Northwest Rail have selected DMU technology. Given that two of the four corridors have selected DMU and two have selected EMU, a maintenance facility that could accommodate both DMU and EMU service has been designed and is evaluated in this report. 1.5 SITE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION Chapters 4 and 5 of the Site Evaluation for Commuter Rail Maintenance and Layover/Storage Facility Technical Report (URS, 2006) detail the process for the initial site selection, general site requirements considered, and the screening criteria that were developed from the site requirements to select a preferred site. A summary of that process is provided below. The initial site selection identified 24 candidate sites that met basic site characteristic requirements. See Figure 1.2, Central Maintenance Facility Candidate Sites for a depiction of the sites and Table 1.1, Central Maintenance Facility Candidate Sites for a list of the sites. Once a list of candidate sites was identified, additional functional and operational requirements and considerations were used in developing screening criteria to evaluate the candidate sites. Those considerations were based on location requirements (such as distance between the maintenance facility and the terminal, no passenger station between terminal and maintenance facility, and double-ended yard), costs, safety, functional requirements (such as train storage, maintenance, washing and cleaning, employee facilities, etc.), and environmental and traffic impacts. The same general criteria were used but refined between the screening levels, from First Level to Third Level Screening. Table 1.1 Central Maintenance Facility Candidate Site Site Number Site Location C1 BNSF Rennick Yard/Properties C2 BNSF TOFC Facility C3 BNSF 31 st Street Yard C4 RTD District Shops/Platte Facility C5 UPRR 36 th Street Yard/Properties West C6 UPRR North Yard C7 UPRR Moffat Station C8 National Western Stock Show Stockyards C9 Suncor Refinery C10 UPRR Boulder Industrial Subdivision C11 UPRR Burnham Yard C12 UPRR 36 th Street Yard/Properties East C13 Smith Road (south side) Dahlia Quebec C14 Smith Road (north side) Dahlia Quebec C15 UPRR Rock Island Alignment C16 Smith Road (south side) Quebec Central Park C17 Smith Road (north side) Quebec Central Park C18 Smith Road (south side) Peoria I-225 C19 Smith Road (north side) Peoria Chambers to Airport C20 Smith Road (north side) Airport Tower C21 Smith Road (south side) Airport Tower C22 BNSF 23 rd Street Yard C23 North Metro East C24 Denver Water Treatment Plant Source: URS 2005

5 Figure 1.2 Central Maintenance Facility Candidate Sites FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility 4/10/2009 Page 5 of 17 Source: USGS Base Map 2002, URS SELECTED SITE DESCRIPTION Based on the First, Second and Third Level Screening results in the Site Evaluation for Commuter Rail Maintenance and Layover/Storage Facility Technical Report (URS, 2006), Site #C5 UPRR 36 th Street Yard and Properties West was recommended as the preferred site for the multi-corridor maintenance facility. Of the criterion applied to the candidate central maintenance facility sites, the property acquisition costs revealed the most significant difference among the sites. Utilizing acquisition costs as the key discriminator, and considering the limited environmental and social impact differences among the sites, Site #C5 UPRR 36 th Street Yard and Properties West was identified as the preferred site for the central maintenance facility. Site #C3, BNSF 31 st Street Yard site was identified as the second best site due to cost considerations. See Figure 1.3, Recommended Sites for Central Maintenance Facility, for a depiction of the recommended sites.

6 Figure 1.3 Recommended Site for Central Maintenance Facility FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility 4/10/2009 Page 6 of 17 Source: USGS Base Map 2005, URS 2007 This Technical Memorandum describes Site #C5 UPRR 36th Street Yard and Properties West and summarizes the impacts of operating the central maintenance facility at this location It updates the environmental and traffic analysis from the previous study, and incorporates additional analysis related to engineering refinements at the selected site. Due to operational analyses to accommodate the commuter rail corridor vehicle fleets, Site #C5 UPPR 36 th Street Yard and Properties West was modified to include additional property to the east of the original site that was considered a separate site, Site #C12 UPPR 36 th Street Yard and Properties East. Site #C12 was screened out during Second Level Screening due to concerns about how the site would be accessed and used. It would have required that employee and delivery vehicles cross an active freight line. However, with the new requirement to potentially serve electric and diesel commuter rail vehicles, a larger maintenance facility site is needed. The combined and modified design of Site #C5 and Site #C12 resolved the initial concerns about Site #C12 by changing the vehicular access for employees to 43 rd

7 4/10/2009 Page 7 of 17 Street. Neither of the original sites would be used in its entirety, rather a portion of each of the sites would be used and combined to serve the revised needs of the maintenance facility. Figure 1.4, Selected Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Site depicts the modified boundaries of the proposed CRMF. Figure 1.4 Selected Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Site Source: USGS Base Map, URS 2007

8 4/10/2009 Page 8 of 17 The proposed maintenance facility site would be composed of the current UPRR 36 th Street yard and the 40 th Street Intermodal Facility (also known as the UP 40 th Street Ramp or the UP TOFC site). The site is generally bounded on the north by I-70, on the east by York Street, on the south by 40 th Street, and on the west by Wynkoop Street. There would be minor continued local freight service of UP customers within a close proximity to the yard at approximately five trains per week. The East and North Metro transit corridors would pass through the site and may share a proposed station near 38 th Street serving both corridors. The CRMF site would total approximately 119 acres and is currently used by the Union Pacific Railroad to transfer truck trailers and containers to and from train cars and to distribute inbound cars to local customers and organize outbound cars from local customers. The implementation of the FasTracks CRMF would require: Construction of tracks for DMU and EMU train storage; An approximate 228,150 square foot shop building; A pedestrian overcrossing to access the platforms for the North Metro and East Corridor Rail Stations at 38 th Street; An approximate 23,430 square foot outside storage building with fueling tank and an approximate 6,000 square foot transformer pad; An approximate 8,750 square foot commuter rail vehicle wash building; An approximate 424 space employee parking lot; Three detention ponds. These square foot specifications are approximations based on preliminary design. Access to the site would be via 43 rd Avenue and York. Figure 1.5, FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Site Layout, provides a depiction of the site.

9 10/31/07 Page 9 of 17 Figure 1.5 FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Site Layout Source: USGS Base Map, URS 2007

10 10/31/07 Page 10 of SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS As a next step in the site selection process, traffic and environmental data were collected and analyzed for the selected CRMF site. The same criteria that were used in the Third Level Screening were used in this analysis. The criteria include: Land Use Economic Conditions Right-of-Way and Relocations Social Impacts and Community Facilities Environmental Justice Cultural Resources Parks and Open Space Public Safety and Security Visual Noise and Vibration Biological Resources Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources Farmland Hazardous Materials Utilities Energy Floodplains and Drainage Water Resources Wetlands Air Quality Traffic Construction Cumulative Impacts The impact analysis for each of these resource areas was done for the planning horizon year of In addition opening year analysis for 2015 was done for the Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Vibration and Environmental Justice resource areas.

11 10/31/07 Page 11 of CRMF ALTERNATIVES In order to conduct the environmental analysis definitions of the existing conditions, future action and future no-action alternatives were developed. A description of the three different conditions that were used in the analysis is provided below: Existing Conditions (Baseline) - This describes the current activities taking place on the site and serves to define the baseline conditions for some environmental resources, such as air quality. Without the development of the CRMF at this location the existing conditions may or may not continue. No Action Alternative - This describes the future conditions in 2030, if the CRMF is not developed on this site. The future conditions may differ from the existing baseline. CRMF Action Alternative This includes development of the CRMF and related FasTracks passenger service passing through the CRMF site Existing Conditions The existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) site includes two active freight yards (see Figure 1.4 for a depiction of the two yards): 36 th Street Yard The existing 36th Street Yard, located near Pullman Junction near downtown Denver, serves as a receiving and departure yard for inbound and outbound local freight traffic. Trains arrive at the yard and the freight cars are switched into local trains for delivery to local industries. Freight from the local industries is collected by local trains and is brought to the yard where it is assembled into outbound trains. Operations at this yard assume: Nine existing switch locomotives (daily) moving around the yard (1500 to 2000 hp engines). Six line-haul locomotives (daily) traveling in and out of the yard (4000 to 4400 hp engines). 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC The existing 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC is located at th Avenue in Denver. Access to the facility is from I-70 via Colorado Boulevard and 40th Avenue. There are four operating tracks totaling approximately 8,000 feet in length. Four storage tracks also exist adjacent to the main line on the north side of the facility site. Approximately 900 parking spaces are provided for trailers, containers, and related equipment. Four side lift machines are used for loading and unloading rail cars. A private contractor handles the lifting operations at the facility. The facility has a capacity of approximately 150,000 containers per year. The facility currently handles two intermodal trains per day for a total volume of some 120,000 containers for domestic and international trailers per year.

12 4/10/2009 Page 12 of 17 Operations at this yard assume: Two intermodal trains consisting of three to four locomotives (4000 to 4400 hp engines). Two switch engines, switch the intermodal consists (1500 to 2000 hp engines). 120,000 annual truck trips (60,000 round trips) for intermodal freight transfers No Action Alternative The No Action alternative that this potential CRMF site was compared to represents the region in a 2030 horizon year planning scenario with no development of the CRMF and no new major transit rail capital investment in the East Corridor. This CRMF alternative was used for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) travel demand forecasting. The No Action alternative provides a basis for comparison to the CRMF Action alternative in the East Corridor EIS. Assumptions for the No Action Alternative: Includes the existing plus committed projects included in DRCOG s Transportation Improvement Program and DRCOG s 2030 fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plan. Does not include the East Corridor FasTracks project. Includes the North Metro Corridor project and other FasTracks projects. Includes a station platform for the North Metro Corridor at the 38 th Street underpass. Assumes some development of mixed use by However, it is unknown exactly where these developments will be in relation to the UPRR yards and the North Metro station platform. Redevelopment of the UPRR site would be dictated by market conditions CRMF Action Alternative The primary CRMF study area includes the project site boundaries required from development of the facility. The study area includes approximately 119 acres of property. See Figure 2.1, Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Study Areas for a depiction of the primary CRMF study area. The study areas for air quality and the noise/vibration analysis are unique and differ from the primary study area: The air quality analysis study area includes two geographic areas: A tier 1 study area including the footprint of the CRMF site to estimate impacts from the operation of the facility, and a tier 2 study area including the surrounding neighborhoods of Cole, Clayton, Elyria/Swansea, Five Points, and Globeville, to estimate the impacts to the

13 4/10/2009 Page 13 of 17 surrounding communities. See Figure 2.1, Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Study Areas for a depiction of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Air Quality Study Area Boundaries. The noise and vibration analysis study area includes the CRMF site and the corridor along the UPRR alignment extending from 23 rd Street, just northeast of Denver Union Station (DUS), to York Street, just northeast of the proposed CRMF site. This study area is designed to assess noise/vibration associated with the CRMF activities, as well as the future FasTracks train operations within the study area. This includes Gold Line, Northwest Rail, East Corridor, and North Metro movements to and from the CRMF and passenger service through trains on the East Corridor and North Metro Corridor. See Figure 2.1, Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Study Areas for a depiction of the Noise and Vibration Study Area Boundaries.

14 4/10/2009 Page 14 of 17 Figure 2.1 Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Study Areas Source: USGS Base Map, URS 2007.

15 4/10/2009 Page 15 of 17 Assumptions for the CRMF Action Alternative: The CRMF Action alternative includes redevelopment of the UPRR 36 th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC as the RTD central CRMF. Table 2.1, CRMF Site Characteristics shows project details. Table 2.1 CRMF Site Characteristics Site Characteristics Data Total Site acres Appx. 119 Acres (Main Site: acres acres for 43 rd Avenue Access ROW.) CRMF Shop Building 228,150 sq. ft. (390 x 585 ) (5.2 acres) CRMF Shop Building Height 30 to 32 Pedestrian Overpass Height (A pedestrian 23-6 over railroad and approximately 40 to overcrossing accesses the platforms for the North 45 high on either end for elevator equipment Metro & East Corridor Rail Station at the rail line and and architectural elements, depending on final 38 th Avenue undercrossing.) See Site Map design. Outside Storage Building 23, 430 sq. ft. (330 x 71 ) (0.5 acres) There is a fueling tank and transformer pad, but they are not buildings. CRMF Vehicle Wash Building 8,750 sq. ft. (35 x250 ) Employee Vehicle Access 43 rd Avenue at York Street Employee Parking Spaces 424 spaces on 160,105 sq. ft.* # of DMU Vehicles Stored 58 (2030) /38 (2015) # of EMU Vehicles Stored 50 (2030) /44 (2015) Square foot of buffer along 40 th : RTD has identified a 11.6 Acres* buffer along the southern edge of the project adjacent to 40th Avenue (From approximately 40 th Street to York Street) that may be reserved for future use or development by others. Detention Ponds (see site plan) 3 Hours of Operation of CRMF 24 Hours Per Day/7 Days per Week Yard Dedicated to Track Use Appx. 100 acres. *Included in total site area. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 below provide a summary of trains moving to/from or within CRMF for maintenance activities in 2015 and 2030 along with trains providing passenger service on the North Metro and East Corridors. This includes train movements of the Gold Line, Northwest, East, and North Metro Corridors. These movements are typically to/from the CRMF and DUS or to/from the CRMF and the individual corridors for maintenance activities. The movements are presented during the day/night time frames needed for noise and vibration analysis (7am to 10pm and 10pm to 7am).

16 4/10/2009 Page 16 of 17 Year 2015 Table 2.2 Opening Day (2015) Train Movements To/From/Within CRMF Train Movements Daily CRMF Related Train Movements 1 Includes Gold Line, Northwest, East, & North Metro Corridors CRMF Movements Includes movements to & from the CRMF, DUS, and individual corridors within the project study area Vehicle Type No. of Train Movements 7 AM PM-7 PM AM EMU DMU East (passenger service) 2 EMU NMC (passenger service) 2 DMU SUBTOTAL Information provided by URS 2 Information provided by Derek Crider/RTD Year 2030 Train Movements Table Train Movements To/From/Within CRMF Daily CRMF Related Train Movements 1 Includes Gold Line, Northwest, East, & North Metro Corridors CRMF Movements Includes movements to & from the CRMF, DUS, and individual corridors within the project study area Vehicle Type No. of Train Movements 7 AM PM-7 PM AM EMU DMU East (passenger service) 2 EMU NMC (passenger service) 2 DMU SUBTOTAL Information provided by URS 2 Information provided by Derek Crider/RTD 3.0 IMPACTS SUMMARY In general, the CRMF would be an improvement over existing conditions on the site. The CRMF is not inconsistent with the present and historic character of the area and would replace existing industrial land/freight rail uses with a modernized commuter rail facility with the latest environmental controls. While not entirely consistent with future land use plans in the surrounding communities, the CRMF is not altogether inconsistent either and would likely not diminish the overall redevelopment opportunities in the area. Operation of the CRMF would not result in additional development in the surrounding communities. However, development of the joint North Metro and East Corridor station platforms and relocation of the existing UPPR rail yards could result in densification near the project site. These actions could foster Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities and create conditions desirable for new development of parcels in the vicinity of the station platforms. The most likely scenario is that new development and

17 4/13/2009 Page 17 of 17 densification related to TOD sites would not be eliminated by the CRMF but would be redistributed to other parcels in the area, depending on market conditions. Additionally, RTD has identified an 11.5-acre buffer along the southern edge of the project adjacent to 40 th Avenue that may be reserved for future use or development to be determined at a later date. Historic and ongoing environmental contamination along with the presence of predominantly low-income and minority households and a mix of residential uses adjacent to heavy industrial and transportation uses give rise to Environmental Justice concerns in the area surrounding the CRMF site. The temporary construction related impacts in the vicinity of the CRMF would be offset by the resulting overall improvements to the adjacent communities compared to existing conditions. Anticipated benefits include economic opportunities, improved access to transit, and redevelopment opportunities associated with the East Corridor and North Metro station platforms. While there are impacts associated with the CRMF for drainage, floodplains and water resources the proposed mitigations from the CRMF would result in an overall improvement over existing conditions. Additionally, there may be existing hazardous materials conditions that the CRMF project would improve. No noise or vibration impacts would result from operations of the CRMF facility. However, noise and vibration impacts would result from the North Metro and East Corridor passenger rail service that passes through the CRMF study area. Mitigations would reduce these impacts. Air quality modeling indicates that no air quality impacts would result in the surrounding communities from the CRMF. In summary, if current growth and redevelopment trends continue and if current plans are implemented, the surrounding area may evolve to more mixed land uses, fewer heavy industrial uses, and a general improvement in environmental quality. Overall, the CRMF would contribute to environmental improvement and would not negatively impact the area. Detailed environmental and traffic impact analyses are presented by each resource area in Appendix A and Appendix B. If in reviewing the Appendices, additional information is required, please contact RTD FasTracks.

18 APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

19 Page A-1 CONTENTS 1. LAND USE Affected Environment Existing Land Use Surrounding Land Use Existing Zoning Adopted Land Use Plans Impacts No Action Alternative CRMF Alternative Mitigation ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATIONS Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation SOCIAL IMPACTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES SOCIAL IMPACTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Affected Environment Elyria/Swansea Neighborhood Cole Neighborhood Clayton Neighborhood Five Points Neighborhood Globeville Neighborhood Public Involvement...26

20 Page A Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC AND PALEONTOLOGICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC AND PALEONTOLOGICAL Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation VISUAL Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation NOISE Introduction to Analysis Noise Fundamentals and Descriptors Vibration Fundamentals and Descriptors Noise Evaluation Criteria Federal Transit Administration Noise Criteria Federal Transit Administration Vibration Criteria Affected Environment Overview of Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land Use Noise Impact Evaluation...54

21 Page A Noise Impacts Noise Mitigation Vibration Evaluation Criteria Vibration Prediction Methodology Vibration Impacts Vibration Mitigation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERAL RESOURCES Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation FARMLANDS Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Mitigation HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation UTILITIES UTILITIES Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation ENERGY... 76

22 Page A ENERGY Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation FLOODPLAINS & DRAINAGE Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation WATER RESOURCES Affected Environment Surface Water Groundwater and Water Supply Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation WETLANDS Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Mitigation AIR QUALITY Affected Environment Construction and Operation Issues Hot Spot and Air Toxics Issues Air Quality Impacts Methodology Regional Air Quality Analysis No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Hotspot Analysis No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) Analysis Tier 1 Analysis No Action Alternative Impacts Tier 1 Analysis CRMF Alternative Impacts Tier 2 Analysis No Action Alternative Impacts Tier 2 Analysis CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation Measures

23 Page A TRAFFIC TRAFFIC Affected Environment Existing Intersection Conditions Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts Mitigation CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Affected Environment Impacts No Action Alternative Impacts CRMF Alternative Impacts REFERENCES ATTACHMENT A - HAZMAT ATTACHMENT B - AIR QUALITY ATTACHMENT C - AIR QUALITY ATTACHMENT D - AIR QUALITY ATTACHMENT E - AIR QUALITY ATTACHMENT F - AIR QUALITY ATTACHMENT G - AIR QUALITY ATTACHMENT H - AIR QUALITY ATTACHMENT I - AIR QUALITY ATTACHMENT J - UTILITIES

24 Page A-6 Acronyms APE Area of Potential Effect BMP Best Management Practice BTU British Thermal Units CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System cfs cubic feet per second COPEEN Colorado People's Environmental and Economic Network CRMF Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility CWR continuous welded rail D distance dba decibel DMU Diesel Multiple Unit DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Government DUS Denver Union Station EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMU Electrical Multiple Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HOV high-occupancy vehicle Hz Hertz I-70 Interstate 70 Ldn Day-Night Sound Level LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Leq equivalent sound level LF linear feet LODO Lower Downtown Denver LOS Level of Service mph miles per hour MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NDEI North Denver Environmental Initiative NRHP National Register of Historic Places OPS Oil & Public Safety PM 10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 rms root mean square ROW right-of-way SEL sound exposure level SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SWMP Stormwater Management Plan TDA rail tire derived aggregate TOD transit-oriented development TOFC trailer-on-flatcar

25 Page A-7 UPRR USEPA VB/I-70 WQCD Union Pacific Railroad U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Vasquez Boulevard/Interstate-70 Water Quality Control Division

26 Page A-8

27 Page A-9 1. LAND USE 1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Existing Land Use The proposed Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility (CRMF) site would include approximately 119 acres, located south of Interstate 70 (I-70), west of York Street, and east of Wynkoop Street between 40th and 43rd Avenues. The current land use on the proposed site consists of industrial rail operations at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) 36th Street Yard as well as the UPRR 40th Street Intermodal Ramp Facility. Evaluation Criteria Compatible with existing land uses within 1,000 feet of the proposed site. Property acquisition. Consistency with land use and transportation plans. Consistency with current zoning. Impacts on future redevelopment. Induced growth Surrounding Land Use The CRMF site is primarily surrounded by commercial and industrial uses as well as cultural facilities. Several notable surrounding land uses west of the site include the Pepsi Bottling Plant, Forney Transportation Museum, and the Denver Coliseum. East of the CRMF is the Purina pet food processing facility as well as numerous industrial and warehouse facilities. Surrounding land uses to the north of the CRMF site and I-70 include a residential neighborhood, the Valdez- Perry Library, and the El Centro Su Teatro. Land uses to the south of the CRMF site include a mix of commercial and industrial as well as residential development south of 40th Avenue on Williams Street. However, the residential development is shielded from direct views of the site and is over 500 feet from the site boundary. See Figure A-1.0 for a depiction of the cultural facilities surrounding the CRMF site.

28 Page A-10 Figure A-1.0 Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Study Areas Source: USGS Base Map, URS 2007.

29 Page A Existing Zoning The proposed CRMF site is zoned I-1 general industrial and I-2 heavy industrial. The I-1 general industrial zone is intended to be an employment area containing uses which are generally more intensive than those permitted in light industrial zones. Permitted uses within the I-1 general industrial zone include many businesses and commercial uses; however, the overall purpose of the district is to promote industrial development and economic activity. The I-2 heavy industrial zone allows industrial uses that are generally more intensive than those permitted in light or general industrial zones, as well as businesses and commercial uses similar to those within the I- 1 zone. Both zones allow limited residential uses Adopted Land Use Plans Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan (Blueprint Denver): Identifies the site as an area of change that will likely redevelop in the future (City and County of Denver, 2000). The Elyria/Swansea Neighborhood Assessment: Identifies the northern half of the CRMF site for industrial uses and the southern portion of the CRMF site for transitoriented development (TOD) and mixed-use development (City and County of Denver, 2003a). TOD is typically defined as a mixed-use community within walking distance (1/2 mile) of a transit stop that combines residential, retail, office, open space, and public uses in a way that makes it convenient to travel on foot or by public transportation instead of by car. The River North Plan: Identifies the majority of this site as transit mixed use that would include uses such as a transit station, residential units, and commercial development (City and County of Denver, 2003). The northeast corner of the site, the area between 43rd Avenue and I-70, is identified as industrial mixed use, which could include a mix of light industrial and commercial uses. New heavy industrial uses in the industrial mixed areas would be discouraged by the Plan. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan: Does not specifically address this area (City and County of Denver, 1989). The 40th & 40th Station Area Plan: Is currently being developed and has not been adopted by the Denver City Council. There are no neighborhood specific plans or neighborhood assessments for the Cole, Clayton, or Five Points communities. 1.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative The CRMF No Action Alternative describes the future conditions in 2030, if the CRMF is not developed on this site. The future land use conditions may differ from the existing conditions present on and surrounding the site today.

30 Page A-12 Under the No Action Alternative, the CRMF would not be constructed at the proposed location. The CRMF site is being analyzed as part of the East Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); therefore, under the No Action Alternative the East Corridor project would also not be constructed. Therefore, the East Corridor would not provide transit service to the proposed station platform near the 38th Street underpass. However, the No Action Alternative would include development of the North Metro Corridor as the platform near the 38th Street underpass would serve only North Metro Corridor trains. This definition of the No Action Alternative is consistent with other FasTracks projects, where the specific project elements are omitted from the No Action, but other FasTracks projects are included. There are no highway projects associated with the CRMF site included in the Denver Regional Council of Government s (DRCOG) Metro Vision 2030 Plan (DRCOG, 2005). Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. While plans for the area support the redevelopment of the UPRR yards, the redevelopment would be dictated by market conditions. Therefore, it is not known at this time if the existing UPRR yards themselves would convert to other uses by Indirect Impacts It is reasonably foreseeable that the No Action Alternative would result in some redevelopment by This growth would be fostered by the new development opportunities created in the vicinity of the North Metro Corridor station platform. However, some development potential would not be realized as a result of the East Corridor service not being constructed. The redevelopment opportunities associated with the North Metro Corridor station platform would be consistent with the City and County of Denver s Blueprint Denver, and the River North and Elyria/Swansea Neighborhood Assessment plans CRMF Alternative Direct Impacts The CRMF would replace an existing rail yard and intermodal ramp facility. Therefore, there would be no change in compatibility with existing land uses. The CRMF Alternative would require acquisition and use of UPRR railroad properties (36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC site). As a result, UPRR would presumably need to secure a replacement facility. Negotiations between the Regional Transportation District (RTD) and UPRR would result with regard to compensation for the property. Neither RTD nor Federal Transit Administration (FTA) controls how UPRR would use its compensation for its property or how it might relocate its facility. Relocation of the facility is the responsibility of UPRR.

31 Page A-13 Consistency with Plans All the plans reviewed, including the Blueprint Denver and the River North and Elyria/Swansea Neighborhood Assessment plans call for some type of revitalization of the proposed CRMF site. Currently, the proposed development of the CRMF would not be fully consistent with future land use plans for the area. However, RTD has been working with City and County of Denver staff to develop options for the area that may enable the CRMF to locate on the proposed site and to create opportunities for revitalization. This process has led to the relocation of the 40th & 40th Station to a location near the 38th Street underpass, which provides a joint station for both North Metro Corridor and East Corridor service. Previously, the 40th/40th station site served only the East Corridor. Additionally, the relocated station platform would create development opportunities, revitalization, and potential for TOD. As a result of the cooperative effort with the City and County of Denver, RTD has identified an 11.5-acre buffer along the southern edge of the project adjacent to 40th Avenue (from 40th Street to York Street) that may be reserved for future use or development by others. The appropriate use of this property would be determined at a later date. Applicable land use plans and existing zoning were evaluated for consistency with the CRMF Alternative. This analysis is presented below: The proposed CRMF is consistent with the current industrial zoning. Blueprint Denver identified the project site as an area of change and calls for revitalization. The proposed facility is partially consistent with Blueprint Denver, which splits the CRMF project site into three future land use classifications. Blueprint Denver identifies the northern portion of the CRMF site as industrial, while the southern portion of the CRMF site is classified as TOD and mixed use. Development of the joint North Metro Corridor and East Corridor station platforms would result in redevelopment opportunities consistent with Blueprint Denver. The Elyria/Swansea Neighborhood Assessment identifies future land uses consistent with Blueprint Denver. Therefore, the proposed CRMF rail use is partially consistent, calling for TOD and mixed use revitalization of the southern portion of the CRMF site and industrial on the north. The proposed CRMF rail use is generally inconsistent with the River North Plan. This plan identifies the majority of the site as TOD and mixed use, with only a portion near the northeast corner of the site as industrial mixed use. Indirect Impacts Development of the joint North Metro and East Corridor station platforms, and relocation of the existing rail yards could result in redevelopment near the project site. These actions would foster TOD opportunities and create conditions desirable for new development of parcels in the vicinity of the station platforms. The most likely scenario is that new development and densification related to TOD sites would not be eliminated by the CRMF but would be redistributed to other parcels in the area, depending on market conditions. Therefore, the CRMF would not negatively impact overall redevelopment opportunities in the area. The operation of the CRMF itself would

32 Page A-14 not induce future growth. However, it is possible that some retail development would occur near the site in response to new employment at the CRMF. 1.3 MITIGATION The proposed Land Use mitigations are detailed below. Table A-1.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Land Use Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Acquisition and use of UPRR railroad properties (36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC/TOFC site) presumably resulting in possible relocation of the facilities. Land uses are partially inconsistent with Blueprint Denver and the Elyria/Swansea Neighborhood Assessment and generally inconsistent with the River North Plan. Source: CRMF Team, Direct RTD will negotiate with UPRR and will provide compensation for the UPRR yard property, and financial assistance for dislocation of operations. Direct A plan for appropriate architecture, fencing, buffering, lighting, and landscaping will be implemented to enhance the facility compatibility with less intensive future land uses in the area, such as residential development. If applicable, the transfer of the 11.5-acre buffer along 40th Avenue will be coordinated with others.

33 Page A ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Jobs within 1,000 feet of the Site In 2005, there were 4,027 persons employed within the 1,000 foot buffer, growing to 11,845 persons by 2030, approximately a 300 percent increase (DRCOG Socio-Economic data set). Jobs/Housing Ratio In 2005, the 1,000 foot buffer area had a jobs to housing ratio of 4.6, which is indicative of areas with predominately non-residential land uses. Evaluation Criteria Impacts to business access. Employment impacts. Change in real property assessed value (real property tax base). Change in real property tax revenues. Impacts on the economic vitality of area and surrounding land values. 2.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. Removal of the existing UPRR facilities would result in the loss of approximately 90 to 100 jobs from the site (URS, 2007). While plans for the area support the redevelopment of the UPRR yards, the redevelopment would be dictated by market conditions. Therefore, it is not known at this time if the existing UPRR yards themselves would convert to other uses by Currently, the UPRR yards are State of Colorado assessed parcels and are classified as personal property, not real property. If the project site were to redevelop privately, the approximately acres would be assessed property tax by the City and County of Denver. The assessment would be determined by the City and County of Denver based on market conditions comparison of equivalent properties. Indirect Impacts It is reasonably foreseeable that No Action Alternative would result in some induced growth by This growth would be fostered by the new development opportunities created in the vicinity of the North Metro Corridor station platform. However, some development potential would not be realized as a result of the East Corridor service not being constructed.

34 Page A CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Between 200 and 300 new permanent jobs would be created, ranging from clerical to certified technicians and managers. During the estimated three-year construction period, there would be approximately 300 to 400 short-term construction jobs created annually. The estimate of construction employment is based on applying appropriate Denver Metro Area employment multipliers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis to the estimated construction cost. The UPRR properties identified for acquisition are State of Colorado assessed parcels and are classified as personal property, not real property. As a result, there would be no change in real property assessed value of the area. There would be no change in real property tax revenues as a result of the proposed acquisitions. As part of the proposed CRMF construction, 43rd Avenue (the vehicular access to the site) would be improved. While the roadway is being improved, there would be construction related congestion in the area that could impact surrounding businesses. Full closure of 43rd Avenue is not anticipated during construction. There would be no impacts to business access during operations. Indirect Impacts It is unlikely that the proposed use would substantially affect the existing or future surrounding tax base; however, it is possible that spin-off retail development in response to the employee base could add to the local tax base. Values are currently based on a diverse mix of land uses with an active rail yard currently located on the proposed site. Values also reflect the expectation that the area would continue to be influenced by rail and industrial uses in the future. 2.3 MITIGATION The proposed Economic mitigations are detailed below. Table A-2.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Economic Considerations Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative During construction improvements to 43rd Avenue would cause construction related congestion in the area that could impact surrounding businesses. Source: CRMF Team, Construction A Construction Management Plan (Refer to Section A.22, Construction) will be implemented to mitigate the potential issues identified in the area and to maintain access to businesses during improvements to 43rd Avenue.

35 Page A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATIONS 3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Both the 36th Street Yard and the 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC Facility properties are used for freight rail operations. The current yards serve as a receiving and departure yard for Evaluation Criteria Number of parcels to be acquired. Acres of property to be acquired. Type of property to be acquired. inbound and outbound local freight rail traffic and as an intermodal transfer point for moving containers between freight rail flatcars and trucks. The combined yards are approximately acres. The UPRR is the single owner of the 29 individual properties that make up the combined UPRR yards. Additional properties of approximately 1.5 acres, identified as City and County of Denver right-of-way (ROW) along 43rd Avenue are also included as part of the CRMF project. 3.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Indirect Impacts Direct impacts associated with No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. While plans for the area support the redevelopment of the UPRR yards, the redevelopment would be dictated by market conditions. Therefore, it is not known at this time if the existing UPRR yards themselves would convert to other uses by If conversion were to occur, private acquisition and subdivision of the property would be likely. Indirect Impacts It is reasonably foreseeable that No Action Alternative would result in some redevelopment by This growth would be fostered by the new development opportunities created in the vicinity of the North Metro Corridor station platform. However, some development potential would not be realized as a result of the East Corridor service not being constructed. The potential redevelopment would include private acquisition, subdivision, and development of properties. However, specific details of these indirect impacts are unknown and will depend on market conditions CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts A total of approximately acres would be acquired for this site (Table A-3.1). This acreage is made up of 29 parcels of land solely owned by UPRR with currently existing freight rail yards and industrial zoning (I-1 and I-2). The CRMF project footprint would be confined to the existing UPRR properties, and no other acquisition of private property would be required. For this analysis, a partial acquisition of property is generally defined as greater than twenty percent acquisition of the parcel. Additional consideration is given to other limiting factors created by

36 Page A-18 partial acquisition such as removal of access or the ability to develop the property within the City and County of Denver land use regulations. Table A-3.1 Direct Property Acquisitions Land Use Acres Acquired Number of Full Acquisitions Number of Partial Acquisitions Industrial Residential Commercial Government Other Total The CRMF Alternative would require acquisition and use of UPRR railroad properties (36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC). As a result, UPRR would presumably need to secure a replacement facility. Negotiations between RTD and UPRR would result regarding compensation for the property. Neither RTD nor FTA controls how UPRR would use its compensation for its property or how it might relocate its facility. Relocation of the facility is the responsibility of UPRR. Approximately 1.5 acres of City and County of Denver ROW would be disturbed to improve 43rd Avenue to serve as the main vehicle access point for the new CRMF. The improvements would be confined to the existing City and County of Denver ROW and these properties would not be acquired as part of this project. Indirect Impacts There are no indirect impacts associated with ROW and relocations. The operation of the CRMF would not result in additional development nor would it diminish overall development opportunities. However, development of the joint North Metro and East Corridor station platforms, and relocation of the existing rail yards could result in redevelopment near the project site. These actions would foster TOD opportunities and create conditions desirable for new development of parcels in the vicinity of the station platforms. Redevelopment activities would include private parcel acquisitions and subdivision. However, specific details of these indirect impacts are unknown and will depend on market conditions.

37 Page A MITIGATION The proposed ROW and Relocations mitigations are detailed below. Table A-3.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures Right-of-Way and Relocations Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Acquisition of acres of land. Source: CRMF Team, Direct RTD will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970 for acquisition of all property and relocation of businesses and residences. RTD will negotiate with UPRR and will provide compensation for the UPRR yard property, and financial assistance for dislocation of operations.

38 Page A SOCIAL IMPACTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Population within 1,000 feet of the site: In 2005, there were 2,961 persons living within the 1,000 foot buffer, growing to an estimated 10,241 persons by 2030 (DRCOG Socio- Economic data set). Evaluation Criteria Access to neighborhoods. Community cohesion (physical isolation or barrier effect). Displacement of community facilities. Shifts in population resulting from this improvement. Households within 1,000 feet of the site: In 2005, there were 830 households living within the 1,000 foot buffer, growing to an estimated 3,006 households by Housing Units within 1,000 feet of the site: In 2005, there were approximately 872 housing units within the 1,000 foot buffer. These units included a mix of single family detached as well as multi-family units such as row-homes and duplexes. (Note: housing units were calculated by applying a normalized 5 percent vacancy to the households within the buffer.) Surrounding Neighborhoods: The property is located in the southern section of the Elyria/Swanesa neighborhood. This neighborhood is bounded by 52nd and 54th Avenue to the north, Colorado Boulevard to the east, 38th and 40th Avenue to the south, and the South Platte River to the west. Surrounding neighborhoods include Cole and Clayton to the south, Five Points to the southwest, and Globeville to the west. Travel Corridors: Travel corridors within the 1,000 feet of the CRMF site include: I-70, Interstate 25 (I-25), Brighton Boulevard, York Street, 38th Street, and 40th Avenue. Community Facilities: The Denver Coliseum, Forney Transportation Museum, Valdez-Perry Library, and the El Centro Su Teatro are all within 1,000 feet of the CRMF site. See Figure A-1.0 for a depiction of the neighborhoods, travel corridors and community facilities surrounding the CRMF site. 4.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. While plans for the area support the redevelopment of the UPRR yards, the redevelopment would be dictated by market conditions. Therefore, it is not known at this time if the existing UPRR yards would convert to other uses by 2030.

39 Page A-21 If the existing UPRR yards were to remain, no additional impact would be realized to neighborhood access, unity, and facilities beyond the existing conditions. While impacts such as noise, visual, and truck traffic do exist from the current facility, the neighborhoods have generally developed around the existing facility. Current operations of the UPRR facilities are at maximum capacity in the current yards; therefore, future expansion is not anticipated. Indirect Impacts As identified in the land use analysis, it is reasonably foreseeable that No Action Alternative would result in some redevelopment by Traffic increases resulting from the densification around the North Metro station platform near the 38th Street underpass would be anticipated. However, future development would be required to adhere to City and County of Denver standards for community planning and design. It is probable that the new development would be architecturally superior over existing conditions. Future development would provide appropriate connectivity, community facilities, and community design through this process. No additional indirect impacts would be anticipated related to social impacts and community facilities CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Operational impacts of the CRMF facility would be constrained to within the site and would not impact neighborhoods. Specifically, no noise impacts would result from operations of the CRMF facility (Refer to Section A.10 Noise). However, noise impacts would result from the North Metro and East Corridor passenger service that passes through the CRMF study area. Most noise impacts are localized to the areas between Denver Union Station (DUS) and the CRMF and from the CRMF north along the North Metro Corridor. It is anticipated that visual features would improve over the existing conditions with development of the CRMF. No additional impacts would result to community cohesion because the site is currently used for rail operations and impacts to cohesion were realized many years ago. The project would not result in displacement of community facilities. As part of the proposed CRMF construction, 43rd Avenue (the vehicular access to the site) would be improved. While the roadway is being improved, there would be construction related congestion in the Elyria/Swanesa neighborhood. Full closure of 43rd Avenue is not anticipated and access to properties/businesses would be retained throughout construction. The CRMF Alternative would require acquisition and use of UPRR railroad properties (36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC). As a result, UPRR would presumably need to secure a replacement facility. Negotiations between RTD and UPRR would result regarding compensation for the property. Neither RTD nor FTA controls how UPRR would use its compensation for its property or how it might relocate its facility. Relocation of the facility is the responsibility of UPRR.

40 Page A-22 Indirect Impacts Development of the joint North Metro and East Corridor station platforms, and relocation of the existing rail yards could result in redevelopment and densification near the project site. These actions would foster TOD opportunities and create conditions desirable for new development of parcels in the vicinity of the station platforms. The amount of population redistribution would depend on the amount and type of development that is ultimately zoned and built. The operation of the CRMF itself would not induce future growth; however, the CRMF employee base would increase the potential for spin-off retail development resulting in an economic benefit to the local tax-base. 4.3 MITIGATION The proposed Social and Community mitigations are detailed below. Table A-4.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Social Impacts and Community Facilities Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative During construction improvements to 43rd Avenue would cause construction related congestion in Elyria/Swansea neighborhood. Acquisition and use of UPRR railroad properties (36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC/TOFC site) presumably resulting in relocation of the facilities. Source: CRMF Team, Direct A Construction Management Plan (Refer to Section A.22, Construction) will be implemented to mitigate the potential issues identified in the area such as construction noise, dust, construction truck traffic, and access to businesses during improvements to 43rd Avenue. Direct RTD will negotiate with UPRR and will provide compensation for the UPRR yard property, and financial assistance for dislocation of their operations.

41 Page A ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Denver neighborhoods (Elyria/Swansea, Cole, Clayton, Five Points, and Globeville) surrounding the CRMF have one of the highest concentrations of low-income households in the Denver metropolitan area. Percentages and absolute numbers of minority households and Evaluation Criteria Identify areas where there are concentrations of low-income households or minority persons. Identify impacts to these communities. Identify whether or not these impacts are/could be disproportionate. low-income populations within a 300 foot buffer; 1,000 foot buffer; and 0.5 mile radius of the site are displayed in the Table A-5.1. Percentages for the state of Colorado and the Denver Metropolitan Region are displayed in Table A-5.2. The percentages of low-income households in Tables A-5.1 and A-5.2 are based on calculations using Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) low-income thresholds (30 percent adjusted Area Median Income (AMI) statistic). This statistic was determined to provide the most inclusive boundary for identifying low income households. The percentage of minority households was based on 2000 Census data. Table A-5.1 Households in Poverty and Minority Populations Site Buffer Low-income Households Percent of Total Households and Absolute Numbers Minority Percent of Total Population and Absolute Numbers 300 foot 37% (94) (HUD 30% AMI) 66% (505) 1,000 foot 38% (335) (HUD 30% AMI) 62% (1,835) 0.5 mile 39% (1,171) (HUD 30% AMI) 63% (6,444) Table A-5.2 Households in Poverty and Minority Population in Colorado and the Denver Metropolitan Region Geography Percentage of Low-Income Households Percentage Minority Population State of 24% (HUD 30% AMI) 17.2% (Census 2000) Colorado Denver Metropolitan Region 16% (HUD 30% AMI) 28% (Census 2000) The proposed CRMF site would be located in the southern section of the Elyria/Swansea neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhoods include Cole and Clayton to the south, Five Points to the southwest, and Globeville to the west. Refer to Figure A-1.0 for a depiction of neighborhood boundaries. All of these neighborhoods share some common characteristics, including smelter operations and associated environmental contamination in the late 1800s. Neighborhood bifurcation by highway construction occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. Beginning in the 1960s, the neighborhoods gradually transitioned from northern European to Latino and African-American populations. The presence of minority and low-income residential uses

42 Page A-24 adjacent to heavy industry, transportation uses, and past and ongoing environmental contamination has identified this area as an environmental justice concern. Heavy industrial development over the last 50 years caused residential neighborhoods to be interspersed with large and small-scale industries such as foam, plastics, cement, meat packing, warehouses, the Denver Coliseum, the Stock Show Complex, and the Merchandise Mart Elyria/Swansea Neighborhood The Elyria/Swansea neighborhood had a population of 6,708 people in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Bounded by 52nd Avenue, Brighton Boulevard, and 54th Avenue on the north; 38th Avenue and 40th Avenue on the south; the South Platte River on the west; and Colorado Boulevard on the east, Elyria/Swansea has a land area of about 1,309 acres (City and County of Denver, 2003a). The history of industrial use in the neighborhood has had lasting effects. The neighborhood now sits in the midst of the Vasquez Boulevard/Interstate-70 (VB/I-70) Superfund site (Superfund site boundary is generally the South Platte River on the west, Colorado Boulevard on the east, 52nd Avenue on the north, and Martin Luther King Boulevard on the south). The VB/I-70 Superfund site is a heavily impacted site that includes residential areas contaminated with lead and arsenic (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2007). In addition to the large amount of industrial and commercial development, the most significant influence on the Elyria/Swansea neighborhood has been I-70, which was constructed in the 1960s despite the concerns and warnings of area residents and business, and which runs roughly east-west, bisecting the neighborhoods. When constructed, I-70 encroached primarily beyond the northern edge of 46th Avenue and resulted in the loss of approximately 8 percent of the Elyria/Swansea neighborhood's residences. As a result of the reconstruction of I-70 from Washington Street to Brighton Boulevard in the late 1990s, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) acquired an additional 16 residential properties in the neighborhood, all in the area west of Brighton Boulevard. The current population of the Elyria/Swansea is predominantly Latino (83.0 percent) with non- Latino Whites comprising the second largest ethnic group (9.9 percent) (Piton Foundation, 2004). The present-day Elyria/Swansea neighborhood is comprised of residential enclaves surrounded by large areas of industrially zoned land. Small sections of well-maintained, singlefamily homes are interspersed with larger areas of commercial and industrial development such as the Denver Union Stockyards, Cudahy Meatpacking, the National Western Complex, and Pepsi-Cola Bottlers. In addition, one of the long-standing neighborhood issues in Elyria/Swansea is the presence of a large number of salvage yards and landfills, primarily related to auto parts recycling businesses (City and County of Denver, 2003a). Community cohesion is disrupted by the presence of I-70 bisecting the neighborhoods, interspersed industrial uses, residential areas, and the railroad lines and spurs that interrupt direct street access between major thoroughfares and destination points Cole Neighborhood The Cole neighborhood is one of Denver s older neighborhoods, with 5,662 in population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Its boundaries are generally 40th Avenue on the north, York Street on the east, Martin Luther King Boulevard on the south, Downing Street on the west, and Walnut Street

43 Page A-25 on the northwest. The neighborhood s earliest population consisted primarily of western Europeans, especially Irish and German immigrants. Cole was a working class neighborhood, with residents working at nearby rail yards, smelters, stockyards, and warehouses. When the railroads moved, many commercial businesses in Cole closed or moved along with the railroads and very few new businesses replaced those that left (Downtown Denver Partnership, 2003). The Cole neighborhood also sits within the boundaries of the VB/I-70 Superfund site (USEPA, 2007). The Cole neighborhood is generally a low-density residential neighborhood with some isolated commercial development and substantial industrial uses north of 38th Avenue. Much of the area remains typical of the middle-class sections of the city that were developed at the turn of the century. Cole is a predominantly minority neighborhood, comprising 71.0 percent Latino and 21.3 percent African-American residents (Piton Foundation, 2004). Community cohesion is generally intact, with no substantial physical barriers. The neighborhood has convenient access to surrounding retail businesses, restaurants, and services in Five Points and Uptown Clayton Neighborhood The Clayton neighborhood is located just east of Cole (east of York Street), southwest of the project site. In 2000, the population of the neighborhood was recorded as 5,172 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The Clayton neighborhood also sits within the boundary of the VB/I-70 Superfund site. Clayton is a predominantly minority neighborhood, comprising 50.2 percent Latino and 38.9 percent African-American residents (Piton Foundation, 2004). Because Latino persons can be of any race, some of the African-American population, for instance, could be both Latino and African-American. Clayton is considered an economically depressed area. In order to help revitalize the area, the Denver Urban Redevelopment Authority is leading an effort to redevelop the 37-acre 3800 York Street Brownfields site, originally built as storage for U.S. Army medical supplies in the 1940s, into a business park Five Points Neighborhood The Five Points neighborhood extends from the South Platte River, 38th Street, Park Avenue, 20th Avenue, 20th Street, and Downing Street. During the 1870s, this area gradually developed into one of Denver s most fashionable areas. In the 1890s, many of the larger homes in Five Points were converted to boarding houses, or homeowners took in lodgers in order to earn needed income. During this time, new groups moved to the area, including eastern European immigrants, African-Americans, and Latinos. Today, Five Points is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Coors Field is located within this neighborhood. Coors Field is credited with the recent revitalization of the area surrounding the ball park, which features restaurants and other commercial storefronts. The area around Welton Street is a thriving mixed-use district. Several new housing developments have also been built in Five Points in recent years. The Five Points neighborhood is characterized by a predominantly minority population; 42.9 percent of its 9,087 residents (as of 2000) are Latino and 25.4 percent are African-American (Piton Foundation, 2004). The neighborhood has good connections to downtown Denver via RTD light rail.

44 Page A Globeville Neighborhood The 1,045-acre Globeville neighborhood, with a population of 3,454 persons in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000), is bounded on the west by a major railroad corridor, on the north by the city limits (mostly 52nd Avenue), and on the east and south by the South Platte River. Slavic workers settled in the area around 1885, and as smelters and packinghouses located in the area, local workers were attracted to Globeville. The history of industrial use in the neighborhood has resulted in two sites being placed on the National Priority List for hazardous materials. The VB/I-70 is a heavily impacted site that includes residential areas contaminated with lead and arsenic. The ASARCO Superfund site, which includes the Globeville smelter, is an active Superfund site with cadmium, arsenic, lead, and zinc as the contaminants of concern (USEPA, 2007 and USEPA, 2007a). Construction and operation of I-25 and I-70 resulted in the partial destruction of seven blocks within the Globeville neighborhood, demolition of residences, and division of the neighborhood. This split left only two local roads, Lincoln and Washington Streets, open to north-south vehicular traffic. The neighborhood population no longer represents its predominantly eastern European origins, but is now predominantly Latino (77.5 percent). (Piton Foundation, 2004). At present, the Globeville neighborhood can be described as a residential island surrounded by industry and is a key highway and railroad transportation hub Public Involvement The CRMF site is located within the East Corridor EIS project study area. Focused outreach to identified environmental justice communities related to the CRMF project was conducted as part of the East Corridor EIS project. Community and environmental considerations were fully integrated into the East Corridor project process from the beginning and have been considered during scoping, alternatives development, public and agency involvement, and environmental analysis. This process has incorporated efforts to minimize adverse impacts to minority populations and low-income households and to incorporate features into the project to address the concerns of these communities. As part of the overall community outreach and environmental justice efforts for the East Corridor EIS, public meetings were conducted that specifically addressed the CRMF. The meetings were held in neighborhoods that would potentially house a CRMF, including Clayton, Globeville, and Elyria/Swansea. Each meeting provided the public an opportunity to learn about the CRMF, including the purpose, potential locations, and impacts to the surrounding environment. Comments were accepted at each meeting, and insights gathered from the comments helped steer the project process. Previous contacts made in these neighborhoods during screening of the CRMF site included civic, religious and educational groups, citizens organizations, elected officials, and environmental groups in the impacted neighborhoods. 5.2 IMPACTS Disproportionately high and adverse effects are based on either a comparatively high percentage of minority populations or low-income households, such as occur in the surrounding neighborhoods, and whether the impacts to minority and low-income populations are greater

45 Page A-27 than to other communities. However, these impacts are also evaluated against the potential benefits to these communities and the enhancements and mitigation measures that can also be of benefit in the long term No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The No Action Alternative would not have disproportionate or adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. Under the No Action Alternative, the CRMF would not be constructed at the proposed location, and the East Corridor would not be constructed. Therefore, the East Corridor would not provide transit service to the local communities at the proposed station platform near the 38th Street underpass. Additionally, if the CRMF site was not to redevelop as TOD or mixed use: No additional removal of hazardous materials from the site would occur. No CRMF related employment would be created. No visual improvement from enhanced site fencing, buffers, or landscaping would occur. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts of the No Action Alternative would not be considered disproportionate. The negative impacts would be off-set by potential benefits. It is reasonably foreseeable that No Action Alternative would result in some redevelopment by 2030, associated with implementation of the North Metro Corridor station platform. However, some development potential would not be realized as a result of the East Corridor service not being constructed. Redevelopment would result in both positive and negative impacts on the surrounding communities. Potential for more local businesses, services, access to the North Metro station, and potential housing options would result. However, redevelopment opportunities would be dependant on market conditions and the exact scenario of redevelopment is not known. Issues such as gentrification (the transformation of a neighborhood from lower value to higher value properties resulting in the potential displacement of long-term residents and businesses including low-income households), increased housing costs, and transit access (without East Corridor service) would potentially occur due to redevelopment CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Implementation of the CRMF Alternative would include both impacts and benefits to the surrounding communities. Benefits would include improvements to existing conditions such as potential improved accessibility to jobs, increased access to transit, and aesthetic improvements relative to the freight yards currently in place. Table A-5.3 highlights impacts identified in other sections that may present impacts to minority and low-income persons or are areas of concern to these communities as well as potential benefits to these populations.

46 Page A-28 Table A-5.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Communities Resource Area Disproportionate Impact Comment Land Use None The proposed CRMF site is zoned I-1 light industrial and I-2 light industrial. The CRMF would replace an existing rail yard and ramp facility and, therefore, would be compatible with surrounding land use. No residential acquisitions or relocations are required. Social Impacts, Community Facilities, and Economics None Currently, the proposed development of the CRMF would not be fully consistent with future land use plans for the area. However, RTD has been working with City and County of Denver staff to develop options for the area that may enable the CRMF to locate on the proposed site and to create opportunities for revitalization. This process has led to the relocation of the 40th & 40th Station to a location near the 38th Street underpass, which provides a joint station for both North Metro Corridor and East Corridor service. Previously, the 40th &40th station site served only the East Corridor. Additionally, the relocated station platform would create development opportunities, revitalization, and potential for TOD. As a result of the cooperative effort with the City and County of Denver, RTD has identified an 11.5-acre buffer along the southern edge of the project adjacent to 40th Avenue (from 40th Street to York Street) that may reserved for future development or use by others. The appropriate use of this property would be determined at a later date. Between 200 and 300 new permanent jobs would be created by the CRMF, ranging from clerical to technical and management positions. During the 3 year construction phase, there would be approximately 300 to 400 short term construction jobs created annually. There would be no additional impacts to community cohesion because the site is currently used for rail operations. While improvements to 43rd Avenue are constructed, there would be construction related congestion. There would be no displacement of community facilities. No additional impacts to community cohesion would result from the project because the site is currently used as a rail yard and impacts to cohesion were realized years ago. Visual None The area is predominantly light industrial and commercial, with some isolated residential properties. Project amenities such as improved exterior fencing, landscaping, and buffering of the site would result in some visual improvements over the existing conditions. The pedestrian overcrossing for the new station near the 38th Street underpass and the structure associated with the CRMF project would not obstruct views. Noise mitigation/sound barriers required for the North Metro and East Corridor operations would present a visual change. Noise/ Vibration None No noise/vibration impacts would result from operations of the CRMF facility. However, noise/vibration impacts would result from the North Metro and East Corridor passenger service that passes through the CRMF study area.

47 Page A-29 Resource Area Hazardous Materials Disproportionate Impact None Comment Most noise impacts are localized to the areas between DUS and the CRMF and from the CRMF north along the North Metro Corridor. Prior to developing mitigation, in 2030 the following noise impacts would result (refer to the Noise/Vibration Section for additional details): Moderate noise impacts: 34 single family homes and 1 multifamily residence. Severe noise impacts: 8 single family homes and 2 multi-family residences. No vibration impacts would result from operation of the CRMF facility. However, vibration impacts would result from the North Metro and East Corridor passenger service that passes through the CRMF study area (refer to the Noise/Vibration Section for additional details): Vibration impacts: 17 single family homes and 1 multi-family residence. The noise and vibration impacts associated with the East Corridor and North Metro operations would be shared by all communities along the entire East and North Metro corridors; therefore, they would not be categorized as disproportionate. The neighborhoods surrounding the CRMF are industrialized. Based on the Phase I records search conducted, there are 56 hazardous waste sites within 500 feet of the CRMF property boundary and numerous spills have been reported. It is possible existing soil contamination from past rail yard operations exists at the project site. Contamination would require removal of contaminated materials and off-site disposal. Long-term groundwater treatment may be needed. A site specific investigation would be conducted in the next phase of the project to identify if remedial measures are needed. A materials handling plan would be developed and material abatement for asbestos and lead based paints in the area would be conducted. Cleanup and removal of the existing hazardous waste from rail operations would result in a minor improvement to these communities. Impacts would be avoided through best management practices, removal of contaminated soils, groundwater treatment, and material handling plans. Air Quality None The surrounding communities have experienced ongoing impacts to air quality from past transportation projects (such as, I-25 and I-70). Change of use from freight rail operations to the maintenance facility operations would result in improvements to air quality, benefiting minority and low-income persons. Construction Yes Temporary and mitigated to the extent possible The CRMF would be constructed over a three-year period and would primarily be self contained to the site. Impacts associated with construction would be comparable to that of other industrial facilities in the area. For security and safety purposes, the facility would be fenced and secured during construction. The construction impacts of the CRMF would involve increased construction traffic related to employees, the removal of demolition/excavation materials, and the delivery of construction

48 Page A-30 Resource Area Disproportionate Impact Comment materials. It is anticipated construction traffic would use the shortest route to the site with the least impact to surrounding neighborhoods. Construction traffic would access the site via I-70 via York (inbound/entering) and Josephine (exiting). To reach the site, traffic to and from the east would use the Steele Street interchange and east-west arterials in the area. Source: CRMF Team, Roadway improvements along 43rd Avenue would result in increased traffic congestion in the Elyria/Swansea neighborhood. Likewise, local noise, dust, and visual impacts would occur during the construction period. However due to the primarily commercial/industrial nature of the surrounding properties and low population in the immediate vicinity, adverse impacts would be limited. Because of the current use of the facility, construction would occur in areas that are environmentally disturbed. Few impacts to natural resources would be involved due to the industrial character of the sites. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts would include the potential for more neighborhood activity, including increase in employment created as a result of the construction and operations of the CRMF. The joint East Corridor and North Metro station near the 38th Street underpass would result in improved access to transit. Additional indirect benefits may result from the economic stimulus provided by indirect employment opportunities (jobs caused as a result of new demand generated from increases in personal income from construction employment), and the improved mobility. Additionally, there is increased potential for some spin-off retail development that could increase the local tax base from the CRMF employee base. 5.3 MITIGATION The proposed Environmental Justice mitigations are detailed below. Table A-5.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Implementation of the project would potentially affect low-income and minority individuals in the surrounding communities. Direct Proactive public involvement activities will continue to ensure full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities and to provide community input into the design of facilities that fit more harmoniously within their host communities. Community design workshops will be held to identify the most context sensitive design.

49 Page A-31 Table A-5.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Construction would result in a temporary disproprotionate impact to minority and low-income persons in the surrounding communities. Change in the visual environement of the UPRR sites as observed from surrounding land use would be caused by the development of new facilities on the site. Noise and vibration impacts would result from the North Mentro and East Corridor passenger service that passes through the study area. Source: CRMF Team, A Construction Mitigation Plan (Refer to Section A.23, Construction) will be developed as a key measure for offsetting the construction impacts. The plan will be developed in cooperation with the affected neighborhoods and RTD. It is anticipated that the plan will include a communications plan, air quality protection, noise and vibration control, water quality protection, material handling, waste management, hazardous waste control, biological resource control, visual control, safety protocols, and traffic management plans. An appropriate fencing, buffering, lighting, and landscaping plan will be implemented to enhance the facility compatibility with less intensive future land uses in the area, such as residential development. Direct Severe noise impacts will be mitigated per FTA standards and, if reasonable, for moderate noise impacts where the project noise levels are within the top 50 percent of the moderate impact range (for specific details on noise and vibration mitigations, refer to the Noise/Vibration section). Noise and vibration mitigation may include: o Relocating crossovers or using special frogs at turnouts. o Sound insulation at residential units facing tracks. o Construct of sound barriers. o Consideration of a Quiet Zone at York Street grade crossing. o Use of vibration isolation materials.

50 Page A CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC AND PALEONTOLOGICAL 6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Evaluation Criteria For purposes of this analysis, the CRMF Area of Number of previously recorded historic Potential Effect (APE) for historic and paleontological resources was limited to the project site. However, the entire CRMF site falls properties or potentially eligible properties as determined by records review and field reconnaissance. within the larger APE developed previously for Number of known paleontological sites. the East Corridor Project. Impacts outside of the CRMF APE would be addressed by the East Corridor team. A previously recorded segment of the UPRR track (5DV6248.1) is located within the APE. This segment has been determined to be officially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The 36th Street Yard has been in continuous use by the UPRR from 1879 to the present. It is associated with the broad pattern of moving goods to and from Denver and promoting commerce in the Denver area. It is considered to be eligible for the NRHP. The 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC was originally constructed as a large shop and roundhouse complex by the UPRR in The area was the site of the Pullman Shop, which was a large facility that repaired and supplied Pullman sleeping cars. By 1890, these shops were not used and the UPRR took over the buildings. Some of the buildings were demolished and others were refurbished in In 1974, all of the remaining buildings were demolished and the tracks reconfigured to make way for a large intermodal trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC) yard. While the integrity of the 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC site as a historic railroad yard and shops has been compromised by this conversion, and thus would not be eligible for the NRHP, there is a possibility that the site contains historic archaeological remnants from this era. These archaeological remnants could be potentially eligible for the NRHP. Due to the general geologic setting and extensive disturbance of the site from construction of the various railroad related facilities, it is unlikely that it would contain significant paleontological remains. 6.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Under the No Action Alternative it is not anticipated that there will be direct adverse impacts to cultural resources. However, as noted in the Land Use discussion in Section A.1, it is not yet known if the existing UPRR sites will be converted to other uses by 2030, as called for in long range plans. If future redevelopment of the UPRR yards were to occur, the redevelopment would encounter similar impacts as identified in the CRMF Action Alternative below.

51 Page A-33 Indirect Impacts It is reasonably foreseeable that No Action Alternative would result in some induced growth by Potentially eligible properties in the vicinity of this growth and redevelopment would be indirectly impacted. Once the location and nature of the potential future redevelopment projects are specified, indirect impacts associated with cultural resources would need to be quantified CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts One hundred percent of site 5DV would be directly affected by this project. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is likely to conclude that this effect is adverse. Any destruction of archaeological remnants related to the Pullman Yard would also likely be considered an adverse effect. Indirect Impacts Potentially eligible properties are located adjacent to this site along Blake, Wazee, Wynkoop, and Race Streets and 40th and 43rd Avenues. There are no noise or vibration impacts associated directly with operations of the CRMF facility (Refer to Section A.10 Noise). Therefore, there would be no indirect effects associated with operation of the CRMF facility. However, noise and vibration impacts would result from the North Metro and East Corridor passenger service that passes through the CRMF study area. Most noise impacts are localized to the areas between DUS and the CRMF and from the CRMF north along the North Metro Corridor. These properties fall outside the CRMF APE site; therefore, indirect noise and vibration impacts to these potentially historic structures would be evaluated as a part of the East Corridor and North Metro analysis.

52 Page A MITIGATION The proposed Cultural Resource mitigations are detailed below. Table A-6.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources (Historic and Paleontological) Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative One hundred percent of site 5DV would be directly affected. The SHPO is likely to conclude the effect is adverse. Destruction of any archaeological remnants related to the Pullman Yard would also likely be considered an adverse effect Source: CRMF Team, Direct SHPO Level II Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record documentation will be conducted for site 5DV and the 36th Street Yard prior to construction. Direct Geophysical exploration of the 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC area will be conducted to identify any significant archaeological remnants of the Pullman yard and, if found, appropriate archaeological treatment thereof prior to construction. Archaeological monitoring of construction activities will be conducted in the 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC area and, if found, appropriate archaeological treatment will be completed for any significant archaeological remnants.

53 Page A PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Swansea Park is located along the UPRR ROW, approximately one mile northeast of the project site near 49th Avenue and Clayton Street (north of I-70 and east of York Street). Swansea Park is the closest park resource to the CRMF site. However, this park is visually and physically Evaluation Criteria separated from the CRMF site and would not be This analysis documents potential impacted by the project. Also located in the impacts to parks, recreation areas, and vicinity of the CRMF site are Globeville Landing wildlife and waterfowl refuges caused Park (north of 38th Avenue and Arkins Court), St. by acquisition of lands for construction Charles Park (east of Marion Street at 38th of the CRMF. Avenue), and Johnson Park (south of 49th Avenue and High Street). See Figure A-1.0 for a depiction of the parks mentioned above. 7.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The No Action Alternative would not directly impact parkland. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not indirectly impact parkland CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The CRMF project would not directly impact parkland. Indirect Impacts The CRMF project would not indirectly impact parkland. 7.3 MITIGATION No mitigation is necessary.

54 Page A PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT RTD maintains an internal security force for the protection of patrons on transit vehicles and at stations. These activities are coordinated with the local, and in this case City and County of Denver, police force. The neighborhoods that surround the project site are Elyria/Swansea, Five Points, Cole, Clayton, and Globeville. The crime rates for these neighborhoods in 2006 were (Denver Policy, 2007): Elyria Swansea: 80.8 crimes per 1,000 people Five Points: crimes per 1,000 people Cole: 38.5 crimes per 1,000 people Clayton: 44.3 crimes per 1,000 people Globeville: 98.7 crimes per 1,000 people Evaluation Criteria Identification of potential safety and security issues related to the CRMF site. 8.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts to public safety and security under the No Action Alternative would depend on the future conditions. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. While plans for the area support the redevelopment of the UPRR yards, the redevelopment would be dictated by market conditions. Therefore, it is not known at this time if the existing UPRR yards themselves would convert to other uses by 2030 and what impact this would have on safety and security. If the project site were to redevelop, it is assumed standards for safety in environmental design would be incorporated into the new development design. Indirect Impacts As the population of Denver increases by 2030, it can be expected that crime statistics in absolute numbers will also increase proportionately. However, it is difficult to predict how population growth in Denver would correlate with crime statistics for potential induced growth in the vicinity of the CRMF site associated with the North Metro station platform. If densification is realized in the vicinity of the project site, it is assumed standards for safety in environmental design would be incorporated into this new development design CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Once operational, the proposed CRMF would be fenced, lighted, and patrolled to avoid crime. The CRMF site would be secured to a higher level than the existing rail yard operation, reducing the potential for crime or safety-related accidents at the site. The CRMF would not increase or decrease crime in the immediate surrounding area.

55 Page A-37 Because it is fenced and secured, the CRMF would not represent a safety hazard to the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, improvements in fencing and access control may result in reduced safety hazards in the area when compared to existing conditions. The CRMF would not be considered an attractive target for terrorist operations. Indirect Impacts Similar to the indirect impacts of the No Action Alternative, induced growth is anticipated under the CRMF Alternative scenario due to the North Metro and East Corridor station platform development. It is assumed standards for safety in environmental design would be incorporated into this new development design. 8.3 MITIGATION The proposed Safety and Security mitigations are detailed below. Table A-8.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Public Safety and Security Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Construction of the site would create potential safety and security hazards if the site is not adequately secured. Source: CRMF Team, Construction During construction, the work site of the CRMF will be fenced and secured to restrict access by felons, trespassers, and members of the surrounding community. RTD safety and security policies will be implemented.

56 Page A VISUAL 9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This site would extend from the Elyria/Swansea residential neighborhood north of I-70 at York Street, traveling southwest through the existing UPRR rail yard along Blake Street (southeast) and Brighton Boulevard (northwest). The project would be constructed fully within the boundaries of the existing UPRR ROW. The existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Evaluation Criteria Visual resources were analyzed relative the Federal Highway Administration s (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment Manual. The preparation included site visits, examination of aerial mapping, and review of the preliminary CRMF site plan. Ramp/TOFC are open, industrial rail yards with some scrub vegetation, surrounded by chain link fence with no buffering. The area is significantly light industrial uses with some commercial uses south of I-70. There are no unifying architectural styles or streetscapes in the light industrial areas. Intermittent sidewalks and landscaping dot this area with some redeveloped light industrial/office sites. The area is generally flat, with existing structures obscuring any potential views of downtown Denver and the western mountains. On the west side of the site (Wynkoop and 40th), some downtown views are apparent looking south across the existing rail yard and between the light industrial buildings. The residential area near 47th and York Street at the far northeastern end of the site is single family, tree lined streets, with sidewalks. Some residences directly abut the rail line in this area. Residential land uses are also located south of 39th Street and Blake Street. The site does not fall into area identified in Chapter 10 of the Denver Municipal Code relating to View Planes. The visual analysis was prepared following the FHWA s Visual Impact Assessment Manual and was complemented by site visits. Visual quality, as defined by the Visual Impact Assessment Manual, is a function of vividness, intactness, and unity. The visual quality for the project site is low. 9.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts to visual resources resulting from the No Action Alternative would depend on the future conditions at the project site. As noted previously, future redevelopment of the UPRR yards would be dictated by market conditions. New construction or modification at the existing UPRR facilities, or potential redevelopment of part or the entire site, would result in a change to the visual environment. However, it is not known at this time if the existing UPRR yards themselves would convert to other uses by 2030 and specifically what visual change would occur.

57 Page A-39 Indirect Impacts It is reasonably foreseeable that No Action Alternative would result in some redevelopment by 2030, resulting from the North Metro station platform development. Visual change would result from redevelopment in the vicinity of the CRMF project site, and would be considered a visual improvement over existing conditions CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The CRMF, which includes improved fencing, buffering, and architecture, would result in an overall visual improvement for the area. The project would be located fully within the boundaries of the existing UPRR ROW. Commuter rail trains would move along the lead and tail tracks within the existing UPRR ROW entering and exiting the site. The tail track located on the far northeastern end of the project passes through the Elyria/Swansea residential neighborhood. Given that this track currently serves freight rail traffic, a visual change would not be anticipated. Existing freight operations (except for deliveries to local businesses) would be removed if the CRMF is constructed. This northern neighborhood would not be visually impacted by the CRMF site, as I-70 currently provides a physical break between the project and this neighborhood. No noise/vibration impacts would result from operations of the CRMF facility. However, noise/vibration impacts would result from the North Metro and East Corridor passenger service that passes through the CRMF study area. Most noise impacts are localized to the areas between DUS and the CRMF and from the CRMF north along the North Metro Corridor. Noise mitigation treatments (sound barriers) are proposed at: Blake Street and 36th Avenue: 500 foot long sound barrier 46th Avenue to 47th Avenue: 800 foot long sound barrier Claude Court and Alice Place: 600 foot long sound barrier Noise barriers are typically 8 to 12 feet high, depending on the location and impact. These walls would introduce a visual change and impact existing views. However, the barriers would serve to block low quality views of the existing rail corridor as well. A pedestrian overcrossing would be constructed as part of the joint North Metro and East Corridor station. The station platform is located within the CRMF footprint, at approximately the rail line and the 38th Street underpass. The pedestrian overcrossing would link the East Corridor and North Metro platforms with the adjacent park-n-ride on the northwest side of the tracks. Parking may also be constructed on the east side of the tracks as well. The park-n-ride and parking on east side of tracks does not fall within the CRMF footprint and is not analyzed here. The overcrossing would be up to 45 feet in height and between 70 and 145 feet in length depending on placement and engineering design needs. The overcrossing would not obstruct views. The 45 estimate includes:

58 Page A clearance over railroad 8-0 interior height 3-6 pedestrian bridge structure depth 5-0 clearance above elevator for mechanicals 5-0 decorative roof The 45 height is approximate based on preliminary design concepts and will continue to be refined through the design process. The CRMF would include an approximately 200,000 to 300,000 square foot maintenance building roughly 32 feet in height, located approximately in the center of the site. Given its location in the center of the site, this structure would not be highly visibly obtrusive to surrounding land uses and would not obstruct noteworthy views. RTD has identified an 11.5-acre buffer along the southern edge of the project adjacent to 40th Avenue that may be reserved for future development or use by others to be determined at a later date. The proposed site buffer north of 40th Avenue will improve views from land uses to the south of the buffer towards the existing rail site by allowing for the development land uses that may be more visually appealing than the existing industrial uses. Indirect Impacts It is reasonably foreseeable that the CRMF Alternative would result in some redevelopment by 2030, resulting from the North Metro and East Corridor station platform development. Visual change would result from redevelopment in the vicinity of the CRMF project site, and would be considered a visual improvement over existing conditions.

59 Page A MITIGATION The proposed Visual mitigations are detailed below. Table A-9.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Visual Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Change in the visual environment of the UPRR sites as observed from surrounding land use would be caused by the development of new facilities on the site. Construction of the site would result in temporary visual impacts. Source: CRMF Team, Direct A plan for appropriate fencing, buffering, lighting, and landscaping will be implemented to enhance the facility compatibility with less intensive future land uses in the area, such as residential development. Ongoing public involvement activities will be conducted to provide community input into the design of facilities, including the design of noise barriers, that fit more harmoniously within their host communities (context sensitive design). If applicable, the transfer of the 11.5-acre buffer along 40th Avenue will be coordinated with the City and County of Denver. Construction A Construction Mitigation Plan (Refer to Section A.23, Construction) will be developed as a key measure for offsetting the construction impacts. The plan will include visual controls.

60 Page A NOISE 10.1 INTRODUCTION TO ANALYSIS This report summarizes an analysis of potential noise and vibration impacts at sensitive locations from commuter rail operations associated with the proposed CRMF. This facility is to be located at Evaluation Criteria Guidance included in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA Final Report FTA-VA , May 2006). the site of the current UPRR 36th Street Yard and the 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC Facility, northeast of downtown Denver. In addition to the CRMF site, the study area for this analysis includes the rail line along the UPRR alignment extending from 23rd Street, just northeast of DUS, to York Street, just northeast of the CRMF. Therefore, in addition to noise impact from CRMF activities, the analysis considers the noise and vibration impacts of all future FasTracks train operations within the study area, including movements to and from the CRMF as well as through trains on the East Corridor and North Metro Corridor. The analysis was carried out based on the guidelines and procedures of the FTA as described in the guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA Final Report FTA-VA , May 2006) Noise Fundamentals and Descriptors Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound, where sound is characterized by small air pressure fluctuations above and below the atmospheric pressure. The basic parameters of environmental noise that affect human subjective response are (1) intensity or level, (2) frequency content, and (3) variation with time. The intensity or level of noise is determined by how greatly the sound pressure fluctuates above and below the atmospheric pressure, and is expressed on a compressed scale in units of decibels. By using this scale, the range of normally encountered sound can be expressed by values between 0 and 120 decibels. On a relative basis, a 3-decibel change in sound level generally represents a barely-noticeable change outside the laboratory, whereas a 10-decibel change in sound level would typically be perceived as a doubling (or halving) in the loudness of a sound. The frequency content of noise is related to the tone or pitch of the sound, and is expressed based on the rate of the air pressure fluctuation in terms of cycles per second (called Hertz and abbreviated as Hz). The human ear can detect a wide range of frequencies from about 20 Hz to 17,000 Hz. However, because the sensitivity of human hearing varies with frequency, the A-weighting system is commonly used when measuring environmental noise to provide a single number descriptor that correlates with human subjective response. Sound levels measured using this weighting system are called A-weighted sound levels, and are expressed in decibel notation as dba. The A-weighted sound level is widely accepted by acousticians as a proper unit for describing environmental noise. To indicate what various noise levels represent, Figure A-10.1 shows some typical A-weighted sound levels for both transit and non-transit sources. As indicated in this figure, most commonly encountered outdoor noise sources generate noise levels within the range of 60 dba to 90 dba at 50 feet.

61 Page A-43 Figure A-10.1 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, it is common practice to condense all of this sound into a single number, called the equivalent sound level (Leq). Leq can be thought of as the steady sound level that represents the same sound energy as the varying sound levels over a specified time period (typically 1 hour or 24 hours). Often the Leq values over a 24-hour period are used to calculate cumulative noise exposure in terms of the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). Ldn is the A-weighed Leq for a 24-hour period with an added 10-decibel penalty imposed on noise that occurs during the nighttime hours (between 10 P.M. and 7 A.M.). Many surveys have shown that Ldn is well correlated with human annoyance, and therefore it is widely used for noise impact assessment. Figure A-10.2 on the following page provides examples of typical noise environments and criteria in terms of Ldn. While the extremes of Ldn range from 35 dba in the wilderness to 85 dba in noisy urban areas, Ldn generally ranges between 55 dba and 75 dba in most communities. As shown in Figure A-10.2, this spans the range between an ideal environment and the threshold for an unacceptable residential environment according to U.S. Federal agency criteria.

62 Page A-44 Figure A-10.2 Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure Vibration Fundamentals and Descriptors Ground-borne vibration is the oscillatory motion of the ground above some equilibrium position, which can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Displacement refers to the distance an object moves away from its equilibrium position, velocity refers to the rate of change in displacement or the speed of this motion, and acceleration refers to the time rate of change in the velocity of the object. At any given frequency of oscillation, vibration displacement, velocity and acceleration are related by a constant factor. However, vibrations are often more complex in the environment, including components at many different frequencies. Therefore, the relationship between the overall vibration levels in terms of these descriptors depends on the frequency content of the vibration energy. Although displacement is easier to understand than velocity or acceleration, it is rarely used for describing ground-borne vibration. One reason for this is that most sensors used for measuring ground-borne vibration are designed to provide output signals proportional to either velocity or

63 Page A-45 acceleration. Even more important, the response of humans, buildings, and equipment to vibration is more accurately described using velocity or acceleration. Because sensitivity to vibration has typically been found to correspond to a constant level of vibration velocity amplitude within the low frequency range of most concern for environmental vibration (roughly Hz), vibration velocity is used in this analysis as the primary measure to evaluate the effects of vibration. The root mean square (rms) amplitude is used to describe the smoothed or average amplitude of the vibration velocity for evaluating human response. Although vibration velocity is normally described in units of inches per second in the U.S., the decibel notation, which acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration, can also be used. In this notation, the vibration magnitude can be expressed in terms of velocity level, in decibels, defined as follows: Lv = 20*log10(v/vref), VdB where: v = rms velocity, in./sec vref = 1x10-6 in./sec Thus, the descriptor used for this assessment of ground-borne vibration is the rms vibration velocity level, Lv, expressed in decibels (VdB) relative to 1 micro-inch per second. Figure A illustrates typical ground-borne vibration levels for common sources as well as criteria for human and structural response to ground-borne vibration. As shown, the range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB to 100 VdB, from imperceptible background vibration to the threshold of damage. Although the threshold of human perception to vibration is approximately 65 VdB, annoyance is not usually significant unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB.

64 Page A-46 Figure A-10.3 Typical Ground-Borne Vibration Levels and Criteria

65 Page A NOISE EVALUATION CRITERIA Federal Transit Administration Noise Criteria Train noise impact for this project is based on the criteria defined in the FTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Report FTA-VA , May 2006). The FTA noise impact criteria are founded on well-documented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a sliding scale. Although higher train noise levels are allowed in neighborhoods with higher levels of existing noise, smaller increases in total noise exposure are allowed with increasing existing noise levels. The FTA Noise Impact Criteria group noise sensitive land uses into the following three categories: Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls.

66 Page A-48 Figure A-10.4 FTA Noise Impact Criteria Figure A-10.5 Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by FTA Criteria

67 Page A-49 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds, and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included. Ldn is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2). For other noise sensitive land uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and school buildings (Categories 1 and 3), the maximum 1-hour Leq during the facility s operating period is used. There are two levels of impact included in the FTA criteria. The interpretation of these two levels of impact is summarized below: Severe Impact: Project-generated noise in the severe impact range can be expected to cause a significant percentage of people to be highly annoyed by the new noise and represents the most compelling need for mitigation. Noise mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there are truly extenuating circumstances which prevent it. Moderate Impact: In this range of noise impact, the change in the cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. In this transitional area, other project-specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These factors include the existing level, the predicted level of increase over existing noise levels, the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses affected, the noise sensitivity of the properties, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, community views and the cost of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. The noise impact criteria are shown in graphical form in Figure A Along the x-axis of the graph is the existing noise exposure and the y-axes show the additional noise exposure from the transit project that would cause either moderate or severe impact. The future noise exposure would be the combination of the existing noise exposure and the additional noise exposure caused by the transit project. Figure A-10.5 shows the noise impact criteria for Category 1 and 2 land uses in terms of the allowable increase in the cumulative noise exposure Federal Transit Administration Vibration Criteria The FTA ground-borne vibration impact criteria are based on land use and train frequency, as shown in Table A It should also be noted that this table includes separate FTA criteria for ground-borne noise, the rumble that can be radiated from vibrating room surfaces in buildings. However, because airborne noise tends to mask ground-borne noise for above-grade rail systems, ground-borne noise criteria are not applied for this project.

68 Page A-50 In addition to the overall vibration level criteria provided in Table A-10.1 for a general assessment, FTA has established criteria in terms of 1/3 octave band frequency spectra for use in detailed analyses. For residences, the applicable criterion for a detailed analysis is a maximum vibration velocity level of 72 VdB, measured in one-third octave bands over the frequency range from 8 Hz to 80 Hz. Table A-10.1 Federal Transit Administration Ground-Bourne Vibration and Noise Criteria Frequent Events 1 Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels (VdB re 1 micro inch/sec) Occasional Events 2 Infrequent Events 3 Ground-Borne Noise Impact Levels (db re 20 micro Pascals) Frequent Events 1 Occasional Events 2 Infrequent Events 3 Land Use Category Category 1: Buildings where low ambient 65 VdB 4 vibration is essential for 65 VdB 4 65 VdB 4 N/A 5 N/A 5 N/A 5 interior operations. Category 2: Residences and buildings where 72 VdB 75 VdB 3 80 VdB 35 dba 38 dba 43 dba people normally sleep. Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily 75 VdB 78 VdB 3 83 VdB 40 dba 43 dba 48 dba daytime use. Notes: Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. Occasional Events is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this many operations. Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and stiffened floors. Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Overview of Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land Use The project study area for noise and vibration differs from other resources, extending along the UPRR alignment from 23rd Street, just northeast of DUS, to York Street, just northeast of the CRMF. Refer to Figure 7.1 for a depiction of the Noise and Vibration study area. Thus, in addition to assessment of impacts from CRMF activities, the analysis considers the noise and vibration impacts of all future FasTracks train operations within the study area, including movements to and from the CRMF as well as through trains on the East Corridor and North Metro Corridor. Although the land use surrounding the CRMF site is primarily commercial and industrial, there are residential sites scattered throughout the study area as follows:

69 Page A-51 Blake Street/Brighton Boulevard: There are multi-family residential lofts located to the east of the UPRR tracks along Blake Street between Broadway and 38th Street, south of the CRMF site. There is also a three-story apartment complex located to the west of the tracks along Brighton Boulevard, south of 29th Street. The existing noise and vibration environment at the rear of these buildings is dominated by UPRR freight train operations. Future noise and vibration sources that would affect this area include East Corridor and North Metro commuter rail operations as well as train movements between DUS and the CRMF associated with all of the planned FasTracks commuter rail corridors. Wynkoop Street: There are single-family residences located along Wynkoop Street between 35th Street and 38th Street, southwest of the CRMF site. Existing noise sources affecting these locations include local traffic and industry. Because this area is 500 feet or more from the rail corridor and CRMF site and is shielded by intervening buildings, future exposure to commuter rail noise and vibration is expected to be limited. South of 40th Street: There are single-family residences located along Williams Street and High Street between 39th Street and 40th Street, directly south of the East Corridor alignment and CRMF site. However, only one of these is located along 40th Street with a direct view of the site; all of the other homes are shielded from the site by intervening buildings. The existing noise in this area is dominated by street traffic and by activities at the existing 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC. Due to location with respect to existing and future rail activities, vibration is not considered to be a significant issue for this area. North of 43rd Street: There are single-family residences along Race Street between 43rd Street and 44th Street with backyards that have an unobstructed view of the CRMF site. To the east of this area between Race Street and Josephine Street, there are a small number of single-family homes with less direct exposure to the site. The existing noise in this area is affected by railroad yard and local industrial activity. Due to location with respect to existing and future rail activities, vibration is not considered to be a significant issue for this area. North of I-70: There are single-family residential areas located on both sides of the UPRR alignment in this area between 46th Street and 48th Street. The existing noise and vibration environment at these residences is dominated by UPRR freight train operations and is also affected by noise from highway traffic on I-70. In the future, noise and vibration from North Metro commuter rail operations would affect this area. Existing Noise Conditions Field measurements carried out for other RTD projects at various times were used to characterize the existing baseline noise conditions at sensitive receptors in the CRMF study area. These include measurements for the US-36 corridor maintenance facility study made during February 2005, measurements for the East Corridor EIS made during June 2005 and measurements for the North Metro Corridor EIS made during July The measurements included both long-term and short-term monitoring of the A-weighted sound level at representative noise-sensitive receptor locations. The results of the existing ambient noise measurements are summarized in Table A-10.2, including the measured Ldn values for the long-term sites and the estimated Ldn values for the short-term sites. Figure A-10.6 identifies where the noise measurements were

70 Page A-52 taken. The results in Table A-10.2 served as a basis for determining the FTA noise criteria at noise-sensitive locations, and the resulting criteria were used to assess potential noise impacts. Table A-10.2 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results Start of Measurement Site No. Measurement Location Description Date Time Blake Street/33rd Street Denver, Multi- EC-1 Family Residence (east of East Corridor and North Metro alignments) ST- 10 LT- 14 NM Wynkoop Street-Denver, Single- Family Residence (southwest of CRMF site) 4351 Race Street-Denver, Single-Family Residence (northeast of CRMF site) 4740 Josephine Street-Denver, Single- Family Residence (east of North Metro alignment) * Ldn calculated based on 17-hour measurement. Meas. Dur. Outdoor Noise Exposure Ldn (dba) Meas Mea Est. Leq s.. (dba) 6/8/05 15:15 24 hrs /2/05 16:00 1 hr /2/05 16:00 17 hrs 67* /30/07 10:00 24 hrs

71 Page A-53 Figure A-10.6 CRMF Existing Measurement Locations Source: Google Maps, 2007

72 Page A-54 Existing Vibration Conditions Existing sources of ground-borne vibration in the CRMF study area are limited to vehicular traffic (such as heavy trucks) on local roadways and slow-moving trains (at speeds of 15 mph or less) on the UPRR tracks, and thus existing ground-borne vibration is below the threshold of perception in most cases. Because the existing vibration sources were not sufficient for determining the vibration propagation characteristics of the ground, the results of vibration propagation tests, conducted at sensitive receptors in the CRMF study area on July 30, 2007 as part of the North Metro Project, were used for this purpose. Two sites, designated as Sites V-1 and V-2, are representative of the soil conditions along the rail alignment within the CRMF study area. The general locations of these sites are described as follows: Site V-1 (Denver). This site was located in a parking lot to the east of the UPRR tracks near 28th Street, opposite the City Gate Loft apartments. This location is taken to be representative of the vibration propagation conditions in the southern portion of the CRMF study area. Site V-2 (Denver). This site was located to the east of the UPRR tracks near the play area at the northern end of Swansea Park. This location is taken to be representative of the vibration propagation conditions in the northern portion of the CRMF study area Noise Impact Evaluation Noise Prediction Methodology The predictions assume that the major sources associated with the CRMF that have the potential to cause community noise impact are (1) train operations (including movements to and from the CRMF as well as revenue service trains on the East Corridor and North Metro Corridor), (2) idling Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) and Electrical Multiple Unit (EMU) vehicles at the CRMF, and (3) train movements within the CRMF. The noise prediction methodology for each of these sources is described below. Train Operations Commuter train noise levels were projected based on current Denver FasTracks operations plans and the prediction models from the FTA guidance manual. It is assumed that the East Corridor and Gold Line will use EMU vehicles and that the North Metro Corridor and Northwest Rail will use DMU vehicles. Other significant factors are summarized below: Based on the FTA guidance manual, the predictions assume that a single EMU rail vehicle operating at 50 miles per hour (mph) on ballast and tie track with continuous welded rail (CWR) generates a sound exposure level (SEL) of 82 dba at a distance of 50 feet from the track centerline. The corresponding SEL for a powered DMU vehicle is 85 dba. The assumed train schedules and consists are based on current FasTracks operations plans as summarized in Tables A-10.3 and A-10.4 for daytime (7 A.M. to 10 P.M.) and nighttime (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.) periods for each vehicle type. These tables provide the train volumes and average consists for corridor (through train) operations and for yard movements, respectively, along various corridor sections within the CRMF study area.

73 Page A-55 Train operating speeds and DMU throttle settings were taken from the current North Metro operating plans. A detailed speed profile was not available for East Corridor but the so the operating speeds should be similar to those from the North Metro Corridor so North Metro operating speeds were used for both North Metro and East Corridors. The speeds and throttle settings are dependent on location, and the speeds were assumed to be approximately the same for both EMU and DMU vehicles. Train horns, generating a sound level of 90 dba at 50 feet, would be sounded for a period of 20 seconds as trains approach grade crossings, beginning no further than 1/4 mile from any crossing. Stationary bells, generating a sound level of 73 dba at 50 feet, would be sounded at all gated grade crossings before and after each train pass-by for a total duration of 30 seconds. Wheel impacts at turnouts are assumed to cause localized noise increases of 6 dba. Freight rail operations in the CRMF study area are expected to be reduced in the future due to implementation of commuter rail service, and thus the increased noise from future commuter rail operations may be offset by a reduction in freight train noise at some locations. However, to provide a conservative assessment of the impacts from the commuter rail operations, the potential effects of reduced freight rail operations were not considered in the noise analysis. Table A-10.3 Summary of Commuter Rail Corridor Train Operations Year Number of Trains in Each Direction Average Number of Vehicles/Trains Vehicle 7 AM-10 7 AM PM-7 Corridor Type PM 10 PM-7 AM PM AM East EMU North Metro DMU East EMU North Metro DMU

74 Page A-56 Table A-10.4 Summary of Commuter Rail Yard Movements Average Number of Total Number of Trains Vehicles/Trains 7 AM-10 PM 10 PM-7 AM 7 AM-10 PM 10 PM-7 AM Corridor Section Year EMU DMU EMU DMU EMU DMU EMU DMU DUS CRMF CRMF-DUS CRMF-NMC NMC-CRMF Idling Vehicles Based on FTA methodology and projected CRMF activity levels, the Ldn from idling vehicles can be calculated as follows: Ldn Where: Lmax1 NHd NHn D = Lmax log10(nhd + 10NHn) log10(d/50) = Maximum Sound Level for a single idling vehicle at 50 feet = 70 dba for DMU = 65 dba for EMU = Number of unit hours of vehicle idling during the daytime (7 A.M. to 10 P.M.) = 174 (Year 2015), 332 (Year 2030) for DMU = 148 (Year 2015), 178 (Year 2030) for EMU = Number of unit hours of vehicle idling during the nighttime (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.) = 178 (Year 2015), 230 (Year 2030) for DMU = 156 (Year 2015), 178 (Year 2030) for EMU = Distance from idling vehicles, feet Based on the above calculations, the predicted Ldn values are approximately the same for Year 2015 and Year 2030 as follows: Ldn = log10(d/50) for DMU vehicles Ldn = log10(d/50) for EMU vehicles For idling DMU vehicles, the distance (D) is measured from the center of the north yard storage tracks and for idling EMU vehicles, the distance (D) is measured from the center of the south yard storage tracks. The difference in distances for DMU and EMU vehicles is due to the fact that they are stored in different locations on the CRMF site. Yard Movements It is assumed that noise from train movements in and out of the CRMF will be dominated by wheel squeal as the trains pass through the curved sections at the ends of the storage tracks.

75 Page A-57 Based on FTA methodology and projected CRMF activity levels, the average daytime and nighttime hourly Leq from this source can be calculated as follows: Leq-hr(day) = SELref + 10 log10(nd/15) + 10 log10(e/3600) - 25 log10(d/50) 35.6 Leq-hr(night) = SELref + 10 log10(nn/9) + 10 log10(e/3600) - 25 log10(d/50) 35.6 Where: SELref = 136 dba for wheel squeal Nd = Total number of train movements during the daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) = 5 (Year 2015), 12 (Year 2030) for DMU = 6 (Year 2015), 6 (Year 2030) for EMU Nn = Total number of train movements during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) = 11 (Year 2015), 13 (Year 2030) for DMU = 11 (Year 2015), 11 (Year 2030) for EMU E = Duration of one train movement = 15 seconds D = Distance from curved track area, feet Based on the above calculations, the predicted Ldn from wheel squeal is approximately the same for DMU and EMU movements in both Year 2015 and Year 2030 as follows: Ldn = log10(d/50) For wheel squeal, the distance (D) is measured from centers of the entrance and exit tracks of the north and south storage yards. It should be noted that the above calculations assume that 1/2 of the total number of train pull-in and pull-out movements occur at each end of each yard NOISE IMPACTS The results of the CRMF noise impact assessment are summarized in Table A-10.5 and Table A for opening year (2015) and design year (2030) operations, respectively. For 2015 operations, severe impacts are predicted at 2 multi-family and 8 single-family residential receptors and moderate impacts are predicted at 29 single-family residences. For 2030 operations, severe impacts are predicted at 2 multi-family and 8 single-family residential receptors and moderate impacts are predicted at 1 multi-family receptor and 34 single-family residences. All of these projected impacts are located within 200 feet of the tracks along the East Corridor and/or North Metro Corridor in the areas south and north of the CRMF. In addition to the rail vehicles themselves, significant contributors to the predicted noise at these locations include crossovers in the areas south and north of the CRMF and audible warning signals (such as, train horns and grade crossing bells) around York Street in the area north of the CRMF. No noise impacts are anticipated due to yard operations, including moving or idling trains within the CRMF itself.

76 Draft FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility 10/17/07 Page 58 of 145 Noise-Sensitive Receptor Location Brighton Boulevard south of W 29th Street (multifamily) Blake Street and 36th Street (multi-family) 46th Avenue between Vine Street and Gaylord Street 47th Avenue and Gaylord Street 47th Avenue and Claude Court York Street between UPRR and 48th Avenue (trailer homes) Claude Court and Alice Place Claude Court and Alice Place Josephine Street north of E. 47th Avenue Josephine Street north of E. 47th Avenue Josephine Street and Columbine Street TOTAL NUMBER OF IMPACTS: Table A-10.5 CRMF Area Noise Impact Assessment for Opening Year (2015) Operations Distance Range Existing Noise Project Noise Level, Ldn (dba) Total Noise Level, Ldn (dba) Total No. of Impacts Side of from Tracks of Train Speeds Level, Ldn Criteria MF = Multi-family SF = Single-family Tracks (feet) (mph) (dba) Pred. Mod Sev Pred. Incr. Mod Sev West MF East MF West SF West SF West SF West SF East SF East <1 1-SF East SF East SF East SF 29-SF 2-MF 8-SF

77 Page A-59 Table A-10.6 CRMF Area Noise Impact Assessment for 2030 Operations Distance Range Existing Noise Project Noise Level, Ldn (dba) Total Noise Level, Ldn (dba) Total No. of Impacts Noise-Sensitive Receptor Side of from Tracks of Train Speeds Level, Ldn Criteria MF = Multi-family SF = Single-family Location Tracks (feet) (mph) (dba) Pred. Mod Sev Pred. Incr. Mod Sev Brighton Blvd. South of W West MF 29 th Street (multi-family) Blake St. between 33 rd St. East MF and 34 th St. (multi-family) Blake Street and 36 th East MF Street (multi-family) 46 th Ave. between Vine St. West SF and Gaylord St. 47th Ave. and Gaylord St. West SF 47th Ave. and Claude Ct. West SF York St. between UPRR West SF and 48 th Ave. (trailer homes) York St. between UPRR West SF and 48 th Ave. (2nd row) Claude Ct. and Alice Pl. East SF Claude Ct. and Alice Pl. East SF Josephine St. North of E. East SF 47 th Ave. Josephine St. North of E. East SF 47 th Ave. Josephine St. and Columbine St. East SF TOTAL NUMBER OF IMPACTS: 1-MF 34-SF 2-MF 8-SF

78 Draft FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility 10/17/07 Page 60 of NOISE MITIGATION Mitigation options for the major sources of commuter rail maintenance facility noise are discussed below. Train Operations. To mitigate noise impact from train operations, noise control can be considered at the source, along the sound path and at the receiver. Source noise control options include limiting the use of train horns (for example, by establishing quiet zones to avoid horn use at grade crossings) and using special hardware at turnout locations (for example, by using springrail or moveable-point frogs in place of standard rigid frogs) if the turnouts cannot be relocated away from sensitive areas. Noise barrier construction is the most common path noise control treatment and noise control can be applied at the receiver by using sound insulation treatments at residences and institutional buildings. Idling Vehicles. The only practical options to mitigate noise impacts from idling vehicles within a maintenance facility are related to facility layout and operation. Regarding layout, vehicle idling areas should be located as far as possible from nearby residences. If practical, such areas should be located behind large buildings that can shield the residences from the idling noise. Regarding operations, the best alternative would be complete shutdown of the vehicles as feasible, connecting them to auxiliary units as needed. Yard Movements. Mitigation measures that can be applied to reduce noise from wheel squeal during yard movements include track lubrication systems and noise barriers. For implementing noise impact criteria, the FTA states that severe impacts should be mitigated unless there are truly extenuating circumstances that prevent it. At the moderate impact level, more discretion should be used, and other project-specific factors should be included in the consideration of mitigation. Consistent with FTA guidance, FasTracks mitigation strategies call for providing mitigation for all severe noise impacts and, if reasonable, for moderate noise impacts where the project noise levels are within the top 50 percent of the moderate impact range. In view of this objective, potential noise mitigation treatments are described in Table A according to location within the CRMF study area. These measures will need to be further investigated during final design to determine those that are feasible and reasonable to implement.

79 Page A-61 Table A-10.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures Noise Impact Severe impact to one multi-family structure. Located at Brighton Boulevard South of 29th Street (three-story, multifamily building on the west side of the tracks). Severe impact to one multi-family structure. Located at Blake Street and 36th Street (multi-family building on the east side of the tracks). Moderate impacts to 8 single-family residences. Located at 46th Avenue to 47th Avenue on the west side of the tracks. Moderate impact to 4 single-family residences. Located at York Street between UPRR and 48th Avenue (trailer homes) on the west side of the tracks. Moderate impact to one single-family and severe impact to 4 single-family residences. Located at Claude Court and Alice Pl. on the east side of the tracks. Severe impact to 4 single-family residences. Located at Josephine Street North of E. 47th Avenue on the east side of the tracks. Source: CRMF Team, Impact Mitigation Measures Type CRMF Alternative Direct Relocate crossover or use special frogs at turnouts or Sound insulate residential units facing tracks. Direct Relocate crossover or use special frogs at turnouts and Construct 500 foot-long sound barrier. Direct Construct 800 foot-long sound barrier. Direct Establish Quiet Zone at York Street grade crossing. Direct Construct 600 foot-long sound barrier. Direct Consider a Quiet Zone at York Street grade crossing VIBRATION EVALUATION CRITERIA Vibration Prediction Methodology The potential vibration impact from commuter rail operation was assessed on an absolute basis using the FTA criteria for frequent events (more than 70 trains per day). The same representative sensitive receptors identified for the noise analysis were considered for the vibration impact assessment. The following factors were used in determining potential vibration impacts along the project corridor: Vibration source levels for commuter rail vehicles were based on measurement data for the Colorado Railcar single-level DMU, a FRA-compliant passenger rail vehicle tested at the Transportation Test Center in Pueblo. Vibration propagation tests were conducted at representative sites along the corridor near sensitive receptors. The results of these tests were combined with the vehicle vibration

80 Page A-62 source level data to provide projections of vibration levels from vehicles operating on the East Corridor and North Metro Corridor. Train speeds were taken from the current North Metro operating plans and interpolated for the East Corridor because detail speed profiles were not available for East Corridor. Speeds were assumed to be approximately the same for both EMU and DMU vehicles. The speeds are dependent on location, with a maximum operating speed of 62 mph within the CRMF study area. Wheel impacts at turnouts were assumed to cause localized vibration increases of 10 VdB in accordance with FTA methodology. For single-family residential structures, it was assumed that floor vibration levels would be essentially the same as the projected ground vibration levels. For larger, multi-family residential structures, building foundation coupling and floor resonance adjustments were included in the projections using FTA methodology VIBRATION IMPACTS The results of the CRMF vibration impact assessment are summarized in Table A-10.8 and apply to both opening year (2015) and design year (2030) operations. As shown in the table, vibration impacts are predicted at one multi-family receptor and at 17 single-family residences. All of these projected impacts are located within 100 feet of the tracks along the East Corridor and/or North Metro Corridor in the areas south and north of the CRMF. The impacts are due to proximity to the tracks, high train speeds and, in some cases, proximity to crossovers. No vibration impacts are anticipated due to yard operations, including moving trains within the CRMF itself. Table A-10.8 CRMF Area Vibration Impact Assessment Vibration- Sensitive Receptor Location Blake St. and 36 th St. (multifamily) 47 th Ave. and Gaylord St. York St. between alignment and Distance to Track Crossover or Turnout Max. Vibration Velocity Level in any 1/3-Octave Band from 8 to 80 Hz (VdB re 1 micro-inches per second) Side of Tracks Distance to Tracks (feet) Train Speed (mph) (feet)) Predicted Criterion Total Number of Impacts East MF West SF West SF

81 Page A th Ave. (trailer homes) Claude Ct. and Alice Pl. Claude Ct. and Alice Pl. Josephine St. north of E. 47 th Ave. TOTAL NUMBER OF IMPACTS: East SF East > SF East SF 1-MF 17-SF 10.8 VIBRATION MITIGATION Beyond ensuring that the vehicle wheels and track are well maintained, approaches that can be considered to reduce ground-borne vibration from commuter rail operation include track vibration isolation treatments such as ballast mats, tire derived aggregate (TDA, or shredded tires), under-tie pads, and floating slab track. Near turnouts, vibration from wheel impacts can be reduced by using special hardware (such as, spring-rail or moveable-point frogs in place of standard rigid frogs) if the turnouts cannot be relocated away from sensitive areas. If reasonable and feasible, vibration impacts that exceed FTA criteria are considered to be significant and to warrant mitigation. Based on the results of the analysis, potential vibration mitigation treatments are described in Table A-10.9 according to location within the CRMF study area. As indicated in the table, these treatments include crossover modifications (such as, crossover relocation or use of special frogs at turnouts) as well as the installation of TDA for track vibration isolation at specific locations. It is projected that a combination of these measures could eliminate all of the projected vibration impacts. However, these measures will need to be further investigated during final design to determine those that are feasible and reasonable to implement. Table A-10.9 Proposed Mitigation Measures Vibration Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Impact to one multi-family structure. Located at Blake Street and 36th Street on the east side of the tracks. Impact to 17 single-family residences. Located at 46th Avenue to 48th Avenue on the east and west side of the tracks. Source: CRMF Team, Direct Relocate crossover or use special frogs at turnouts or Install 400 foot-long section of TDA vibration isolation. Direct Relocate crossovers or use special frogs at turnouts and Install 1400 foot-long section of TDA vibration isolation.

82 Page A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The entire CRMF study area is industrial and commercial habitat that consists of buildings, pavement, bare ground, and disturbed areas. Nearly all of the area is unvegetated or sparsely vegetated by weedy and pioneer species such as kochia (Kochia scoparia), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and Russian thistle (Salsola collina and S. tragus). Woody species, including Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) occur in very limited areas. No aquatic habitats are present. The surrounding areas include similar industrial areas, as well as residential areas, and no wildlife corridors are present except for the South Platte River several blocks away. Because of the disturbed habitat, high levels of human activity, and isolation from more productive habitats, only a small number of animal species are likely to be regularly present, including species such as rock dove (Columbia livia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house mouse (Mus musculus), and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus). Small populations of several noxious weeds species are present. There is no suitable habitat or occurrence of federal or state listed, proposed or candidate endangered or threatened species, or other special status species IMPACTS Evaluation Criteria Loss of habitat, direct and indirect impacts to wildlife (including habitat loss, habitat fragmentation/degradation, disturbance during construction and/or operation, and direct mortality), effects on aquatic habitats, and effects on special status species No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with the No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR and market conditions. Improvements or modifications made to the existing site such as construction of the North Metro 38th Street platforms, or future redevelopment of the site, would result in impacts to biological resources similar to those outlined for the CRMF Alternative. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not indirectly impact biological resources CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Construction of the CRMF would not change the type or quality of habitat, which would continue to be low quality industrial habitat occupied by a limited number of tolerant species. Ground clearing would primarily affect unvegetated or sparsely vegetated areas. There would be potential for spread of noxious weeds during or following construction, and controls would be required. Animal species may be temporarily displaced from construction areas, but displacement would not have long-term effects. Construction would be unlikely to affect nesting migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No special status species would be affected.

83 Page A-65 Indirect Impacts The CRMF project would not indirectly impact biological resources MITIGATION The proposed Biological mitigations are detailed below. Table A-11.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Biological Resources Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Ground clearing for construction would increase the possibility of the spread of noxious weeds during or after construction. Source: CRMF Team, Direct A Construction Management Plan (Refer to Section A.22, Construction) will be implemented to mitigate the potential spread of noxious weeds.

84 Page A GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERAL RESOURCES 12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The CRMF site would present adverse conditions in subgrade materials, including high shrink-swell potential, potential for differential settlement, high corrosivity, and susceptibility to erosion. The Evaluation Criteria Identification of potential mineral resource, geology, and geologic hazard impacts. CRMF site does not overlie abandoned coal mines. The site is less than 5 miles southwest of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal seismic zone and less than 15 miles east of the Golden Fault but is within areas assessed by the U.S. Geological Survey as having less than 10 percent probability in 50 years of ground motion exceeding threshold level for damage to older (pre-1965) dwellings. The CRMF site has very little topographic relief and lies generally 25 to 35 feet above the South Platte River. Bedrock underlying the CRMF site is composed of interlayered sandstone, claystone, siltstone and shale, with some conglomerate. Shrink-swell potential is high to very high in clayey layers. The bedrock and associated soils are susceptible to slumping when slopes are excavated, especially where moisture content is high. The bedrock unit is more than 748 feet thick less than one mile south of the CRMF site. The dominant surficial material along the UPRR line is ancient alluvium generally less than 15 feet thick. The alluvium has been quarried for sand and gravel elsewhere in the South Platte River valley. In the eastern arm of the CRMF site between 40th and 43rd Avenues, the dominant surficial material is younger alluvial sand, silt, and clay is generally five to ten feet thick. The CRMF site is probably underlain by additional older units of alluvium - a little more than 1 mile to the northeast, the combined thickness of all the alluvial deposits is 44 feet. Unmapped areas of fine-grained windblown deposits may exist at the CRMF site, especially within three blocks of York Street. Windblown deposits are typically less than ten feet thick but may be up to 30 feet thick. Less than one mile south of the CRMF site, windblown sand 23 feet thick overlies 29 feet of alluvium on bedrock. The southwest corner of the CRMF site abuts an area of artificial fill in what may be a small abandoned sand/gravel quarry. Artificial fill may be highly variable in composition and may be loosely compacted. The fill is probably less than 20 feet thick. Clays in the younger alluvium, windblown deposits, and overlying soils may exhibit moderate shrink-swell potential. The windblown deposits and associated soils also may be susceptible to differential settlement when wetted or loaded. The younger alluvium is moderately susceptible to erosion and gullying. The windblown deposits are susceptible to erosion by wind or water, especially where unvegetated. Depth to the water table is generally greater than 10 feet in the ancient alluvium, five to fifteen feet in the younger alluvium, and greater than 20 feet in the windblown deposits. Soils on the younger alluvium may be subject to occasional brief flooding. Shallow perched water tables may develop locally in windblown deposits.

85 Page A-67 Soils across the region tend to be corrosive to untreated steel, and some are moderately corrosive to concrete. Soils commonly exhibit high shrink-swell potential where they have developed on deposits or bedrock with significant shrink-swell potential IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with the No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. Improvements or modifications made to the existing site such as construction of the North Metro 38th Street platforms, or redevelopment of the site, would result in impacts to geology, soils, and mineral resources that are similar to those outlined for the CRMF Alternative. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not result in indirect impacts to geology, soils, or mineral resources CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts With appropriate mitigation, the CRMF Alternative results in no direct impacts to geology, soils, or mineral resources. Failure to provide the appropriate engineering design may result in future damage to onsite foundations, including the proposed CRMF shop building. Excavation would: Expose windblown deposits with potential for differential settlement. Occur in artificial fill susceptible to differential settlement. Expose unconsolidated deposits or bedrock with high shrink-swell potential. Produce susceptibility to slumping or caving, particularly where very clayey. Increase susceptibility to erosion, particularly with devegetation. Intersect locally shallow water tables. Affect local groundwater flow and local water table. Expose collapsible soils or deposits to saturation. Fill placement would: Hide underlying units that retain their potential for high shrink-swell or differential settlement. Affect local groundwater flow and local water table. Expose collapsible soils or deposits to saturation. Appropriate mitigation measures are provided below to avoid the impacts identified.

86 Page A-68 Indirect Impacts The CRMF Alternative would not result in indirect impacts to geology, soils, or mineral resources MITIGATION Mitigation will follow best engineering practices that have been developed over time for the Front Range region. Table A-12.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Excavation and fill would expose windblown deposits with potential for differential settlement. Occur in artificial fill susceptible to differential settlement. Excavation and fill would expose unconsolidated deposits or bedrock with high shrinkswell potential. Excavation and fill would produce susceptibility to slumping or caving, particularly where very clayey. Excavation would Intersect locally shallow water tables. Excavation would expose collapsible soils or deposits to saturation. Excavation and fill would expose potentially corrosive soils. Source: CRMF Team, Direct RTD will design engineered slopes and excavations, shoring, and retaining walls to improve stability in excavations and slope cuts. RTD will design slopes, drainage systems, cover during construction, and prompt revegetation to combat soil erosion. Direct RTD will design deep foundation systems, specialized piers and footings, subsurface drainage systems, over excavation, and engineered fills to mitigate high shrink-swell potential. RTD will use geogrids, geotextiles, over excavation, engineered fills, and preflooding to mitigate collapsible soils. Direct RTD will use coated and resistant steel and concrete to mitigate corrosive soils; engineered fills and dewatering systems to mitigate shallow groundwater.

87 Page A FARMLANDS 13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The CRMF site is not located in an area of agricultural activity as it consists of acres of disturbed/developed land located in generally urban, commercial, and industrially developed areas with no farmland of statewide or national importance on the site or within any reasonable vicinity IMPACTS Evaluation Criteria Identification of potential farmland impacts No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The No Action Alternative would not result in the conversion of farmland of statewide or national importance, thus, there would be no direct impacts to farmlands. No farmland of statewide or national importance is located within the project boundaries. Indirect Impacts No farmland of statewide or national importance is located within the reasonable vicinity of the 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facility, thus, there would be no impacts to farmlands as a result of the No Action Alternative CRMF Alternative Direct Impacts The CRMF Alternative would not result in the conversion of farmland of statewide or national importance, thus, there would be no direct impacts to farmlands. No farmland of statewide or national importance is located within the project boundaries. Indirect Impacts No farmland of statewide or national importance is located within the reasonable vicinity of the CRMF site, thus there would be no indirect impacts to farmlands of statewide or national importance MITIGATION No mitigation will be required.

88 Page A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 14.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A Phase I database search at Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and the Division of Oil & Public Safety (OPS) was conducted to identify hazardous material sites within 500 feet of the CRMF footprint. The sites were then ranked according to Evaluation Criteria Releases from hazardous material sites within or adjacent to the CRMF property boundary can result in direct impacts on the proposed maintenance facility site. the severity of the environmental release and/or potential for impact. The high and medium ranked sites are detailed in Tables A-14.1 and A-14.2 below and mapped and detailed further in Attachment A. Table A-14.1 Seventeen High-Ranked Sites Site Name Location Type of Release Artificial Fill South of Brighton Boulevard; Solidwaste Between 32nd and 33rd Streets Denver Facility-TOFC 1851 E 40th Tank V & J Oil Company 2381 E 46th Avenue Tank leak International Trucks, (also known 3280 Brighton Boulevard Tank leak, CORRACT as [aka] McCandless Int'l Trucks of Colorado) Wilson & Marshall 3360 Blake Street Tank Union Pacific Railroad 3620 Wazee Tank, Generator, Spills Frank Ban 3667 Blake Street Tank Allied Trades (Maintenance Shop) 3675 Wynkoop Street Tank Allied Trades (Main Yard) 3800 Wynkoop Street Tank Train Yard Number 4 & Intermodal 40th & Williams Spill Ramp Facility Denver Facility-TOFC 40th & Williams Tank leak Super Valu Stores Inc, (Kalman 4120 Brighton Boulevard Tank, Generator, Other Floor, Public Office Boulevard Shops, CCOD, Mountain Electronics) Gaylord Drum Site 4200 Gaylord CERCLIS, NFRAP Other Associated Battery Supply Of 4238-B York Other Colorado (aka Franklin Serum and Franklin Laboratories) Acme Precision Industries 4400 York Street CORRACT, Generator, SQG Hurley Lumber Company 4560 Wynkoop Street Tank Known Landfill Boundaries Approximate: east of York, south of 40th Solidwaste

89 Page A-71 Table A-14.2 Seven Moderate-Ranked Sites Site Name Location Type of Release Mike Hieipress 3350 Brighton Boulevard Tank leak 3390 LLC 3499 Wazee Street Tank Mountain Cement Company 3557 Wazee Tank leak J&J Metal Fabricators 4780 York Street Tank Alpine Roofing 4800 York Street Tank Eaton Metal Products 4803 York Street Tank Eaton Sales And Service 3350 Brighton Boulevard Tank leak 14.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Contaminated soil and groundwater may be encountered at the North Metro 38th Street platform due to the long history of rail yard and freight-hauling activities. Direct impacts associated with the No Action Alternative would occur at this site if contamination is present. Additional impacts associated with the No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. Improvements or modifications made to the existing site including potential redevelopment would result in impacts to hazardous materials that are similar to those outlined for the CRMF Alternative. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not indirectly impact hazardous materials CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Under the CRMF Alternative, hazardous materials would be remediated or appropriately contained. There is potential that contaminated soil and groundwater would be likely throughout the entire CRMF site and along the UPRR rail corridor due to the long history of rail yard and freight-hauling activities. A Phase II Analysis will be conducted to analyze the site. Hazardous materials including fuel and solvents would continue to be used as a part of maintenance and operations at the CRMF. These substances are covered under an umbrella of environmental regulations including the following: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) which regulates many hazardous substances along with the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of these substances OPS Petroleum Storage Tank Owner/Operator Guidance for both underground and above ground storage tanks

90 Page A-72 CDPHE regulations on treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes, guidance on groundwater discharge regulations, discharge to publicly owned treatment works, lead based paint requirements, and land treatment units. The CRMF would be developed in an industrialized area where historic waste and hazardous substance management may have been inadequate. The area would see improvements to soil and groundwater quality as contaminated soil is excavated for the development of the maintenance facility. Indirect Impacts The CRMF Alternative would not indirectly impact hazardous materials MITIGATION Details of the proposed Hazardous Materials mitigation measures are detailed below. Table A-14.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative There is potential that contaminated soil and groundwater would be likely throughout the entire CRMF site and along the UPRR rail corridor. Hazardous materials including fuel and solvents would continue to be used as a part of maintenance and operations at the CRMF. Direct RTD will modify track and structure locations during design (to the extent practical), especially excavation, to minimize conflict with subsurface contamination. A site-specific Phase II investigation of CRMF property will be conducted where subsurface excavation is to occur with laboratory sampling and analysis. This will include areas adjacent to CRMF property where known soil or groundwater contamination is present and likely to migrate onto CRMF property. Direct A Materials Handling plan will be prepared by RTD and RTD will conduct material abatement for asbestos and lead-based paints identified in any structures to be removed. Source: CRMF Team, 2007.

91 Page A UTILITIES 15.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This analysis examined the number of major utilities within the CRMF site that would need to be relocated, assuming that buildings would require cut of five to twn feet and that new tracks would require excavation of three feet for placement of subgrade. It was also assumed that there would be minimal site grading away from proposed buildings. Potentially affected major utilities were identified, and the proposed improvements were compared with the location and estimated depth of each utility to assess whether the utility would need to be relocated. Major utilities are defined as: All fiber optic. All cell towers. Copper telephone cable greater than 200 pair. Water lines at least 24 inches in diameter. All brick and clay sanitary sewers, and those of other materials at least 18 inches in diameter. Storm sewers at least 36 inches in diameter. High pressure gas pipelines. Petroleum pipelines. All pump stations and meter stations. Electric substations. High voltage electric lines. Overhead lighting. Major utilities identified within the CRMF site include: Evaluation Criteria Number of major utilities within the CRMF site that would require relocation. An overhead high voltage electric transmission line crossing the UPRR Greeley tracks at Race Street. An overhead high voltage electric transmission line on the west side of York Street. Three overhead electric lines servicing street lighting crossing the UPRR Greeley tracks at 40th Street, south of 46th Avenue, and Claude Court. Seven buried fiber optic conduits along both sides of the UPRR Greeley tracks. Two buried fiber optic conduits along both sides of the UPRR Limon tracks. Buried fiber optic conduits crossing the UPRR Greeley tracks at 38th Street (5), 35th Street (1), E. 36th Avenue (2), 40th Street (1), 43rd Street (1), E. 46th Avenue (1), and E. 47th Avenue (1). Overhead fiber optic lines crossing the UPRR Greeley tracks at 36th Street (2) and adjacent to the UPRR Greeley tracks at 35th Street (1). Buried fiber optic adjacent to the UPRR Greeley tracks at 34th Street (1) and 38th Street (1). An overhead telephone/fiber line running north from 43rd Avenue west of Race Street.

92 Page A-74 An overhead telephone/fiber line in Vine Street from 43rd Avenue to north of the UPRR Limon tracks. An overhead telephone/fiber line adjacent to the east side of the UPRR Greeley tracks from 47th Avenue to Claude Court. Two sanitary sewers crossing the UPRR Greeley tracks at 35th Street and 36th Street. Five clay sanitary sewers from the north side of the UPRR Greeley tracks to alleys between York Street and High Street. Three large storm sewers crossing the UPRR Greeley tracks at 36th Street, 40th Street, and 47th Avenue IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The No Action Alternative would not directly impact utilities. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not indirectly impact utilities. Existing electric, gas, water, and sewer service are available in the area to serve potential redevelopment in the area CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Existing electric, gas, water, and sewer service are available in the area to serve the new CRMF facility. The following major utilities may need to be relocated (see attachment J for a depiction of these major utilities): One transmission tower on the northwest corner of 45th Avenue/Race Street due to new tracks. Four buried fiber runs (7000 linear feet [lf]) along both sides of the UPRR Greeley tracks due to new tracks. One buried fiber run (4000 lf) on the east side of the UPRR Greeley tracks and the north side of the UPRR Limon tracks due to the CRMF building and new tracks. One buried fiber run (2000 lf) along the UPRR Greeley tracks to 43rd Street and across the UPRR Greeley tracks in 43rd Street due to new tracks. One buried fiber run (2600 lf) along the freight tracks on the northeast side of the facility due to the new parking area. One overhead fiber run (200 lf) in 36th Street due to new tracks. One buried telephone/fiber conduit (400 lf) east of the UPRR Greeley tracks between 35th Street and 36th Street due to new tracks. One overhead telephone/fiber line (400 lf) in Vine Street south of 43rd Avenue due to new tracks.

93 Page A-75 One overhead telephone/fiber line (300 lf) east of the UPRR Greeley tracks from Claude Court to 47th Avenue due to new tracks. One overhead telephone/fiber line (400 lf) west of Race Street between 43rd Avenue and 44th Avenue due to new tracks. One overhead electric line (500 lf) crossing the UPRR Greeley tracks in 40th Street due to new tracks. One overhead electric line (200 lf) crossing the UPRR Greeley tracks south of 46th Avenue due to new tracks. A map of the utilities that may need to be relocated is provided in Attachment J. Indirect Impacts The CRMF project would not indirectly impact utilities. Existing electric, gas, water, and sewer service are available in the area to serve potential redevelopment in the area MITIGATION Details of the proposed Utilities mitigation measures are detailed below. Table A-15.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Utilities Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Relocation of exisiting utilities. (See CRMF Alternative Direct Impacts above.) Source: CRMF Team, Direct Where feasible, RTD will modify the layout of the maintenance facility during design to avoid conflict with the electric transmission towers, buried and overhead fiber, and overhead telephone and electric lines. Where possible, appropriate utility protection will be provided during construction as an alternative to relocating some utilities.

94 Page A ENERGY 16.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The existing project site is used by UPRR for freight rail trains to load and unload train cars from trucks and organize loaded train cars into trains for departure to other parts of the country. Current operations at the 36th Street Yard include nine switch-locomotives moving around the yard (1,500 to 2,000 horsepower [hp] engines) and six line-haul locomotives (daily) traveling in and out of the yard (4,000 to 4,400 hp engines). Current operations at the 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facility includes two intermodal trains consisting of three to four locomotives (4,000 to 4,400 hp engines). However, when used by RTD, the site would be converted for commuter rail train storage and maintenance, both electric and diesel technologies. For the purpose of this project, it is assumed that commuter rail uses approximately 95,000 British Thermal Units (BTU) per mile. The project site is approximately 0.75 miles in length (as measured from 32nd and Blake Streets north to 47th and York Streets) and 0.61 miles (as measured from as measured from 32nd and Blake Streets west to 40th and York Streets.) 16.2 IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. If the yards are relocated, market conditions would dictate if the site would redevelop. Specific information regarding existing train miles traveled is not available for the existing rail operations at the 36th Street Yard and the 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. Each potential future scenario would impact energy consumption. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not indirectly impact energy consumption CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Commuter rail train movements through and on the site for maintenance of the Gold Line, East Corridor, Northwest Rail, and North Metro Corridor would result in the consumption of energy at the CRMF site. For purposes of the energy analysis, train movements associated with the CRMF Alternative were assumed to be approximately 327 miles per day. Based on this information, the energy consumption in the year 2030 for train movements at the CRMF site are estimated at 31,016,241 BTUs per day. Indirect Impacts The CRMF project would not indirectly impact energy consumption. Evaluation Criteria Disclosure of energy consumption associated with CRMF site operations.

95 Page A MITIGATION The proposed Energy mitigation measures are detailed below. Table A-16.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures Energy Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Commuter rail train movements through and on the site for maintenance of the Gold Line, East Corridor, Northwest Rail, and North Metro Corridor would result in the consumption of energy at the CRMF site. (Approximately 31,016,241 BTUs per day.) Source: CRMF Team, Direct Best management practices will be incorporated into the project to reduce energy usage during site construction. RTD will investigate the use of energy efficient design and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification for CRMF facilities.

96 Page A FLOODPLAINS & DRAINAGE 17.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The CRMF site is not located in any Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulated flood zone. The project site is located in an urbanized tributary to the South Platte River known locally as the Montclair Basin. This large watershed encompasses more than 9 square miles within the City and County of Denver that is completely urbanized with commercial, industrial, and residential development. Drainage out of this basin flows in a northwesterly direction toward Evaluation Criteria Application of the City and County of Denver ordinances and regulations included the floodplain ordinance and the Storm Drain Design and Technical Criteria Manual. Application of requirements of Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, as applicable. the South Platte River, which is approximately 0.5 miles west of the site. The entire watershed is presently drained by storm sewers that do not adequately convey all storm flows. Although the size of the tributary watershed qualifies the 100-year flow (approximately 5,000 cubic feet per second [cfs]) as a major drainageway, there is no major drainageway or flood channel that conveys the 100-year flood through the site to the South Platte River. Consequently, major storm flows in excess of what is conveyed by the local storm sewer outfalls are carried in city streets to the site, then overland through the site in a shallow floodplain that is over 2,000 feet wide and generally less than 1 foot deep. Major flood flows overtop the existing tracks and then are conveyed by the city streets on the northwest side of the site toward the South Platte River. Although the major drainageway of the Montclair Basin is not FEMA regulated, drainage ordinances have been enacted by the City and County of Denver that prohibit modifications to a site that would increases in 100-year flood depths on adjacent and downstream properties. In addition to modifying floodplains, a drainage and hydrology analysis conducted to evaluate the effects of increased impervious surfaces within the CRMF site. Runoff from the project would be directed to existing or proposed storm sewer outfalls to the South Platte River. It would be necessary to create detention facilities to meter the runoff flow rates to historic (pre-project) rates. The method used to evaluate the need for detention and detention facility sizing would be based on the drainage requirements of the City and County of Denver IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. If the yards are relocated, market conditions would dictate if the site would redevelop. If the CRMF building, storage yards and East Corridor track is not constructed, there would be no change in the flow patterns across the CRMF site.

97 Page A-79 Indirect Impacts The construction of the North Metro station platform near the 38th Street underpass would affect the 100-year flood flow path along the western boundary of the CRMF site. These potential impacts would need to be mitigated by design of the North Metro corridor and associated drainage facilities CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Regrading and placing the CRMF building and storage yards on this site would change the flood conveyance patterns of the existing site. The building and the majority of the storage tracks are proposed in an area the currently experiences shallow flooding in a 100-year event, and the resulting change in flow patterns would affect adjacent properties both upstream and downstream of the project. Indirect Impacts Construction of the CRMF building and storage yards would change the flood conveyance patterns of the existing site, and may temporarily affect adjacent properties. However, impacts to adjacent properties would ultimately be avoided through adherence to local development requirements. Construction of the East Corridor and North Metro station platform would induce redevelopment in the vicinity of the platform. However, this re-development would occur according to City and County of Denver rules and regulations, and would be required to provide additional infrastructure or other means to convey major storm flows affecting the sites MITIGATION The proposed Floodplains and Drainage mitigation measures are detailed below.

98 Page A-80 Impact Regrading and placing the CRMF building and storage yards on this site would change the flood conveyance patterns of the existing site. Source: CRMF Team, Table A-17.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Floodplains & Drainage Impact Mitigation Measures Type CRMF Alternative Direct Conveyance will be provided in an open channel, culvert, or overland through the proposed yard for the residual 100-year flood flow from the Montclair Basin such that water surface elevations are not increased along adjacent properties. The site will be graded to protect the CRMF building and storage yards, and guide stormwater flows to a location where it can be discharged on the surface in a manner that is equal or better to existing flow paths. On-site detention (Extended Dry Detention) will be provided for water quality enhancement and reduce flood discharges from the proposed site to rates that meet the requirements of the City and County of Denver and can be conveyed within existing storm sewer outfalls to the South Platte River. The current site plan indicates areas for two onsite detention and water quality ponds. At a minimum, a new outfall to the South Platte River will be constructed to convey the 5-year discharge. The current preferred alignment for a new outfall is along 42nd Street west through the Denver Coliseum parking lot to the South Platte River. The new outfall will provide additional conveyance and reduce the major flood discharges on the surface by about 30 percent, which will benefit all adjacent properties. The FasTracks facilities will be designed so that any encroachment in the major (100-year) floodplain will not increase flooding risks or impair the capacity of a floodplain. The FasTracks Program will mitigate any increase in the surface of the water during a major 100-year storm if that water surface increases more than six inches over the existing level. The FasTracks Program will be designed to protect the trackway and FasTracks riders. In a 100-year storm, in some locations, there may be water that runs over the tracks and may affect rail operations for 45 minutes to an hour. In these situations, the current RTD Standard Operating Procedure for Flooded Track will be followed. The FasTracks Program will pay for improved drainage facilities for minor (2-to 5-year) storm events in most locations and will in all cases comply with current drainage criteria for local jurisdictions and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The FasTracks Program will work in a cooperative manner with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District or local agencies to implement drainage improvements, consistent with the Stakeholder Participation Policy adopted by the RTD Board on February 20, 2007.

99 Page A WATER RESOURCES 18.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Surface Water The CRMF facility is located in the South Platte River Basin. This large basin encompasses more than 4,000 square miles and runs through the populated Front Range of Colorado. Because of the large population, this basin has significant water quality problems from industrial wastewater, municipal wastewater, non-point source, and point source pollution. The physical, chemical, and biological quality of the water in the South Platte River Basin is the product of the natural conditions and human factors that make Evaluation Criteria Water quality (groundwater and surface) was evaluated based on City and County of Denver Storm Drainage and Technical Criteria. Additionally, an impact to water quality was defined as: Proposed project would result in violations of federal, state, or local water quality standards. Provisions to prevent contamination of surface water and/or aquifers have not been adopted. up the environmental setting of the basin. Natural conditions such as physiography, climate, geology, and soils affect the ambient water quality while anthropogenic factors such as water use, population, land use, and water management practices can have a profound effect on water quality in the basin. The terrain through the CRMF site is gently rolling with a predominant trend to slope to the north and west, and the site is currently used as a railroad storage yard and transfer facility. Contaminated soils are likely located on the site. The area surrounding the site is developed and is predominantly industrial and commercial. The South Platte River is located approximately 0.5 miles to the west of the site. Surface water drainage from the site and surrounding areas is conveyed to the South Platte River by storm sewers, some of which are more than 50 years old. Because of the age of the development on and surrounding the site, there are no water quality controls in place either on the site or on adjacent properties. The South Platte River in the area of influence (Water Quality Control Commission Segment 14) is classified by the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) as: Aquatic Life Warm 1a, Recreation 1a, Water Supply, Agriculture. The WQCD classifies the South Platte River as Partially Supported, which means that there is some interference with the designates uses, but use is not precluded. The Upper South Platte River Basin water quality standards for Segment 14 are in effect for various physical, biological, inorganic, and metal parameters (CDPHE, 2002). This stream segment is listed on the CDPHE 303(d) list of impaired waters for E. Coli, fecal coliform, and nitrate. The CRMF facility is in the City and County of Denver. The City and County has developed programs that comply with the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase II permit requirements. The City and County of Denver holds an individual MS4 permit and RTD holds a statewide general MS4 permit. The redevelopment of the site within the City of Denver would need to meet current local standards for surface water quality treatment. Water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) suitable for this site include Extended Dry Detention, porous landscape and proprietary structures.

100 Page A Groundwater and Water Supply The CRMF is situated above the Denver Basin. The Denver Basin underlies a 6,700-square-mile area in Colorado, extending from the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains east to near Limon, and from Greeley south to near Colorado Springs. This basin includes four main bedrock aquifers that occur as layers in an elongated bowl-shaped basin, three of which are located in the study area. The three Denver Basin aquifers located in the study area are the Denver Aquifer, Arapahoe Aquifer, and Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer. The aquifers are generally confined, except in areas in the upper parts of aquifers where the surface water may interact with groundwater (Colorado Ground Water Association, 2000). The alluvial (tributary) groundwater beneath Denver in the vicinity has also been degraded in quality as a result of historical industrial activities, by fuels, solvents, human and animal wastes, and fertilizers. The tributary groundwater level at this site has not been determined specifically, but is not believed to be any closer to the surface than 30 feet IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts Direct impacts associated with No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. If the yards are relocated, market conditions would dictate if the site would redevelop. If the CRMF building, storage yards, and East Corridor track are not constructed, there would be no change in the usage or surface flow patterns across the CRMF site. The existing use has no water quality BMPs in place, so this alternative provides no benefit to surface or groundwater quality in the vicinity. Indirect Impacts The CRMF project would not indirectly impact water resources. Construction of the East Corridor and North Metro station platform would induce redevelopment in the vicinity of the platform. However, this re-development would occur according to City and County of Denver rules and regulations and all new development would be required to provide surface water treatment CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The surface water drainage from the site would be collected in a network of small diameter storm sewer pipes and conveyed to a stormwater detention and water quality pond that would attenuate peak runoff rates and provide water quality treatment. Stormwater quality would be enhanced using permanent BMPs that meet current local standards. There are currently two locations on the site that would be suitable for Extended Dry Detention, which is a BMP meeting the requirements of the City and County of Denver and the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District. Stormwater would then be discharged from the detention and water quality pond to a new storm sewer outfall that is proposed from the CRMF site to the South Platte River. The new

101 Page A-83 storm sewer outfall would combine storm water flows from the site with flows from upstream areas in the City and County of Denver. None of the existing storm sewer outfalls would be abandoned, but would continue to convey surface water runoff to the South Platte River. The new storm sewer outfall is proposed to provide additional conveyance capacity to reduce flooding potential at the site. Surface water quality could be degraded by increased sediment and contaminants in stormwater runoff from the site, increased impervious surfaces and increased maintenance activities, including fueling. A Spill Control Plan would be developed by RTD as required by their MS4 permit, and staff would be trained in proper fueling procedures, and procedures to contain spill should they occur, therefore minimizing the potential for surface and groundwater contamination from petroleum products. The CRMF Alternative would contribute to temporary increases in sediment and suspended material loads due to earth moving activities on the site. A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) would be developed and would use BMPs such as silt fence, sediment basins, inlet protection and stabilized construction entrances, to contain sediment and properly dispose of captured materials in conformance with the NPDES permit requirements. There could also be a need for dewatering procedures for foundations as part of the CRMF construction. All construction activity impacts would be temporary. As a consequence, water quality in the South Platte River would not change with the installation of the new outfall and development of the CRMF site because the total stormwater discharge into the Platte from this tributary basin in Denver will not change and permanent stormwater quality BMPs will be installed to treat stormwater runoff from the site. Probable BMPs will include extended dry detention ponds and proprietary water quality manholes within the CRMF site. These facilities will require periodic maintenance by RTD to remove sediment and accumulations of debris. Where space permits, grass buffer strips (ditches) should be maintained to control runoff quantity and provide some quality enhancement. Likewise, groundwater quality beneath the site would not change because surface water from the site will be captured by impervious surfaces and treated in the water quality pond, and will not be permitted to infiltrate. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts would also result from induced redevelopment of adjacent properties. Such redevelopment would be controlled by the rules and regulations of the City and County of Denver, and all new development would be required to provide surface water treatment.

102 Page A MITIGATION The proposed mitigation measures for Water Resources are detailed below. Table A-18.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Water Resources Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Surface water quality would be degraded by increased sediment and contaminants in stormwater runoff from the site, increased impervious surfaces and increased maintenance activities, including fueling. The CRMF Alternative would contribute to temporary increases in sediment and suspended material loads due to earth moving activities on the site. Source: CRMF Team, Direct RTD will install permanent stormwater quality BMPs to treat stormwater runoff from the site. Probable BMPs could include extended dry detention ponds and proprietary water quality manholes within the CRMF site. It should be noted that in the past, City and County of Denver has disallowed use of stormceptor or vortechnics as proprietary water quality manholes. These facilities will require periodic maintenance by RTD to remove sediment and accumulations of debris. Where space permits, grass buffer strips (ditches) will be maintained to control runoff quantity and provide some quality enhancement. A Spill Control Plan will be developed by RTD as required by their MS4 permit, and staff would be trained in proper fueling procedures, and procedures to contain spill should they occur, therefore minimizing the potential for surface and groundwater contamination from petroleum products. Direct A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed using BMPs such as silt fence, sediment basins, inlet protection and stabilized construction entrances, to contain sediment and properly dispose of captured materials in conformance with the NPDES permit requirements.

103 Page A WETLANDS 19.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The CRMF site encompasses an existing rail yard and other commercial and industrial facilities. The surrounding area is a highly urbanized environment. Due to continual track maintenance and other site activities, the area is relatively flat, highly disturbed, and is almost completely barren of vegetation. No natural streams, irrigation canals, stormwater ditches, or wetlands occur within the proposed facility IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The No Action Alternative would result in no impacts to wetlands. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not indirectly impact wetlands CRMF Alternative Direct Impacts Construction of the CRMF would result in no impacts to wetlands. Indirect Impacts The CRMF project would not indirectly impact wetlands. Evaluation Criteria Acres of wetlands affected MITIGATION No mitigation will be required.

104 Page A AIR QUALITY 20.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The CRMF project is located in the Denver Metropolitan Area that is in attainment/maintenance for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and the 1-hour ozone (O 3 ) standard (in Early Action Compact (EAC) process), and currently is in attainment for the Evaluation Criteria Comparison of regional air quality analysis (pollutant levels). Mobile hot spot analysis (intersection screening). Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) analysis. other criteria pollutants. As described below, the proposed CRMF project is predicted to result in a net decrease of the criteria pollutants as well as the MSATs in both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas. See Figure A-20.1 for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 study area boundaries Construction and Operation Issues Air quality impacts may result from the construction and operation of the proposed CRMF project, which would generate emissions of air pollutants; namely, nitrogen oxides (NO x ), CO, PM 10, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in equivalent diameter (PM 2.5 ), sulfur oxides (SO x ), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Temporary impacts to air quality would result from emissions generated by equipment used during site preparation and project construction activities such as clearing, grading, excavating, and demolition. Long term impacts during project operations would be associated with the DMU traffic at and through the facility, worker vehicles commuting to and from the facility, and the stationary sources associated with the facility operation. Air quality impacts from emissions of O 3 precursors (CO and NOx) and PM 10 were evaluated for the project, because these are the pollutants of primary concern for the Denver metropolitan area. Vehicle exhaust also includes emissions of PM 2.5 and SO 2 ; however, these two compounds are in attainment for NAAQS in the project area and, thus, are not discussed in detail in this report Hot Spot and Air Toxics Issues The project operations could also affect air quality by creating localized pollutant hot spots. Automobiles account for a large percentage of the CO emissions in urban and suburban areas; therefore, maximum CO concentrations tend to be localized near areas of heavy traffic congestion. Investigating the potential for localized impacts is important because changes in the traffic conditions near the proposed CRMF could create a hot spot regardless of the regional impacts of a project. Therefore, this study includes a dispersion modeling analysis for CO that predicts worst-case CO levels in the immediate project vicinity and compares the levels to the CO air quality standards. The CO analysis also is required for CO concentrations at locations adjacent to proposed facilities in which LOS degrades from acceptable (A-C) to unacceptable (D-F) when compared to the No Build Alternative according to RTD s Environmental Methodology Manual (July 2006). Quantitative PM 10 hot spot analysis was not required for this project because the project would not be considered of air quality concern based on USEPA and FHWA s guidance (USEPA, March 2006).

105 Page A-87 In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, USEPA also regulates air toxics from mobile sources. Emissions of the six priority MSATs; including benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter (DPM)/diesel exhaust organic gases, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene, were evaluated for the proposed project to demonstrate the project will not cause any significant risk exposure to the surrounding communities Air Quality Impacts Methodology Construction Emissions The emissions of fugitive dust (PM 10 ) during the construction phase of the project were estimated by using the emissions factor from the URBEMIS2007 model developed for NEPA air quality impacts evaluations in the state of California (URBEMIS, 2007). The URBEMIS average case fugitive dust emission factor of 10 pounds per acre of disturbed area per day was used to estimate emissions. The area of the total site disturbed was assumed to be approximately 117 acres. It was assumed that the maximum acreage disturbed per day would be 10 acres. The fugitive dust emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are estimated to be 100 lb/day and 1,190 lb/year. The construction emissions would be temporary and are not anticipated to cause air quality violations. Operational Emissions Emissions of the VOC, CO, NOx, and PM 10 were estimated for the No Action and CRMF Alternatives to determine the level of impacts. The air quality impacts were analyzed for the existing conditions (2005), project opening year (2015), and the horizon year (2030). Existing Conditions and No Action Alternative Union Pacific currently operates two facilities at the proposed project site. The existing 36th Street Yard serves as a receiving and departure yard for inbound and outbound local train and container truck traffic. Trains arrive at the yard and are switched into local trains for delivery to local industries. Traffic from the local industries is collected by local trains and is brought to the yard where it is assembled into outbound trains. The existing 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC operates 4 tracks totaling approximately 8,000 feet in length. Four storage tracks also exist adjacent to the main line on the north side of the facility site. Approximately 750 parking spaces are provided for trailers, containers, and related equipment. Four side lift machines are used for loading and unloading rail cars. The facility currently handles two intermodal trains per day for a total volume of some 120,000 units of domestic and international trailers and containers per year. Emissions that occur under the existing conditions and No Action alternatives were estimated using the operations data of the two existing yards, including locomotives and vehicle travel information. Baseline emissions and No Action future emissions were calculated for trains operating within the facilities, trains that pass through the existing facilities, and from the other vehicle travels and activities within the facilities. Table A-20-1 provides the assumptions used to determine the existing emissions. Additional detailed emission calculations and assumptions are presented in section B-1 of Attachment B.

106 Page A-88 Emissions from existing workers commute were not estimated for the existing facility due to lack of data. Table A-20.1 Existing Conditions Emissions Assumptions Vehicle Emissions at Existing Site In-yard Locomotive Emissions in this category include line-haul trains operating into/out of the two facilities and switch locomotive emissions, which only operate within the facilities. Switch and line-haul locomotive emission factors are provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document EPA420-F Technical Highlights, Emission Factors for Locomotives. Line-haul trains: Travel into and out of the 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Facility daily. Haul rail cars to facilities, which are dropped and moved around by switch locomotives into new trains. Have large diesel locomotive engines cannot be easily started Will idle while switch locomotives assemble their rail cars into new trains Switch locomotives will idle while no line-haul locomotives are present in the facility. In a 2004 diesel locomotive emission report provided by the Washington State University Extension Energy Program, switch locomotives were found to idle 60% of their operational time, based on a 24- hour period. An EPA document titled Locomotive Switcher Idling and Idle Control Technology in June 2005 provided that idling switch locomotives use 3 to 11 gallons of fuel per hour depending on the outside temperature. Switch locomotives were assumed to use 5 gallons of fuel per hour in this analysis. Based on idling 60%, it was assumed that the switch locomotives operate the remaining 40% of the 24 hour period. Union Pacific provided existing operational information that indicates the switch locomotives are 2000 hp engines and 9 are working in the facility each day. The switch locomotives were not assumed to operate at full horsepower, but rather in the range of hp. Emissions were calculated using 1500 hp. Union Pacific provided that the line-haul locomotives are 4300 hp engines, with a total of 6 entering into the facility each day. The line-haul locomotives were assumed to take 30 minutes to enter into the facility and stop. While stopping, it was assumed the line-haul locomotives would be operating at half horsepower, or 2150 hp. The line-haul locomotives were assumed to idle in the range of 4-8 hours per day while switch locomotives assemble their rail cars into new trains. Emissions were calculated using 11 gallons of fuel per hour of idling. The line-haul locomotives were assumed to also take 30 minutes to start from a stop and leave the facility. While starting, it was assumed the line-haul locomotives would be operating at full horsepower, or 4300 hp. Union Pacific also provided that their switch locomotives are EPA Tier 1 compliant and line-haul locomotives are EPA Tier 2 compliant, meaning the engines meet the EPA Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors for switch and line-haul locomotives (EPA420-F Technical Highlights, Emission Factors for Locomotives ). EPA Tier 2 emission factors are currently the most stringent for locomotives; however EPA is proposing to adopt more stringent standards. Therefore, in this analysis it was assumed line-haul locomotives will continue to be Tier 2 compliant through 2030, and switch locomotives will be Tier 2 compliant by The EPA Tier 1 and 2 emission factors are provided for switch and line-haul locomotives in grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) and grams per gallon (g/gal) of fuel used. In this analysis, emission factors in g/gal were used for idling emissions and emission factors in g/hp-hr were used for operating emissions. Detailed emission calculation results are presented in Table A-20.2.

107 Page A-89 Vehicle Emissions at Existing Site Pass- through Locomotive Emissions from trains passing the facilities are those from line-haul locomotives. Line-haul locomotive emission factors are provided by the EPA document EPA420-F Technical Highlights, Emission Factors for Locomotives. Union Pacific provided that an average of line-haul trains pass by the 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Facility each day, with 4 5 line-haul locomotives per train. The average number of trains accounts for trains traveling in both the north and southbound directions. These linehaul locomotives are in the range of hp, and pass by the facility at approximately 15 mph. It was determined that the distance the line-haul locomotives travel while passing the facility is approximately 0.7 miles. This analysis assumed 25 line-haul trains pass by the facility, with 5 line-haul locomotives per train, at 4400 hp per locomotive. As was described in the section above for emissions from trains operating into/out of the facility, Union Pacific line-haul locomotives are currently EPA Tier 2 compliant. Line-haul locomotives were assumed to be Tier 2 compliant through 2030 in this analysis. EPA Tier 2 emission factors are provided for linehaul locomotives in g/hp-hr and g/gal of fuel used. In this analysis, emission factors in g/hp-hr were used for operating emissions from the line-haul locomotives passing by the facility. Other Vehicles Emissions from other vehicles traveling within the 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Facility were included in this analysis. Emissions in this category include vehicle emissions from yard tractors and side loaders operating within the facility, and drayage trucks operating into/out of the facility. While line-haul trains bring rail cars into and out of the facility and switch locomotives move those rail cars around making new trains, other non-locomotive vehicles move the trailers or containers from the rail cars into the facility for transport by drayage truck. These operations occur 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year, as provided by Union Pacific. The side loaders are 280 hp diesel engines, like large construction equipment, which move trailers or containers from the rail cars to the ground or to a chassis. There are 4 side loaders in the facility, each working 12 hours per day (provided by Union Pacific). The emission factors for the side loaders were obtained using OFFROAD2007 program (CARB, 2007), based on California State average emission factors for large construction equipment (tractors/loaders/backhoes) with a maximum of 500 hp. OFFROAD2007 provides emission factors in g/hp-hr, thus emission for the side loaders are based on horsepower and hours worked per day. The yard tractors are 152 hp diesel engines that move between the rail cars and the parking spaces for the trailers and containers. There are 5 yard tractors in the facility, each working 14 hours per day (provided by Union Pacific). Yard tractors were assumed to travel 15 mph in the facility. The emission factors for the yard tractors were provided by MOBILE6.2 (version 6.2, September 24, 2003) for a heavy-duty diesel vehicle traveling 15 mph. MOBILE6.2 provides emission factors in grams per mile (g/mi), thus emissions for the yard tractors are based on miles per hour and hours worked per day. The drayage trucks move between the facility entry gate and the trailer and container parking spaces for unloading and loading, and were assumed to be diesel engines. Union Pacific provided that these drayage trucks make 120,000 trips to and from the facility, or 60,000 round trips. These trucks travel approximately mph in the facility; also provided by Union Pacific. A speed of 15 mph was assumed for this analysis. One hour was assumed for a drayage truck to unload and load per trip to the facility. Emission factors in g/mi were provided by MOBILE6.2 for a heavy-duty diesel vehicle traveling 15 mph. Drayage truck emissions in the facility are based on 15 mph, 1 hour on site per round trip, and 60,000 round trips per year. Unlike the large diesel locomotive engines, these diesel vehicles do not have to idle, therefore idling emissions are considered negligible for the side loaders, yard tractors, and drayage trucks in this analysis.

108 Page A REGIONAL AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS No Action Alternative Impacts Table A-20-2 provides the comparative emissions levels of the No Action Alternative for the years 2015 and This table shows a total increase for all pollutants analyzed in these years, when compared to the CRMF Alternative CRMF Alternative Impacts Emissions that would occur for the future years of the proposed project were estimated using the operational data for DMU trains, including DMU trains that would be in maintenance, DMU trains that would pass through the facility, and workers commute. Maintained DMU Trains Under the proposed project, in 2015 the CRMF would maintain a total of 32 trains (including spares) for the 4 commuter rail lines, which includes 10 EMU trains for Gold Line Rail, 6 EMU trains for East Rail, 8 DMU trains for Northwest Rail, and 8 DMU trains for North Metro Rail. EMU trains would run off of electricity and would not generate local air emissions. In 2030, there will be a total of 38 trains (including spares) for 4 lines includes 10 EMU trains for Gold, 6 EMU trains for East, 14 DMU trains for Northwest, and 8 DMU trains for North Metro. Only the DMU trains of Northwest Rail and North Metro Rail would have emissions at the CRMF. The numbers of DMU engines at CRMF for storage and maintenance that would generate air pollutant emissions were estimated using the anticipated 2015 and 2030 train schedules of each corridor. The total number of engines emitting air pollutants was based on the sum of these three activities: 1) pull-in, 2) pull-out, and 3) in yard idle. It was also assumed that the travel distance for each pull-in and pull-out activity was 1.0 mile at an average speed of 15 miles per hour. The idling time for each in-yard idling train would be 1-hour. Detailed information of in-yard train activities are presented in section B-2 of Attachment B. DMU train emissions were calculated using the total miles traveled per DMU train, the number of cars per train, the number of trains entering and exiting the facility per day, and emission factors derived from EPA s MOBILE6.2 program. The DMU trains run off of diesel fuel and it was assumed that the Heavy Duty Diesel truck type included in the MOBILE6.2 database is representative of the DMU trains. Pass-through DMU Trains Under the proposed project, fewer locomotive trains would pass through the facility; however, North Metro DMU trains would pass through the facility. The number of DMU trains that would pass through the proposed CRMF was estimated using the anticipated 2015 and 2030 North Metro train schedules. Only the emissions generated by the North Metro DMU line occurring within the CRMF boundary were included in the operational emission estimates. The length of the rail system within the CRMF property boundary was assumed to be one mile. An average speed of 15 mph was assumed for DMU travel within

109 Page A-91 CRMF. Additionally, it was assumed that the number of DMU trains in the north bound schedule would be the same as those in the southbound schedule. The DMU pass-through train emissions were calculated using the total miles traveled per train within the CRMF, the number of cars per train, the number of trains passing through the facility per day, and the heavy duty truck emission factors derived using MOBILE6.2. The DMU passthrough train emissions were calculated using the same emission factors from EPA MOBILE6.2 as the maintained DMU trains, as discussed above. Workers Commute Converting the existing freight yard operation to the CRMF under the proposed project would require 300 workers on-site to support the facility operation. The increase in vehicle emissions associated with the increase in commuter trips was estimated using the number of workers commuting everyday, a typical one-way trip distance of 20 miles, and the emission factors from MOBILE6.2. The average speed of vehicle travel in 2015 would be approximately mph and in 2030 would be mph in areas nearby the facility (see Attachment G). The composite emission factor from MOBILE6.2 for each year and the respective speed were used in calculating the commute emissions associated with the proposed project. Stationary Sources Emissions from stationary sources for the proposed CRMF would include those from various equipment such as emergency generators, paint booths, and solvent cleaners; however specific detailed data is not available for the future uses of these stationary sources. Operation of the emergency generators would be limited to periodic testing and would not account for a significant portion of the operational emissions. Additionally, emissions associated with paint booths and solvent cleaning are anticipated to be minor. The new trains would be stainless steel and would require minimal paint use thus would have negligible VOC emissions; furthermore, paint booths would be equipped with particulate filters to control PM 10 emissions. These stationary sources are not likely to significantly contribute to the overall operational emissions associated with the proposed CRMF. Construction The fugitive dust emissions associated with construction of the proposed project would be 100 lb/day and 1,190 lb/year. The construction emissions would be temporary and are not anticipated to cause any air quality violations. Operational The operational emissions from the proposed CRMF future years were compared to the existing conditions and No Action alternative. Table A-20.2 presents a summary of the estimated emissions. Detailed criteria emission calculations and assumptions for construction and operation of the CRMF are presented in section B-2 of Attachment B. MOBILE6.2 output files for criteria pollutants are in Attachment E.

110 Page A-92 As shown in Table A-20.2 the estimated emissions associated with the CRMF Alternative are less than that associated with the No Action Alternative for both future years, 2015 and 2030, for all the pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to cause any new violations of the NAAQS, and operation of the project will have a net benefit to air quality as a result of the predicted reduction in air emissions. Table A-20.2 Estimated CO, PM 10, VOC, and NOx Emissions Air Quality Impacts for the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Existing 2015 Total 2030 Total Condition (2005) No Action CRMF Alt. No Action CRMF Alt. Pollutant Emission Source lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day Truck Operation (existing facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) CO In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total Truck Operation (existing facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) PM 10 In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total Truck Operation (existing facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) VOC In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total Truck Operation (existing facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) NO X In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total HOTSPOT ANALYSIS A mobile hot spot analysis was conducted to determine whether project-related changes in local traffic conditions would cause violations of ambient air quality standards near any of the roadways that would be affected by traffic entering or exiting the proposed facility. Intersections

111 Page A-93 that would be affected by traffic entering or exiting the proposed facility were reviewed for substantial traffic changes. Although many pollutants are present in vehicle exhaust, carbon monoxide (CO) is the major pollutant of concern for transportation projects. The analysis of impacts involves estimating the CO emissions generated by vehicles in the project vicinity and then using a dispersion model to estimate the ambient concentration at receptors placed around the intersections analyzed (USEPA, November 1992). A screening analysis was performed to identify the worst intersections within the study area that are predicted to be affected by the project. For purposes of this analysis, worst intersections are identified in terms of delay to vehicles passing through them. Only signalized intersections with a level of service (LOS) of D, E, or F were subject to the screen, according to current guidelines. On a scale of A to F, intersections designated LOS A have the shortest delays and those designated F have the longest delays. Longer delay results in greater pollutant emissions from vehicle exhaust while the vehicles are moving slowly or idling No Action Alternative Impacts Table A-20-3 provides a comparison of LOS for signalized intersection (AM/PM peaks) under both the No Action Alternative and the CRMF Alternative. There is little to no change in LOS at these intersections when comparing the No Action and CRMF Alternatives CRMF Alternative Impacts As shown in Table A-20.3, when compared to No Action Alternative, none of the signalized intersections would be degraded to LOS E or worse with the CRMF Alternative. However, the intersection at 40 th Avenue and York would have LOS of F in the future years for both the No Action and CRMF alternatives. To demonstrate that the project would not cause any new violations of the NAAQS, the intersection at 40 th Avenue and York was analyzed quantitatively in a hot spots analysis to determine localized CO impacts. Table A-20.3 Signalized Intersections and Corresponding LOS and Delay Considered Air Quality Impacts for the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Year Intersections No Action CRMF Alt. No Action CRMF Alt. LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) th/York C (32.5) NA C (23.6) NA th/York F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) F (92.3) 40th/Josephine C (27.0) C (23.8) B (12.3) B (11.1) 43rd/York A (9.3) A (9.5) B (11.8) B (10.6) 44th/York B (12.2) B (13.2) B (13.8) B (16.5) 40th/York F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) 40th/Josephine E (69.3) E (78.4) C (30.3) C (25.8) 43rd/York B (16.5) B (14.6) B (18.0) B (12.7) th/York B (18.5) B (16.2) C (19.2) C (20.2)

112 Page A-94 Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Modeling Carbon monoxide concentrations were analyzed in the vicinity of the intersection for the CRMF and No Action alternatives. PM peak-hour traffic volumes were estimated using current traffic model and forecast data, provided by URS. Traffic volumes were used in the air quality model to estimate a 1-hour maximum CO concentration. The analysis was performed for three years: existing 2005, year of opening 2010, and horizon year Emission factors in grams per vehicle mile traveled were estimated for each vehicle speed evaluated in the analysis using USEPA's MOBILE6.2 model (see Attachment E). The USEPA CAL3QHC dispersion model was used to calculate the ambient concentrations of CO near the roadway intersections (USEPA 1992). Modeled receptors were located at sites accessible to the public, generally near intersection corners and near each approach and departure link, according to USEPA guidance (USEPA 1992a). The receptors were placed no closer than 3 meters (10 feet) from the edge of the road, at the corners and at distances of 25 and 50 meters (82 and 164 feet) from each corner along each approach and departure. As specified in the USEPA guidelines (USEPA 1992b), CAL3QHC was run with meteorological input parameters consisting of a 1-meter (3-foot) per-second wind speed, 1,000-meter (3,250- foot) mixing height, and a slightly stable (Class E) atmosphere to simulate winter conditions, when elevated CO concentrations most frequently occur. One-hour average ambient CO concentrations were calculated to estimate the impact during peak-hour traffic conditions. The modeled results were added to background concentration level to account for other sources of CO emissions. The Broadway-Camp monitoring station, which is about 2 miles from the project site, was selected to be representative of background conditions in the vicinity of the proposed CRMF, and thus recent monitoring data from this site was used to calculate a background value. A summary of the CAL3QHC inputs is presented in Table A Table A-20.4 Summary of CAL3QHC Inputs Description Value Surface roughness coefficient 175 cm 1 Signal type Actuated 2 Intersection arrival rate Average progression 2 Saturation flow rate Provided by traffic model output Clearance lost time 2 seconds 2 1 Surface roughness recommended in guidance for office land use type (USEPA 1992b). 2 Values recommended by USEPA guidance (USEPA 1992a). CAL3QHC estimated the maximum 1-hour concentration at the receptors. Regulatory guidance recommends adjusting the 1-hour concentrations to 8-hour concentrations using a factor of 0.7, which conservatively accounts for variations in meteorology over an 8-hour period. Results are

113 Page A-95 reported here for both 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations to be compared with the CO NAAQS. Detailed CAL3QHC modeling output files are in Attachment H. Tables A-20.4 summarizes the CAL3QHC modeling results for CO under existing conditions, the No Action Alternative, and the CRMF Alternative. The predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are all below the NAAQS 1-hour standard of 35 ppm and the 8-hour standards of 9 ppm, respectively, for the no build and build alternatives for all years analyzed. The CO concentration decreases in future years of 2015 and 2030 for both the CRMF and No Action alternatives. Because all future modeled concentrations are below the 1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS for the proposed project, the project would neither cause new violations of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO NAAQS in future years, nor increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation. Table A-20.5 Maximum 1-Hour CO Concentrations At Hot Spot Intersections - Scenario 1-hour 1 Concentration (ppm) 8-hour 1 NAAQS Existing No Action CRMF Alt No Action CRMF Alt Source: CAL3QHC Model Results. 1. Reported concentrations include maximum background concentrations of 8.7 ppm and 4.4 ppm for the 1-hour and 8-hour averaging time, respectively, from 2105 Broadway-Camp monitoring station in Denver ( ). PM 10 Hot Spot Analysis Hot spots of PM 10 also could occur where large amounts of traffic operate under heavily congested conditions. EPA has designated part of Denver, which includes the project area, as in maintenance for PM 10. On March 10, 2006, EPA issued amendments to the Transportation Conformity Rule to address localized impacts of particulate matter (71 FR 12468). This amendment requires the assessment of localized air quality impacts in PM 2.5 and PM 10 nonattainment and maintenance areas for projects of air quality concern which are: New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant increase in diesel vehicles; Projects affecting intersections that are at Level-of-Service D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles, or those that will change to Level-of-Service D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project; New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location;

114 Page A-96 Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; and Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified in the PM2.5 or PM10 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation. The proposed project would replace the existing freight yards operation, reduce the amount of locomotive emission and eliminate the heavy duty truck trips to and from the facility. The PM 10 emissions of the proposed project would have a net decrease when compared with the existing condition and No Action alternative. As a result, the project is unlikely to cause any PM 10 hot spot during its operation MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXIC (MSAT) ANALYSIS Evaluation of mobile source air toxics was performed using the FHWA Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents (FHWA, 2007). Air toxics of acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde and diesel particulate matter (DPM) are emitted during the combustion of diesel fuel. Daily toxic emission burdens were estimated for two geographic areas as shown in Figure A A tier 1 study area included the footprint of the CRMF site and was done to estimate impacts from the operation of the facility. A tier 2 study area included the surrounding neighborhoods of Cole, Clayton, Elyria/Swansea, Five Points, and Globeville and was performed to estimate the impacts to the surrounding communities Tier 1 Analysis No Action Alternative Impacts In-yard and Pass-through Locomotives MSAT emissions from existing locomotives were calculated using the total organic gas emissions and the toxic speciation information in EPA AP-42. Since both in-yard and passthrough locomotives are assumed to be rated greater than 600 hp, the Large Stationary Diesel emission factors from AP42 Chapter 3, Section 4 Large Stationary Diesel and All Stationary Dual-Fired Engines were used to estimate toxic emissions (USEPA, 2007b). Other Vehicles Emissions in this category include vehicle emissions from yard tractors and side loaders operating within the facility, and drayage trucks operating into/out of the facility. The toxic emission factors for the yard tractors were provided by MOBILE6.2 for a heavy-duty vehicle traveling 15 mph. MSAT emission factors for the side loaders were estimated using the emission factors of organic gas derived from OFFROAD2007 based on California State average emission factors for large construction equipment (tractors/loaders/backhoes) with a maximum of 500 hp, along with the toxic speciation factors in the OFFROAD2007 program. Drayage truck emissions in the facility are based on 15 mph, 1 hour per trip, and 120,000 trips. MSAT Emission factors in g/mi were provided by MOBILE6.2 for a heavy-duty vehicle traveling 15 mph. Diesel particulate matter emissions were assumed to be the same as PM 10 exhaust emissions as derived in MOBILE6.2.

115 Page A-97 Figure A-20.1 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Areas for the MSAT Analysis Source: USGS Base Map, URS Tier 1 Analysis CRMF Alternative Impacts DMU Consists MSAT emissions from DMU trains were obtained using MOBILE6.2 emission factors for heavy duty diesel trucks. Emissions were calculated using the same methodology as for the criteria pollutants. Diesel particulate matter emissions were assumed to be the same as PM 10 exhaust emissions. Workers Commute MSAT emissions from the commuter vehicle traffic were estimated using MOBILE6.2 emission factors. Emissions were calculated using the same methodology as for the criteria pollutants.

116 Page A-98 Detailed toxic emission calculations for Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas are in Attachments C and D, respectively. Detailed MOBILE6.2 output files for MSATs are in Attachment F. Traffic data for the Tier 2 area are presented in Attachment G. Table A-20.5 present the results from the Tier 1 toxic analysis. Table A-20.5 Air Toxic Emission Burdens (lb/day), Tier-1 Analysis Existing Condition (2005) 2015 Total 2030 Total No Build Build No Build Build MSAT Activity lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day Truck Operation (existing Benzene 1,3 Butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total Truck Operation (existing facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) NA NA 0.00 NA 0 In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total Truck Operation (existing facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total Truck Operation (existing facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total Truck Operation (existing facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute

117 Page A-99 Existing Condition (2005) 2015 Total 2030 Total No Build Build No Build Build MSAT Activity lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day Total Truck Operation (existing Diesel PM facility) Locomotive Emissions (existing facility) In yard DMU Operation DMU passing through workers Commute Total Tier 2 Analysis No Action Alternative Impacts MSATs from the vehicle traffic within the Tier 2 area were calculated using MOBILE6.2 emission factors. Default MOBILE6.2 inputs were used when available. Values specific to Denver, Colorado were input for minimum temperature, maximum temperature, and the fuel Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Project specific vehicle speed and vehicle miles traveled within the Tier 2 area were used with the emission factors from MOBILE6.2 to determine the total MSAT burden. Table A-20-6 provides the comparative air toxic emission burdens levels for the Tier-2 study area, under the No Action Alternative for the years 2015 and This table shows a total increase for all pollutants analyzed in these years, when compared to the CRMF Alternative. Table A-20.6 Air Toxic Emission Burdens (lb/day), Tier-2 Analysis 2015 Total 2030 Total Existing Condition (2005) No Action CRMF Alt. No Action CRMF Alt. lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day Benzene ,3 Butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein Diesel Particulate Matter Tier 2 Analysis CRMF Alternative Impacts As shown in Tables A-20.5 and A-20.6, the MSAT emissions for the build alternative are similar to No Action alternative for both 2015 and MSAT emissions are predicted to be significantly lower in the future years than under existing conditions. This is due to tight

118 Page A-100 emission standards required by USEPA regulations and is consistent with USEPA projections that MSAT emissions will decrease over the next 15 years in most areas. This MSAT analysis includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the project alternatives. A detailed discussion about the limitation of the MSAT analysis is presented in Attachment I MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation would be required if a project would cause any significant impacts to air quality. The proposed CRMF project is predicted to result in a net decrease of all the criteria pollutants as well as the MSATs in both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas. No mitigation would be required for the CRMF Alternative.

119 Page A TRAFFIC 21.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The study area for transportation impact analysis is bounded by 40th Avenue on the south, Josephine on the east, 45th Avenue on the north, and the CRMF entrance on the west. The region s Evaluation Criteria Analysis of future traffic congestion including the No Action and CRMF Alternatives. primary east-west freeway is I-70, located 4 blocks north of the site and just north of 45th Avenue. Access to the study area is provided by exits at Steele Street (west bound) and York Street (east bound). The north/south local streets that provide access to the study area include York and Josephine Streets, a one-way couplet north of 40th Avenue. York Street is one-way southbound and Josephine Street is one-way northbound, and each has two through lanes. Access between York and Josephine in the study area is provided at 40th, 43rd, 44th, and 45th Avenues, all of which are 2-way streets with the exception of 45th, which is one-way eastbound between York and Josephine. The primary access to the existing Purina facility intersects York Street just south of 45th Avenue. All eight of the intersections studied, except 40th and York, are currently unsignalized Existing Intersection Conditions Intersection analysis focused on 2005 peak hour (AM and PM) traffic conditions at the eight study area intersections nearest the CRMF site. The intersections were selected because they would carry all or most of the traffic generated by the CRMF. The analysis used the methodologies outlined in the Transportation Research Board s Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. The results of the intersection operational analyses were used to assess the Level of Service (LOS) experienced by drivers. The LOS describes the quality of peak hour traffic operating conditions, as measured as the average approximate amount of delay a driver experiences at a given intersection. The designation LOS A represents the most desirable conditions with free-flow movement of traffic and minimal delays to motorists. The designation LOS F generally indicates severely congested conditions with excessive delays to motorists. Intermediate grades of B, C, D, and E reflect incremental increases in congestion. The delay thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections are shown in Table A-21.1 with delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. The delay at signalized and all-way stop intersections reflects the average delay for all movements at an intersection, while unsignalized intersections with one or more free-flowing approaches (those not required to stop) are evaluated by individual movements, and the intersection LOS is reported as the LOS for the worst movement (usually a left turn from a minor street on to the major street). The LOS rating deemed acceptable can vary by community, facility type, and traffic control device. At signalized intersections, LOS D is generally recognized as the minimum desirable operating condition. On a case by case basis, the City of Denver may determine that intersection delays greater than LOS D are acceptable (such as, LOS E and F).

120 Page A-102 Table A-21.1 Delay Thresholds of Level of Service Level of Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A < 10.1 < 10.1 B 10.1 to to 15.0 C 20.1 to to 25.0 D 35.1 to to 35.0 E 55.1 to to 50.0 F > 80.0 > 50.0 Delay expressed in seconds per vehicle Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition Table A-21.2 shows the 2005 LOS results for intersections within the transportation impact analysis study area. The table shows that while most intersections operate acceptably as of 2005, there are a few congestion problems. At the 43rd and York intersection, westbound traffic currently has some difficulty crossing or turning on to York Street during the A.M. peak hour. The traffic volume affected is light (fewer than 50 vehicles in the hour, or less than one per minute), and the delay estimate is only slightly over the threshold for LOS F (55.9 seconds per vehicle versus 50 seconds for LOS F). Table A-21.2 Level of Service Analysis for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Intersection 2005 (Existing) LOS and Delay AM Peak Hour 40th Avenue/York Street C (32.5) 40th Avenue/Josephine Street D (26.2) 43rd Avenue/York Street F (55.9) 43rd Avenue/Josephine Street C (16.9) 44th Avenue,/York Street D (32.1) 44th Avenue/Josephine Street C (15.2) Purina Dr./York Street B (13.6) 45th Avenue/Josephine Street B (13.8) PM Peak Hour 40th Avenue/York Street C (23.6) 40th Avenue/Josephine Street D (41.5) 43rd Avenue/York Street C (23.4) 43rd Avenue/Josephine Street C (17.0) 44th Avenue,/York Street C (17.5) 44th Avenue/Josephine Street C (16.6) Purina Dr./York Street B (11.5) 45th Avenue/Josephine Street C (16.4) Source: URS analysis with Synchro software, version 6.

121 Page A IMPACTS No Action Alternative Impacts The No Action alternative was assessed for both 2015 and 2030 conditions. Year 2015 and 2030 traffic conditions are based on DRCOG s regional travel demand model. The No Action daily and peak hour traffic projections reflect the regional land-use and transportation projects contained in the DRCOG Metro Vision 2025 Interim Regional Transportation Plan, The Fiscally Constrained Element and DRCOG Metro Vision 2030 Plan and include DRCOG s 2030 land use assumptions. The DRCOG model assumes that the existing land use on the CRMF site the freight facility for UPRR is no longer located on the site and instead generally reflects changes in the study area consistent with City and County of Denver s Blueprint Denver Plans. Blueprint Denver is the first step in implementing the City and County of Denver s land use and community development vision. It serves as an integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan and is a supplement to Denver s Comprehensive Plan. It was adopted in Consistent with the Blueprint Denver Plans, the DRCOG model designates the 40th and 40th area as a mixed-use urban center. The 40th and 40th mixed-use urban center area includes the CRMF transportation study area. The future conditions as represented in the DRCOG model for this area are substantially different than existing conditions. It should be noted that while the DRCOG model land use assumptions generally represent the City and County of Denver s Blueprint Denver Plan, the City and County of Denver has not officially changed zoning for this area to reflect the Blueprint Denver Plan. The traffic impacts analysis described herein reflect the DRCOG model and the mixed-use urban center characterization for this area. The assessment of the No Action Alternative assumes that as traffic grows in the area and unsignalized intersections exhibit more peak hour delay, they are likely to be converted to signalized operation. Based on the land use and traffic volume forecasts examined for this analysis, the following intersections are likely to need signalization by 2015: 40th Avenue and Josephine Street 43rd Avenue and York Street 44th Avenue and York Street Direct Impacts Table A-21.3 shows the 2015 and 2030 LOS results for intersections under No Action conditions within the transportation impact analysis study area.

122 Page A-104 Table A-21.3 No Action Alternative Intersection Level of Service Analysis LOS (Delay per Vehicle, in Seconds) Intersection AM Peak Hour 40th Avenue/York Street F (100+) F (100+) 40th Avenue/Josephine Street C (27.0) E (69.3) 43rd Avenue/York Street A ( 9.3) B (16.5) 43rd Avenue/Josephine Street D (29.3) F (68.5) 44th Avenue,/York Street B (12.2) B (18.5) 44th Avenue/Josephine Street D (25.7) E (47.1) Purina Dr./York Street C (16.0) D (25.8) 45th Avenue/Josephine Street B (14.3) B (15.9) PM Peak Hour 40th Avenue/York Street F (100+) F (100+) 40th Avenue/Josephine Street B (12.3) C (30.3) 43rd Avenue/York Street B (11.8) B (18.0) 43rd Avenue/Josephine Street D (27.8) F (67.0) 44th Avenue,/York Street B (13.8) C (19.2) 44th Avenue/Josephine Street D (26.6) E (48.2) Purina Dr./York Street C (15.5) C (20.2) 45th Avenue/Josephine Street C (15.1) C (15.8) Source: URS analysis with Synchro software, version 6. No Action conditions are expected to feature substantial peak hour operational problems at the 40th and York intersection, as well as 2030 A.M. and P.M. peak hour difficulty at the 43rd and Josephine intersection associated with delay for 43rd Avenue traffic trying to cross Josephine. The 43rd/Josephine intersection could be considered for signalization prior to 2015 as well. All other intersections would operate at LOS E or better in both peak hours CRMF Alternative Impacts Direct Impacts The CRMF alternative was also assessed for both 2015 and 2030 conditions. The CRMF Alternative includes the proposed CRMF land use assumptions in addition to the land use indicated in the 2030 DRCOG model for the area. The land use assumptions for the CRMF include 300 employees on the site. The remaining part of the overall area not used by the CRMF was assumed to contain the same transit-oriented mixed-use development as the No Action Alternative. The proposed CRMF site would be accessed by York/Josephine and 43rd Avenue, with all traffic assumed to use the 43rd and York intersection both entering and leaving the site. The SYNCHRO computer model was used to determine traffic impacts for the eight signalized and unsignalized intersections in the study area. Table 4 shows the results of LOS analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections CRMF Alternative for 2015 and 2030.

123 Page A-105 Table A-21.4 CRMF Alternative Intersection Level of Service Analysis Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS (Delay per Vehicle, in Seconds) Intersection AM Peak Hour 40th Avenue/York Street F (100+) F (100+) 40th Avenue/Josephine Street C (23.8) E (78.4) 43rd Avenue/York Street A ( 9.5) B (14.6) 43rd Avenue/Josephine Street E (38.9) F (100+) 44th Avenue,/York Street B (13.2) B (16.2) 44th Avenue/Josephine Street C (24.5) E (49.2) Purina Dr./York Street C (21.9) F (73.5) 45th Avenue/Josephine Street B (15.0) B (16.5) PM Peak Hour 40th Avenue/York Street F (92.3) F (100+) 40th Avenue/Josephine Street B (11.1) C (25.8) 43rd Avenue/York Street B (10.6) B (12.7) 43rd Avenue/Josephine Street D (34.5) F (90.4) 44th Avenue,/York Street B (16.5) C (20.2) 44th Avenue/Josephine Street C (24.6) E (47.7) Purina Dr./York Street C (21.2) F (57.5) 45th Avenue/Josephine Street C (15.7) C (16.0) Source: URS analysis with Synchro software, version 6. Intersection LOS for the CRMF Alternative is expected to be similar to the No Action Alternative. At some locations, the concentration of employment traffic through a single intersection could result in a worse intersection LOS than the No Action Alternative, and the presence of the CRMF could re-distribute traffic using the transit-oriented mixed-use development in the area. The Purina driveway to York Street is expected to exhibit LOS F conditions in 2030, but given that traffic from that location could also access other intersections along York via Claude Court, some traffic could re-route in response to higher delays at the driveway. Traffic impacts in the study vicinity would be minor with the implementation of the CRMF. The majority of intersections where congestion is a problem appears in the No Action condition and would be signalized by Additionally, a substantial majority of CRMF traffic is expected to be oriented toward I-70, not to 40th Street. Construction of the CRMF would contribute to temporary increases in traffic for construction workers and materials. Although it is possible that some materials and/or employees could park on the west side of the site near Brighton Boulevard for certain early activities, it is more likely that all or most construction traffic will access the site from I-70 via York (inbound/entering) and Josephine (exiting). Traffic to and from the east would use the Steele Street interchange and eastwest arterials in the area to reach the site.

124 Page A MITIGATION The proposed mitigation measures for Traffic impacts are detailed below. Table A-21.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures Traffic Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative The CRMF Alternative would contribute to temporary increases in traffic for construction workers and materials during construction. Source: CRMF Team, Direct RTD will develop traffic control plans as part of the Construction Management Plan to reduce construction related traffic congestion and maintain access to local businesses and residences, specifically along 43rd Avenue during construction.

125 Page A CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 22.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Construction of the proposed CRMF would disturb approximately 117 acres of land (117.4 acres of UPRR property and 1.5 acres of City and County of Denver ROW). The project is located south of I-70, west of York Street, and east of Wynkoop Street between 40th and 43rd Avenues. The current land use on the proposed site consists of the UPRR 36th Street Yard as well as the UPRR 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC Facility. Construction would include removal of the existing rail yard uses, replaced with the CRMF tracks and related facilities IMPACTS Evaluation Criteria Identification of potential construction impacts No Action Alternative Impacts Construction Impacts Direct impacts associated with No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. While plans for the area support the redevelopment of the UPRR yards, the redevelopment would be dictated by market conditions. Therefore, it is not known at this time if the existing UPRR yards themselves would convert to other uses by The construction impacts of the No Action Alternative would be limited to construction of the North Metro station platform near the 38th Street underpass. Impacts would be similar to those outlined for the CRMF Alternative, however, their magnitude would be less and they would occur in a much smaller area CRMF Alternative Impacts Construction Impacts Construction of the CRMF Alternative would disturb approximately 117 acres of land (117.4 acres of UPRR property and 1.5 acres of City and County of Denver ROW). Major construction project components will include utility relocation, grading, excavation, structures, track work, and erection of facilities. The CRMF site would be built using the design-build process and would occur over an estimated three-year period. The specific impacts of construction include increased traffic related to construction employees, the removal of demolition materials, and the delivery of materials. Likewise local noise, dust, and visual impacts would occur during the construction period. Given the industrial and commercial nature of the surrounding area, impacts to local residences are few. The CRMF site involves construction in an area that is substantially environmentally disturbed. Few impacts to natural resources would be involved due to the industrial character of the site. The following impacts may occur as a result of construction of the CRMF.

126 Page A-108 As part of the proposed CRMF construction, 43rd Avenue (the vehicular access to the site) would be improved. While the roadway is being improved, there would be construction related congestion in the area that could impact surrounding businesses. During the estimated three-year construction period, there would be approximately 300 to 400 short-term construction jobs annually. These construction jobs would be related to the development of the CRMF MITIGATION The proposed Construction mitigation measures are detailed below. Table A-22.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Construction Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Construction impacts (See CRMF Alternative Construction Direct Impacts.) Direct A Construction Management Plan will be developed as a part of final engineering, as the key measure for offsetting the construction impacts. The plan will be developed in cooperation with the affected neighborhoods and RTD. It is anticipated that the plan will include the key elements below: Communications Plan, with the intent of: Informing the public of construction safety issues. Road closures. Operating protocols. Disruption of utility service. Signage plan to inform the public of lane changes, temporary interchange closures etc. Air Quality Protection, with the intent of: Controlling dust through watering or dust palliatives. Revegetating exposed soils. Stabilizing stockpiles. Controlling offsite tracking of mud and debris. Monitoring particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). Noise and Vibration Control, with the intent of: Constructing sound barriers (as required by noise analysis) prior to construction. Using of noise mitigated equipment. Minimizing the duration of construction in residential areas to the extent possible. Minimizing night construction in residential areas. Re-routing construction traffic away from residential areas where possible. Using of alternative construction methods to such as sonic or vibratory pile driving. Performing high noise activities (like pile driving) during daytime hours.

127 Page A-109 Table A-22.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures Construction Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type CRMF Alternative Water Quality Protection, with the intent of: Implementing BMPs for erosion control. Treatment of contaminated dewatering effluents. Fulfilling of MS4 requirements. Avoiding impacts to wetlands and riparian areas. Source: CRMF Team, Hazardous Waste Control, with the intent of: Identifying hazardous wastes prior to construction through conducting Phase II site assessments. Preparing a Hazardous Materials Management Plan prior to construction. Complying with Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, including preparation of Health and Safety Plans. Visual Protection, with the intent of: Screening of construction staging and storage areas. Timely replacement of ground cover over exposed areas. Removing unused detour pavements or signage. Traffic Control, with the intent of: Reducing congestion through development of traffic management plans. Maintaining access to local businesses and residences, specifically along 43rd Avenue during construction. Noxious Weed Management, with the intent of: Preventing the spread of noxious weeds during construction. Archeological Monitoring Plan, with the intent of: Monitoring potential archaeological sites during construction activities in the 40 th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC area and, if found, appropriate archaeological treatment of any significant archaeological remnants. Construction Safety and Security Plan, with the intent of: Implementing best management practices during construction to limit the risk of increased crime or the threat to public safety (fencing and securing the site during construction). Energy Plan, with the intent of: Implementing best management practices to reduce energy usage during site construction.

128 Page A CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are effects that result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future-actions (40 CFR ). The cumulative effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the individual context of direct and even secondary impacts, but nonetheless can add to other disturbances and eventually lead to a measurable environmental change. Indirect impacts differ from cumulative effects in that they are caused by the proposed action but occur later in time or are further removed geographically from than direct impacts (40 CFR ). Evaluation Criteria Identify, to the extent possible, the trends and potential for resource impacts in the cumulative impacts area associated with this project. Identify past. Present or reasonably foreseeable future local, state, or federal actions in the study area. Identify impacts resulting from incremental impacts of the project added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The site consists of two UPRR properties, the UPRR 36th Street Yard and the 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC Facility. A total of approximately 117 acres would be disturbed, including the main site and the City and County of Denver ROW along 43rd Avenue. The site is generally bounded on the north by I-70, on the east by 40th Avenue and York Street, on the south by 38th Street, and on the west by Wynkoop Street. The project footprint is confined to the existing UPRR properties. The East Corridor and North Metro Corridor will pass through the site and have a station near the 38th Street underpass. The proposed CRMF is located in the southern section of the Elyria/Swansea neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhoods include Cole and Clayton to the south, Five Points to the southwest and Globeville to the west. All of these neighborhoods share some common characteristics, including bifurcation by railroad construction in the last 1800s, smelter operation and the associated environmental contamination starting in the late 1800s, and further bifurcation by highway construction in the 1960s and 1970s. The neighborhoods have gradually transitioned from northern European to Latino and African-American populations starting in the 1960s. The presence of minority and low-income residential uses adjacent to heavy industry, transportation uses and past and ongoing environmental contamination has identified this area as an environmental justice concern. Heavy industrial development over the last 50 years caused residential neighborhoods to be interspersed with large and small-scale industries such as foam, plastics, cement, meatpacking, warehouses, the Denver Coliseum, the Stock Show Complex, and the Merchandise Mart. The Denver neighborhoods surrounding the CRMF have one of the highest concentrations of low-income households in the Denver metropolitan area with an average of 39 percent low-income households and 63 percent minority persons (based on 2000 Census data). Additionally, 44,000 vehicles use the highways during rush hour and 5,000 diesel trucks inhabit north Denver neighborhoods. According to the USEPA's Toxic Release Inventory, northeast Denver residents are exposed to 10 times as many hazardous air pollutants as the residents of greater Denver County.

129 Page A-111 During public meetings, residents of the northeast Denver communities have expressed that they have been isolated and neglected by government agencies. The highway bisected the community, closing many cross streets, and is elevated over school, residential, and commercial areas. The highway is separated from existing structures by nearly non-existent buffer zones, in some cases measured in inches or feet rather than yards (CDOT, 2002). Information on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative study area has been obtained through the review of the East Corridor EIS, local, state, and federal planning documents as well as the City and County of Denver, Piton Foundation, and the USEPA Region 8 Northeast Denver web sites. Table A-23.1 provides a reasonable characterization of projects that have, are, or will contribute to cumulative effects, but does not provide an exhaustive list of every project in the area. Table A-23.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Impacting Neighborhoods in the Vicinity of the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Project Name Project Location Type of Project Past Projects North Denver Northeast Denver Railroad Railroad Hub Construction I-25 and I-70 Construction Northeast Denver Highway Construction Smelting Plants Northeast Denver Omaha, Argo, and Globe Plants I-70/VB Superfund Site ASARCO Globe Superfund Site 456 acres in Elyria/Swansea, Clayton, Globeville and Cole Neighborhoods Smelting operations left elevated levels of cadmium, lead, arsenic, zinc in water and sediments USEPA National Priorities List Cleanup USEPA National Priority List Cleanup Description Visible pollution, industrial development, population boom, industrial development, development of gold and silver mining smelters. Construction destroyed 7 blocks and 31 homes, left only Washington Street open to north/south traffic, caused bifurcation of neighborhoods, diesel and gas fumes, air pollution, and dust particulates. Operated in the area from 1870s through 1950s refining gold, copper, lead, and zinc. Potential toxic health effects from lead and arsenic; cleanup involved soil removal from yards and investigations of contamination. Contaminated groundwater extended to the South Platte River; remediation included cleanup of 650 residential properties and 6 acres of commercial properties.

130 Page A-112 Project Name Project Location Type of Project Ramp Industries West 46th Avenue Radioactive waste storage facility operating from 1982 to 1992 Industrial Northeast Denver Large and small Development scale industries Coors Field National Western Stock Show I-25 highoccupancy vehicle (HOV)/Express Lanes I-70 Reconstruction Description Cleanup of the site competed in 1997 included drum removal and disposal of hazardous waste and containment of source materials. Residential islands surrounded by industry; analysis of federal toxic release data found that industries in the area emitted toxic compounds. Baseball stadium. Downtown Denver/Lower Development Downtown Denver (LODO) Denver Development Expansion of existing facility. Denver Roadway Conversion of I-25/US 36 HOV lanes to HOV/Express lanes from 20th Avenue (Downtown Denver) to Pecos Street (US 36). Present Projects Denver Roadway Reconstruction Repair portions of viaduct deck from Brighton Boulevard to Colorado Boulevard. Washington Denver Roadway I-70 to Platte. Street/38th Street Widening Future Projects DUS Denver Transit Multimodal renovations. Central Corridor Denver Transit 30th/Downing to 40th Street/40th Avenue transit extension. North Metro Corridor Denver/Adams Transit Rapid transit rail line from DUS to 160th Avenue. Northwest Rail Denver/Broomfield/Boulder Transit Rapid transit rail line from DUS to Boulder. Transit Oriented Development TOD 38 th Street Station (formerly known as the 40th & 40th Transit Station) Office, retail, residential and entertainment uses by station for multiple fast-track lines. As stated in minutes from the May 16, 1996 USEPA meeting with residents of the northeast Denver community, there has been a growing recognition since the 1990s that the members of the northeast Denver communities have borne a burden of contaminated land and polluted air (USEPA, 2007b). These communities have concerns about the places where their children play, the places where they grow their vegetables, and concerns about their health. Community groups were organized and have taken a proactive role in protecting their health and the environment. As a result of ongoing concerns in the northeast Denver neighborhoods the USEPA and other agencies developed the following initiatives and activities to address neighborhood concerns (USEPA, 2007c):

131 Page A-113 USEPA Lead Program The USEPA has the regulatory authority to enforce lead rules related to remodeling practices, hazard abatement, and disclosure of lead hazards. In addition to these enforcement activities, the USEPA lead program carries out community outreach and education activities. The USEPA is currently collaborating with other environmental protection and public health agencies within Colorado to develop an action plan to eliminate childhood lead poisoning by The USEPA is creating maps that display the occurrence of elevated blood lead levels in children, along with risk factors for lead poisoning including poverty level and residence in housing built before Anti-Idling Campaign The anti-idling campaign targets idling that occurs from diesel truck emissions. Idling emissions impact air quality, specifically at truck stops, travel centers, rest areas, and at warehouse/distribution centers and port terminals where loading and unloading freight require long waiting periods. These locations can experience a very high number of trucks idling together for extended periods of time. These emissions can affect the health of the neighboring communities. The health concerns become more serious when located in communities that are already disproportionately impacted by air pollution. North Denver Environmental Initiative (NDEI) NDEI is a multi-agency project to address environmental justice concerns in the northeast Denver metropolitan area. The project is a cooperative partnership of federal, state, county, and local governments to respond to community concerns regarding potentially harmful environmental consequences of industrial and transportation developments. The goals of the project are to improve coordination and communication between the agencies and the communities to address environmental concerns through compliance assistance, enforcement authorities, pollution prevention, and other tools available to the agencies. Colorado People's Environmental and Economic Network (COPEEN) COPEEN was formed by residents of northeast Denver in 1994, as a grassroots response to environmental issues in these communities IMPACTS The resource area sections presented below analyze the potential direct, indirect, and construction effects that the project alternatives may have on specific resources. The following resource areas were considered in the cumulative effects analysis for the CRMF based on the identified direct and indirect impacts for the resource areas. These resources include: Land Use Environmental Justice Hazardous Materials Noise and Vibration Air Quality

132 Page A No Action Alternative Impacts Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts associated with the No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. The UPRR may or may not choose to relocate the existing 36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC facilities. While plans for the area support the redevelopment of the UPRR yards, the redevelopment would be dictated by market conditions. Therefore, it is not known at this time if the existing UPRR yards themselves would convert to other uses by Land Use Similar to the CRMF Alternative, the redevelopment opportunities associated with the North Metro Corridor station platform would create some impacts, but would be offset by the benefits in comparison to existing conditions. Anticipated benefits include economic opportunities and improved access to transit associated with the North Metro station platform and development opportunities. However, some development potential would not be realized as a result of the East Corridor service not being constructed. From a cumulative perspective, land use patterns would undergo some change, but it is unknown if the UPRR yards would redevelop to fully realize area plans. Environmental Justice In general, the No Action Alternative would not have disproportionate or adverse cumulative effects on minority and low-income populations. Under the No Action Alternative, there is a trend towards environmental remediation, and to varying degrees, redevelopment. Additionally, redevelopment opportunities would benefit the local communities, essentially offsetting potential construction impacts. The potential redevelopment would provide beneficial economic opportunities and improved access to transit for the local community. The exact scenario of redevelopment near the North Metro station platform is not known. Issues such as gentrification (race and income), housing costs, and transit access (without East Corridor service) would potentially occur due to redevelopment. Under the No Action Alternative, the East Corridor would not provide transit service to the local communities at the proposed station platform near the 38th Street underpass. Additionally, if the existing UPRR site were not to redevelop as TOD or mixed use: No additional removal of hazardous materials from the site would occur. No CRMF related employment would be created. No visual improvement from enhanced site fencing, buffers, or landscaping would occur. Hazardous Materials Other than general trends toward environmental remediation in north Denver, the No Action Alternative would have no further cumulative effect to hazardous materials. Contaminated soil and groundwater could potentially be encountered at the 38th Street platforms due to the long history of rail yard and freight-hauling activities. Direct impacts associated with the No Action

133 Page A-115 Alternative would occur at this site if contamination is present. Additional impacts associated with the No Action Alternative would depend on future actions by the UPRR. Improvements or modifications made to the existing site including potential redevelopment may result in impacts to hazardous materials that are similar to those outlined for the CRMF Alternative. Noise and Vibration Existing noise in the area would continue from industrial land uses, I-70 traffic, and existing freight traffic on the UPRR. This background noise is included in the project noise analysis. As urban development, and most notably industrial urban development, has changed the character of existing residential neighborhoods in the project area, perceptible noise levels have also increased over the past 40 years. Urban growth, increased traffic, and, to some extent, traffic congestion would continue to have an adverse effect on perceived noise and vibration levels. Air Quality The surrounding communities would continue to experience cumulative impacts to air quality from past transportation projects (such as, I-25 and I-70). Plans for the area call for redevelopment of the UPRR site, as well as surrounding sites. However, it is not know at this time if market conditions would allow full realization of land use plan changes and any associated benefits to air quality. Similar to the CRMF Alternative, if past trends continue and if current plans are implemented, the project area may evolve to more mixed land uses, fewer industrial uses, and an improvement in general environmental quality. These improvements would likely positively impact local air quality. Additionally, historic air quality improvements would continue as auto emissions equipment continues to improve CRMF Alternative Impacts Cumulative Impacts The CRMF Alternative would not result in adverse cumulative impacts and would not result in denial, reduction, or delay in the provision of benefits to the minority and/or low-income communities. The CRMF Alternative would require acquisition and use of UPRR railroad properties (36th Street Yard and 40th Street Intermodal Ramp/TOFC). As a result, UPRR would presumably need to secure a replacement facility. Negotiations would occur between RTD and UPRR would occur regarding compensation for the property. Neither RTD nor FTA controls how UPRR would use its compensation for its property, or how it might relocate its facility. Relocation of the facility is the responsibility of UPRR. Currently, RTD understands from UPRR that the railroad is likely to relocate these facilities to a location along the existing UPRR lines in Weld County. The relocated rail yard would result in additional railroad activity at the relocated site. This additional activity would be similar to operations at UPRR s current facilities, including switching operations. Local approvals would be necessary and may be conditional on certain

134 Page A-116 measures that the local jurisdiction requires to ensure compatibility with local land uses and the community generally. Land Use From a cumulative perspective, land use in the greater north Denver area would not be impacted due to the CRMF. The most likely scenario is that opportunities would not be diminished and would be redistributed because transit improvements to North Metro, East and Denver Union Station will continue to make this area attractive for redevelopment. Construction of the CRMF would not be out of character with the present and historic character of the area. Because the CRMF site would replace existing industrial land/rail uses with a modernized facility with environmental controls, the CRMF would be characterized as an improvement over current conditions. Operations of the CRMF would not result in development in the communities. However, development of the joint North Metro and East Corridor station platforms, and relocation of the existing rail yards, would result in densification near the project site. These actions would foster TOD opportunities and create conditions desirable for new development of parcels in the vicinity of the station platforms. Densification related to TOD sites would not be eliminated by development of the CRMF; development would likely be redistributed to other parcels in the area, depending on market conditions. The CRMF would not negatively impact overall redevelopment opportunities in the area. Additionally, RTD has identified an 11.5-acre buffer along the southern edge of the project adjacent to 40th Avenue (from 40th Street to York Street) that may be reserved for future development or use by others to be determined at a later date. Environmental Justice The presence of residential uses adjacent to heavy industry, transportation uses, and past and ongoing environmental contamination has identified areas surrounding the CRMF site as environmental justice concerns. Key historic events included: Historic railroad construction that resulted in the transportation of gold and silver to smelters, causing heavy industrial development and pollution. Construction of I-25 and I-70 served to bifurcate the communities, removed residences, and contributed to air quality issues. Smelter operations from gold, copper, lead, and zinc melting plants (including the Omaha-Grant, Argo, and Globe plants) from the 1870s to the 1950s resulted in arsenic and lead contamination and potential toxic health impacts. Several of these sites were incorporated into the VB/ I-70 Superfund Site and the ASARCO Globe Plant Superfund Site, which are currently undergoing study and cleanup. Heavy industrial development over the last 50 years caused residential neighborhoods to be interspersed with large and small-scale industries such as foam, plastics, cement, meat packing, warehouses, the Denver Coliseum, the Stock Show Complex, and the Merchandise Mart, resulting in the release of toxic compounds in these neighborhoods. The CRMF would result in temporary construction impacts in the vicinity of the CRMF site. These effects would occur in a minority or low-income population that have been affected by

135 Page A-117 cumulative or multiple exposures to environmental hazards. However, the impacts of the CRMF with mitigations and offsetting benefits would result in overall improvements to the minority and low-income communities in comparison to existing conditions. Anticipated benefits include economic opportunities, improved access to transit, and redevelopment opportunities associated with the East Corridor and North Metro station platforms. While there are significant numbers of minority and low-income persons in this segment, most of the populations are located over 1,000 feet from the site and are not adjacent to the proposed CRMF facility. Hazardous Materials No cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would occur. Ongoing remediation and treatment, improved materials handling and construction practices, and hazardous material abatement (completed as part of the CRMF project) would result in an overall reduction in hazardous materials on the project site. The adjacent neighborhoods are industrialized. There are 56 hazardous waste sites within 500 feet of the CRMF property boundary and numerous spills have been reported. These neighborhoods are also in the vicinity of the VB/I-70 Superfund Site where cleanup is underway for lead and arsenic contamination. The ASARCO Superfund site, which includes the Globeville smelter, is an active Superfund site with ongoing remediation for cadmium, arsenic, lead, and zinc as the contaminants of concern. There would likely be existing soil contamination from historical operations at the project site involving removal and off site disposal of materials. Long-term groundwater treatment would be needed. A site specific investigation would be conducted at the CRMF site and adjacent areas to identify if additional remedial measures would be needed. Noise From a cumulative standpoint, project noise is considered in context with other urban factors contributing to noise levels and the current use of the site. Existing noise in the area originates from industrial land uses, I-70 traffic, and existing freight traffic on the UPRR tracks. This background noise is included in the noise analysis. As urban development, and most notably industrial urban development, has changed the character of existing residential neighborhoods in the project area, perceptible noise levels have also increased over the past 40 years. Urban growth, increased traffic, and to some extent, traffic congestion would continue to have an adverse effect on perceived noise and vibration levels. No noise/vibration impacts would result from operations of the CRMF facility. However, noise/vibration impacts would also result from the North Metro and East Corridor passenger service that passes through the CRMF study area. The noise and vibration impacts associated with the East Corridor and North Metro operations would be shared by all communities along the entire East and North Metro corridors; therefore, they would not be categorized as disproportionate.

136 Page A-118 Air Quality No cumulative impacts related to air quality would occur. The surrounding communities have experienced ongoing impacts to air quality from past transportation projects (such as, I-25 and I- 70). Change of use from freight rail operations to the maintenance facility operations would result in no increased impacts to air quality. The CRMF would operate with a combination of electric and diesel commuter rail trains. Air quality modeling for operations of the CRMF site demonstrates no air quality impacts would occur to the surrounding communities. While there are minority and low-income persons in the neighborhoods surrounding the site, most are located over 1,000 feet from the site and would not be impacted by air quality. If redevelopment trends continue and if current plans are implemented, the project area may evolve to more mixed land uses, fewer industrial uses, and an improvement in general environmental quality. These improvements would likely positively impact local air quality. In addition, on October 16, 2007 the RTD Board approved the Responsible Rail Amendment as part of its vehicle technology review for the Northwest Rail and other corridors. As excerpted below, this policy states: RTD will work to ensure that it purchases fuel efficient, environmentally responsible and sustainable commuter rail vehicles for the North Metro and Northwest Rail lines by pursuing the following measures: Creating purchasing standards for the new commuter rail vehicles that place environmental features, including fuel efficiency and low emissions, amongst the top evaluation criteria; Sending a proactive alert to all prospective commuter rail vehicle vendors, prior to issuing a formal RFP, concerning the priority focus RTD will give to environmental features in its purchasing decisions; Committing to purchase vehicles that have the flexibility to accommodate future advancements in propulsion technology, like hybrid or clean-fuel systems, through upgrades and retrofits over the life of the vehicles. The implication of this amendment is that RTD s diesel vehicle purchases will be focused on technologies that incorporate future federal regulations on improved emissions standards, further improving air quality in this study area and throughout the region.

137 Page A-119

138 Page A REFERENCES Abovenet, Map of Abovenet fiber, received February Adesta Communications, Map and description of fiber network, received February. Arvada Historical Society, More Than Gold: A History of Arvada, Colorado, During the Period Johnson Publishing Company, Boulder, Colorado. Arvada, Just Between You and Me: A History of Arvada, Colorado, During the Period Johnson Publishing Company, Boulder, Colorado. Arvada Historical Society, Arvada, Colorado. Accessed August 16, City and County of Denver, Globeville Neighborhood Plan City and County of Denver, Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan. City and County of Denver, River North Plan. City and County of Denver, 2003a. Elyria/Swansea Neighborhood Assessment. City and County of Denver City and County of Denver Storm Drainage Master Plan. April. City and County of Denver North Metro/Gold Line/US 36 Outfall Systems Plan (Draft). September. City of Denver, Denver, Colorado. Accessed August 21, City of Arvada, Arvada, Colorado. Accessed August 16, City of Wheat Ridge/Wheat Ridge Historical Society, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Accessed September 13, Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists Introduction. In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin, by Kevin P. Gilmore, Marcia Tate, Mark L. Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terri McBride, and Margaret Wood, pp Denver, Colorado. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists 1999a. The Protohistoric Period. In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin, by Kevin P. Gilmore, Marcia Tate, Mark L. Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terri McBride, and Margaret Wood, pp Denver, Colorado.

139 Page A-121 Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists 1999b. Paleoindian Stage. In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin, by Kevin P. Gilmore, Marcia Tate, Mark L. Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terri McBride, and Margaret Wood. pp Denver, Colorado. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, 1999c. Late Prehistoric Stage (A.D ). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin, by Kevin P. Gilmore, Marcia Tate, Mark L. Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terri McBride, and Margaret Wood, pp Denver, Colorado. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, 1999d. Archaic Stage. In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin, by Kevin P. Gilmore, Marcia Tate, Mark L. Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terri McBride, and Margaret Wood, pp Denver, Colorado. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, 1999e. Paleoenvironment. In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin, by Kevin P. Gilmore, Marcia Tate, Mark L. Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terri McBride, and Margaret Wood, pp Denver, Colorado. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety, Files (various) reviewed of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Files (various) reviewed of hazardous material and hazardous waste sites. Colorado Department of Transportation, Research Branch, Final Report, Environmental Justice Research Study, Report Number CDOT-DTD-R Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, Mine Permit Reports, < Accessed September Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Late Cenozoic Fault and Fold Database and Internet Map Server, < Accessed September Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (CHS-OAHP) Railroads in Colorado : Multiple Properties Listing. Colorado. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Colorado Oil and Gas Information System, < Accessed September Comcast, Maps showing Comcast facilities, received August Denver Police, Statistics and Crime Rates for 2006, accessed September Denver Regional Council of Governments, Metro Vision 2030 Plan.

140 Page A-122 Denver Regional Council of Governments, Socio-Economic data set. Accessible at: Accessed September, Denver Traffic Department. GIS Map showing fiber, received March Denver Wastewater Management Division, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Plats, dated October Denver Water Department, Plats showing water lines, dated January Exempla Healthcare, Accessed September 23, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy, Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Publication Number FHWA-HI Forrest, Kenton and Charles Albi, Denver s Railroads: The Story of Union Station and the Railroads of Denver. Colorado Railroad Museum, Golden, Colorado. Gillies, Fred Kipling Street Rerouting Near Ridge Still Undecided. The Denver Post. March 12. p. 3. Goodbee & Associates, Utility map along East Corridor, received August Hart, S.S., Potentially Swelling Soil and Rock in The Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey, Environmental Geology 7, 23p, 4 map sheets, scale 1:100,000. Hill, David R., Colorado Urbanization and Planning Context. State Historical Society of Colorado, Denver. Kelly, Guy, Wheat Ridge still holds on to its roots. Rocky Mountain News. July 16. p. 24. Klein, Maury, Union Pacific: The Birth of a Railroad Doubleday, New York. Kenton, Forrest and Charles Albi, Denver's Railroads: The Story of Union Station and the Railroads of Denver. Revised Edition. Colorado Railroad Museum, Golden, Colorado. Level 3 Communications, As-built drawings of fiber along Union Pacific Railroad Greeley branch, dated November Level 3 Communications, Map showing fiber in Brighton Boulevard, Wynkoop Street, and Blake Street, received January 2005.

141 Page A-123 Level 3 Communications, Map of fiber owned by Level 3, including fiber formerly owned by Wiltel Communications, received January Lindvall, R.M., Geologic map of the Commerce City Quadrangle, Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1541, scale 1:24,000. Margolin, Morton L., East Jeffco Residents Urged to Form Two New Towns. Rocky Mountain News. September 8. p.10. MCI-Verizon, Map of MCI fiber, received July Mehls, Steven F., 1984 Colorado Plains Historic Context. Colorado Historical Society, Denver. National Register of Historic Places, Reno Park Addition National Register Nomination Form. National Register of Historic Places, Denver, Colorado Stocke/Walter Addition National Register Nomination Form, Denver, Colorado. Piton Foundation, Neighborhood Facts Data Book Qwest Communications, sketches of telephone and fiber facilities, received August Regional Transportation District, Environmental Methodology Manual. July. Rocky Mountain News, Wheat Ridge Visited. September 17. Sampson, J.J., and T.G. Baber, Soil survey of Adams County, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Simmons, R. Laurie and Thomas H. Simmons, Arvada Downtown National Register Nomination Form. National Register of Historic Places, Denver, Colorado. Stillgoe, John R Metropolitan Corridor: Railroads and the American Scene. Yale University, Connecticut. The Denver Post, Wheat Ridge Voters Petition for $74,000 Water System. December 17. The Denver Republican, Over on Wheat Ridge. July 18. p. 12. Time Warner Communications, Map showing fiber, received August Trimble, D.E., and H.R. Fitch, Map showing potential gravel sources and crushed-rock aggregate in the greater Denver area, Front Range urban corridor, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-856-A, scale 1:100,000. Tweto, O., Geologic map of Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Colorado Geological Survey, scale 1:500,000.

142 Page A-124 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 Superfund Site Fact Sheet: Vasquez Boulevard & I-70. Accessible at: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 Superfund Site Fact Sheet: Asarco Superfund Site. Accessible at: Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, City and County of Denver, South Platte River, Central Platte Valley, Alternative Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report. December. United States Census Bureau, Decennial Census of Population. Washington D.C. United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. February 3, Accessed on October 4, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections, November. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Modeling and Inventories, MOBILE6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software. March 2006; Updated Monday, July 23, Accessed on October 4, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007b. AP42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 3: Stationary Internal Combustion. Updated Thursday, June 21, Accessed on October 11, United States Geological Survey, 1965, revised Commerce City Quadrangle, topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1: United States Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program website, < US Sprint, Map of Sprint and 360 Network fiber, received March 2005 Washington State University Extension Energy Program, Diesel Locomotive Emission. Wheat Ridge Historical Committee, History of Pioneer Wheat Ridge. The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Wheat Ridge travelers see double Rocky Mountain News. July 14. p. 8. Xcel Energy, GIS map of electric transmission facilities, received June Xcel Energy, 2007a. Maps of electric and gas facilities, dated February 2005.

143

144 ATTACHMENT A - HAZMAT FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

145

146 ATTACHMENT B - AIR QUALITY FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

147

148 ATTACHMENT C - AIR QUALITY FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

149

150 ATTACHMENT D - AIR QUALITY FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

151

152 ATTACHMENT E - AIR QUALITY FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

153

154 ATTACHMENT F - AIR QUALITY FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

155

156 ATTACHMENT G - AIR QUALITY FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

157

158 ATTACHMENT H - AIR QUALITY FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

159

160 ATTACHMENT I - AIR QUALITY FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

161

162 ATTACHMENT J - UTILITIES FasTracks Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility

163 APPENDIX B: DRAINAGE CULVERT / OUTFALL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

164 Technical Memorandum Addendum TO: FROM: Chris Quinn/RTD Liz Telford/RTD Nadine Lee/RTD Carol Duecker/RTD Mike Turner/RTD CRMF Team DATE: December 28, 2007 (Revised April 11, 2009) SUBJECT: Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Report for Proposed Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility (CRMF) The enclosed draft is considered preliminary for internal review only and shall not be shared with any person outside of your agency. Since this document is considered a working draft and it may contain preliminary conclusions not necessarily reflected in the final decision, all requests for any portion of this material should be denied under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Department of Transportation implementing regulation (49 CFR 7.71). Any requests for materials from outside of your agency should be forwarded to FTA. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report serves two purposes: 1. To document potential impacts associated with construction of the drainage culvert/outfall to the South Platte River from the proposed RTD Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility (CRMF). 2. To document the FHWA Driscoll Model analysis for the CRMF site. This report provides detailed drainage analysis for the previously submitted, FasTracks Corridor Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Technical Memorandum October 31, 2007 (Revised April 10, 2009). The drainage culvert/outfall facility is proposed to address drainage requirements of the CRMF. The CRMF project team has worked cooperatively with the City and County of Denver to determine the appropriate location for the drainage culvert/outfall. Basic design and construction assumptions were developed in order to complete this impact analysis. Further refinement of the CRMF and the associated drainage facility design is ongoing Proposed Drainage Culvert/Outfall Details The culvert/outfall is currently proposed as a double cell, Concrete Box Culvert (CBC). Each cell measures 8 feet high by 8 feet wide. The culvert/outfall would extend approximately 3,040 linear feet from the west side of the CRMF site to the South Platte River. The proposed alignment would exit the 1560 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO Phone: Fax:

165 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 2 of 34 CRMF site west following 43rd Street, cross over Brighton Blvd., and then cut diagonally through a parking lot to the perimeter road (McFarland Dr.) on the South Side of the Coliseum. The alignment then curves to the west toward the South Platte River through the Coliseum parking lot and Globeville Landing Park (refer to attached figure, Attachment A) Construction Methods & Duration The CBC is a standard drainage structure that can be cast-in-place or pre-cast. The depth of the profile grade is estimated at approximately 15 feet below existing grade, on average. Some locations would be deeper, some shallower. Cut and cover construction methods would be used, which generally consist of the following steps: Cut and remove pavement and other surface covering at the outside limits of the trench Excavate the trench to the depth of subgrade and remove excess materials from the site Place and compact subgrade and bedding material Place the box culvert section Place and compact backfill Replace pavement and other surface features removed for construction Incidental construction would consist of relocating existing utilities away from the CBC, setting up a temporary trailer and equipment yard, constructing detours for traffic control, constructing an energy dissipation structure in the South Platte River and an inlet structure in the CRMF yard. The proposed culvert/outfall alignment on 43rd Street west of the CRMF yard has buildings on both sides. To avoid causing structural problems for adjacent buildings, it would be necessary to shore the excavated trench. Shoring typically consists of steel sheet pile driven into the ground to support the sides of the trench, use of trench boxes, or other methods to limit the width of the trench. Construction would likely start at the South Platte River and move eastward along the alignment. Construction would be limited to approximately one, 100-foot segment, at a time. Construction would require closure of 43 rd Street southeast of Brighton Blvd. for approximately four to six weeks. Construction under Brighton Blvd. would encompass ½ of the street at a time, for approximately one month, including utility relocations. The total duration to complete construction would be approximately six months Impact Footprint The project team identified the construction footprint (area impacted by construction) to analyze potential impacts. The footprint was developed based on the construction methods described above. The figure shown in Attachment A identifies the limits of the trench for construction of the culvert/outfall. The trench width varies from 30 feet at the CRMF boundary to 50 feet at the west end of the Coliseum parking lot. The maximum width of 70 ft. occurs in the park along the South Platte River where there is a hill. Construction vehicular traffic along the top of the trench would be necessary. The analysis footprint includes 20 feet of width, mostly along the north side of the trench, to accommodate construction access. Construction staging would begin within the CRMF site.

166 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 3 of RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATIONS Affected Environment As previously described, the culvert/outfall is proposed to extend from the west side of the CRMF site to the South Platte River. The alignment is within the City and County of Denver, and crosses both public and privately owned properties. The alignment was designed to minimize impacts to private property by locating in public right-of-way (ROW), wherever possible. However, the project alignment does cross some privately owned parcels Impacts No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the CRMF, associated drainage facilities, and the East Corridor Project would not be constructed. Direct Impacts There would be no direct impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Historic drainage issues associated with this area of Denver would not be improved. Indirect Impacts There would be no indirect impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Historic drainage issues associated with this area of Denver would not be improved. CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Direct Impacts No direct acquisition of public or private property would be required to construct and maintain the CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative. The culvert/outfall would be buried approximately 15 feet below the surface, allowing the property surface to be reconfigured to its previous state following construction. A permanent drainage easement would be required for the new culvert/outfall for sections that are not within public street right-of-way. The width of the easement would be calculated according to Section 3.3.3, Operations and Maintenance, of the Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria Manual. Based on the proposed culvert/outfall design, the width of the required easement for this design would be no less than 35 feet. Drainage easements include restrictions on developing permanent structures that would restrict access to the underground utility. The drainage easement would extend across three parcels owned by the City and County of Denver (including the Coliseum parking lot and Globeville Landing Park; two parcels owned by the Forney Museum; and seven parcels owned by the Union Pacific Railway Co. Indirect Impacts There would be no indirect impacts associated with the CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative.

167 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 4 of 34 Mitigations Impact Drainage easement necessary to construct and maintain the drainage facility. Table Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Impact Type CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Direct impact RTD will obtain a permanent drainage easement for the new culvert/outfall for sections that are not within public street right-of-way. 1.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Affected Environment The alignment of the proposed culvert/outfall traverses an area with a long history of industrial and commercial uses. In addition, land filling to raise the ground surface historically occurred in much of the area. Reports detailing excavation in this area have cited encountering debris including underground storage tanks and other refuse. An environmental database search company was used to identify hazardous material sites that occur adjacent to the drainage culvert/outfall and in the area of construction impact. The database search was conducted using ASTM Standard E protocol and identifies specific federal and state environmental sources and search distances. Search distances used in this report are shown below in Table Table Environmental Records Search Distances Database Search Radius (miles) Federal National Priorities List (NPL) 1.0 Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 0.5 Information System (CERCLIS) Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment, Storage, 1.0 or Disposal (TSD) Facilities Federal RCRA Generators List 0.25 Federal RCRA Corrective Action (CORRACTS) facilities 1.0 Federal/State Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) List 0.25 State Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCUP) Site 1.0 State Above Ground Storage Tank (AST)/Underground Storage Tank (UST) 0.25 State Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) 0.5 State-equivalent NPL 1.0 State-equivalent CERCLIS 0.5 State Landfill or Solid Waste Disposal Sites 0.5 ASTM Standard E

168 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 5 of 34 A total of 125 sites were identified in the search and include USTS, LUSTS, landfills, and other sites. By narrowing the search for sites located within 500 feet along either side of the drainage culvert/outfall alignment, those sites with the greatest potential for direct impacts was more clearly identified. These sites are shown below in Table They consist of ten, high-ranked sites based on likely impact and their distance from the project. Table High Ranked Hazardous Material Sites Identified within 500 feet of the Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alignment Satisfi ID Number Recognized Environmental Condition NPL NPL Vasquez Boulevard and I SPILL Incident # LUST CDOT - Humboldt Street Site Location Site History/Conditions 44th And Brighton Blvd 44th & Humboldt AST Fortrust 4300 Brighton Blvd TANK CDOT - Humboldt Street 44th & Humboldt Heavy metal contamination from primarily lead and arsenic from historic smelter operations in the area. EPA established an Action Memoranda to remove and replace soil when concentrations above 240 PPM arsenic and 540 PPM lead were detected. Diesel spill occurred 4/28/04. Tractor-trailer was stuck on train tracks and struck by train. Unknown amount released. Release reported 8/11/00. Amount released less than risk based state levels. NFA letter sent 5/3/01. 5 active 3,500 above ground storage tanks (diesel). Site has been closed. No active tanks UST. LUST Dawn Industries Inc 4410 N Washington Release reported1/08/01. Amount released less than risk based state levels. NFA letter sent 1/26/01. Hydrologically separated from culvert/outfall by South Platte River TANK The C Store 4500 N Washington St 3 active UST tanks. Hydrologically separated from culvert/outfall by South Platte River UST, LUST Readi Mix Concrete 4395 Washington St Hydrologically separated from culvert/outfall by South Platte River. 1,000-gallon waste oil tank removed 10/30/99. Contamination below state cleanup levels. NFA issued by OIS 1/28/ UST, LUST Food 4303 Release reported1/26/90. A

169 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 6 of 34 Satisfi ID Number Recognized Environmental Condition Site Location Site History/Conditions Products Inc Brighton Blvd LANDFILL Artificial Fill Area on either side of Arkins Court, from the South Platte River & I LANDFILL Known Landfill Satisfi Environmental Database Search, December Boundaries Approximate: SE: Wynkoop, NE: 43rd St. Extends N cleanup for petroleum release initiated in Cleanup completed 5/8/97. Artificial fill. Include embankments, dams and other engineered fills. Compacted landfills and un-compacted rubbish dumps. High confidence in this information. Clay, silt, and a variety of debris consisting of wood, brick, metal, plastic, glass, vegetation and other materials. No hazardous waste, industrial waste or liquids are believed to be present. Known landfill. Unknown materials disposed. Confidence in this location is high. Confidence in materials present is low Impacts No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative does not include any construction, excavation or other activities that would impact or be impacted by hazardous material sites. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to hazardous materials. CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Direct Impacts Crossing industrial land uses presents a potential conflict with hazardous wastes. The sites presented in Table were identified within or adjacent to the culvert/outfall alignment and may affect construction of this alignment. Additionally, impacted sites are graphically displayed in Attachment B.

170 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 7 of 34 Table Impacts of Hazardous Material Sites (High Ranked) within or adjacent to CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Footprint Satisfi ID Number Recognized Environmental Condition Site Location NPL NPL Vasquez Boulevard and I-70 AST FORTRUST 4300 Brighton Blvd LANDFILL Artificial Fill Area On Either Side of Arkins Court, from the Platte River & I-70 LANDFILL Known Landfill Boundaries Approximate: SE: Wynkoop, NE: 43rd St. Extends N Satisfi Environmental Database Search, December Impact Heavy metal contamination from lead and arsenic from historic smelter operations in the area. 5 active 3,500 above ground storage tanks (diesel) Artificial fill. Include embankments, dams and other engineered fills. Compacted landfills and un-compacted rubbish dumps. High confidence in this information. Clay, silt, and a variety of debris consisting of wood, brick, metal, plastic, glass, vegetation and other materials. No hazardous waste, industrial waste or liquids are believed to be present. Known landfill. Unknown materials disposed. Confidence in this location is high. Confidence in materials present is low. In Construction Footprint Adjacent to Footprint Excavation Required Acquire Property Yes Yes Yes Yes Possible Yes Possible Possible Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Construction impacts associated with the CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative would result in health and safety concerns during construction if hazardous materials are encountered. Additional costs associated with disposal of contaminated soil removal and disposal would result. If contaminated groundwater is encountered, treatment may be required during excavation and construction prior to discharge to the storm sewer system.

171 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 8 of 34 Indirect Impacts If such excavation were needed, the material would be transported off site for treatment or disposal at a landfill. Indirect impacts could include reduction in landfill capacity due to excavation and disposal of contaminated soils. In addition, indirect impacts associated with transport of hazardous materials could also result. Mitigation Table Proposed Mitigation Measures Impact Contaminated soil and/or groundwater encountered during construction Excavation of property containing contaminated soil and/or groundwater Mitigation Measures Impact Type CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Construction RTD will develop a Materials Handling Plan to ensure proper handling and disposal of contaminated materials generated during the project, as part of the plan for overall CRMF construction and operations. RTD will develop a Materials Abatement Plan for asbestos and lead-based paint should any identified or acquired structures be found to contain lead-based paint or asbestos, as part of the plan for overall CRMF construction and operations. Direct RTD will conduct a Phase II investigation to delineate areas of contamination and to identify specific contaminants and level of contamination. 1.4 UTILITIES Affected Environment This analysis examined major utilities inside the construction footprint and within a 100-foot buffer surrounding the footprint. Potentially affected major utilities were identified from key maps previously obtained from utility owners, and the proposed improvements were compared with the location and estimated depth of each utility to assess whether the utility would need to be relocated. Major utilities are defined by RTD as: All fiber optic All cell towers Copper telephone cable greater than 200 pair Water lines at least 24 inches in diameter All brick and clay sanitary sewers and those of other materials at least 18 inches in diameter Storm sewers at least 36 inches in diameter High pressure gas pipelines Petroleum pipelines Electric substations High voltage electric lines Overhead lighting

172 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 9 of Affected Environment Table lists the major utilities located inside the construction footprint and within 100 feet of the impact area. Table Major Utilities Inside Construction Footprint and Within 100-foot Buffer of Footprint Utility Owner Description 360 Network Buried fiber outside the west edge of Coliseum parking lot from Arkins Ct. to I-70 Estimated Utility Depth ROW In Construction Footprint? inches CCD Yes ATT Buried fiber in Brighton Blvd inches CCD Yes Comcast Buried fiber along west side of inches CCD Yes Brighton Blvd. Comcast Buried fiber along east side of Brighton Blvd. and in 43 rd St. from Brighton Blvd. to south side of 4300 Brighton Blvd inches CCD Yes Denver Traffic Denver Wastewater Management Division Denver Wastewater Management Division/Union Pacific Level 3 Communications Level 3 Communications MCI-Verizon Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Time Warner Communications Xcel Energy Buried fiber along east side of Brighton Blvd. from I-70 to the northeast corner of 43 rd St./Brighton Blvd. 18 clay sanitary sewer in Brighton Blvd. from 43 rd St. to 44 th St. 18 clay sanitary sewer in 43 rd St. from UP tracks to Brighton Blvd. Buried fiber in 43 rd St. from west side of UP tracks to Brighton Blvd. Buried fiber in Brighton Blvd. from 36 th St. to 44 th St. Buried fiber in 43 rd St. from east side of UP tracks to Brighton Blvd. then north in Brighton Blvd. to 44 th St. 77 brick/concrete sanitary sewer flowing north through Globeville Landing Park; Delgany Common Interceptor 78 concrete sanitary sewer flowing north through Globeville Landing Park; Delgany Interceptor Buried fiber in Brighton Blvd. from 40 th St. to 43 rd St., then in 43 rd St. from Brighton Blvd. to the south side of 4300 Brighton Blvd. Buried electric service to overhead lighting in McFarland St. south of the Denver Coliseum inches CCD No TBD CCD Yes TBD CCD Yes inches CCD/UP Yes inches CCD Yes inches CCD/UP Yes ft CCD/ private easement Yes ft CCD/ private easement Yes inches CCD Yes inches CCD Yes

173 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 10 of 34 Utility Owner Description Xcel Energy Buried electric service to overhead lighting in Brighton Blvd. from 40 th St. to 44 th St. Xcel Energy/CCOD Buried electric service to overhead lighting in the parking lot southwest of the Denver Coliseum. Xcel Energy/CCOD Buried electric service to overhead lighting in Globeville Landing Park. CCD City and County of Denver TBD To Be Determined cannot be estimated with available information UP Union Pacific Data pending from Qwest Impacts No Action Alternative Direct Impacts Estimated Utility Depth ROW In Construction Footprint? inches CCD Yes inches CCD Yes inches CCD Yes The No Action Alternative would not directly impact utilities. Future redevelopment in the area will require the extension, augmentation, or modification of utilities. In response to increased development and population growth, new utilities would be built and existing utilities would be replaced and improved, regardless of which transportation or private projects occur. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not indirectly impact utilities. All utility impacts are expected to be short-term, addressed prior to or during construction, and that there will be no indirect or long-term impacts. CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Direct Impacts Table lists the major utilities which would require relocation. Additionally, utilities in the vicinity of the project area are graphically displayed in Attachment C. Table Major Utility Impact Analysis Utility Owner 360 Network ATT Comcast Description Buried fiber outside the west edge of Coliseum parking lot from Arkins Ct. to I-70 Buried fiber in Brighton Blvd. Buried fiber along west side of Brighton Blvd. Est. Utility Depth inches inches inches Est. Depth of CBC 25 ft to TOP 8-9 ft to TOP 8 ft to TOP Impact None, if protected during construction None, if protected during construction None, if protected during construction Relocation*

174 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 11 of 34 Utility Owner Comcast Denver Traffic Denver Wastewater Management Division Denver Wastewater Management Division/Union Pacific Level 3 Communications Level 3 Communications MCI-Verizon Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Time Warner Communications Description Buried fiber along east side of Brighton Blvd. and in 43 rd St. from Brighton Blvd. to south side of 4300 Brighton Blvd. Buried fiber along east side of Brighton Blvd. from I-70 to the northeast corner of 43 rd St./Brighton Blvd. 18 clay sanitary sewer in Brighton Blvd. from 43 rd St. to 44 th St. 18 clay sanitary sewer in 43 rd St. from UP tracks to Brighton Blvd. Buried fiber in 43 rd St. from west side of UP tracks to Brighton Blvd. Buried fiber in Brighton Blvd. from 36 th St. to 44 th St. Buried fiber in 43 rd St. from east side of UP tracks to Brighton Blvd. then north in Brighton Blvd. to 44 th St. 77 brick/concrete sanitary sewer flowing north through Globeville Landing Park; Delgany Common Interceptor 78 concrete sanitary sewer flowing north through Globeville Landing Park; Delgany Interceptor Buried fiber in Brighton Blvd. from 40 th St. to 43 rd St., then in 43 rd St. from Brighton Blvd. to the south side of 4300 Brighton Blvd. Est. Utility Depth inches inches Est. Depth of CBC 9 ft to TOP NA Impact None, if protected during construction NA Relocation* TBD 8-9 ft to TOP TBD TBD TBD 3-9 ft to TOP TBD TBD inches inches inches ft ft inches 3-9 ft to TOP 8-9 ft to TOP 3-9 ft to TOP 25 ft to TOP 36 ft to BOP 23 ft to TOP 34 ft to BOP 6-9 ft to TOP Inadequate separation near the east end of the culvert/outfall. None, if protected during construction Inadequate separation near the east end of the culvert/outfall. None, if protected during construction Inadequate separation None, if protected during construction 500 ft 500 ft 600 ft

175 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 12 of 34 Utility Owner Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy/CCOD Xcel Energy/CCOD Description Buried electric service to overhead lighting in Brighton Blvd. from 40 th St. to 44 th St. Light poles located on either side of 43rd St. Buried electric service to overhead lighting in McFarland St. south of the Denver Coliseum. Three light poles near construction footprint. Buried electric service to overhead lighting in the parking lot southwest of the Denver Coliseum. Buried electric service to overhead lighting in Globeville Landing Park. Est. Utility Depth inches inches inches inches Est. Depth of CBC 8-9 ft to TOP 4-8 ft to TOP 8-13 ft to TOP ft to TOP Impact None, if buried electric and poles are protected during construction. Inadequate separation if electric line is more than 36 inches deep. Light poles may need to be protected during construction. Up to five light poles in parking lot may be impacted. One light pole in park may be impacted. Relocation* 300 ft 5 light poles One light pole Data pending from Qwest TOP Top of Pipe BOP Bottom of Pipe NA Not Applicable; utility is not within construction footprint. TBD To be determined cannot be determined with available information. It is likely that the sanitary sewers will need to be replaced where they will be crossed by the CBCs due to the fragility of clay pipe. Assumes that segment of fiber optic between existing access points located 500 ft apart and that segment of sanitary sewer between existing manholes will need to be relocated. It should be noted that the utility location information used for this analysis is schematic, so it is uncertain whether utilities located parallel to the proposed culvert/outfall are in conflict. In addition, estimated depths were based on general industry standards. It is recommended that prior to construction all buried utilities within the construction footprint be located using potholing or by measuring manhole inverts to confirm and quantify conflicts. Indirect Impacts All utility impacts are expected to be short-term, addressed prior to or during construction, and that there will be no indirect or long-term impacts.

176 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 13 of 34 Mitigation Impact Relocation of existing utilities Table Proposed Utility Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Impact Type CRMF Culvert/Outfall Alternative Direct RTD will conduct pot-holing surveys prior to final engineering and construction. RTD will conduct early coordination with utility owners. RTD will minimize disruption of service with wet tie-in. RTD will schedule disruption of service for low use period. Where possible, RTD will provide appropriate utility protection during construction as an alternative to relocating some utilities. Where feasible, RTD will modify the horizontal and vertical layout of the culvert/outfall to avoid conflict with light poles, buried electric, fiber and sanitary sewers. 1.5 WATER RESOURCES Affected Environment The terrain along the culvert/outfall alignment is gently rolling with a predominant trend to slope to the north and west. The alignment crosses roadways, parking lots, and about 500 feet of parkland adjacent to the South Platte River. There are contaminated soils along the alignment. The area surrounding the site is completely developed and is predominantly industrial and commercial property. Surface water drainage from the site and surrounding areas is currently conveyed to the South Platte River by storm sewers, some of which are more than 50 years old. Because of the age of the infrastructure on and surrounding the project alignment, there are no surface water quality controls in place either on the site or on adjacent properties Impacts No Action Alternative Direct Impacts There would be no direct impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Historic drainage issues associated with this area of Denver would not be improved. Indirect Impacts There would be no indirect impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Historic drainage issues associated with this area of Denver would not be improved.

177 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 14 of 34 CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Direct Impacts Surface water quality impacts would result from the addition of impervious surfaces, which collect pollutants that are then washed into the local stream systems with stormwater runoff. The surface materials removed for construction of the culvert/outfall will be replaced in kind; therefore the proposed culvert/outfall would not add any impervious surface to the existing project area and would therefore not change the runoff character of the study area. The major storm flows from the City and County of Denver conveyed in the new culvert/outfall will only be those in excess of the capacities of the existing, smaller, storm sewer systems. Because these contributory storm sewers contain the most contaminated first flush storm flows, and because the proposed culvert/outfall would not carry these contaminated waters, stormwater flows conveyed in the new culvert/outfall should have comparatively low concentrations of pollutants. Various water resources related permits would be required to construct and operate the new storm sewer. The Industrial Facility Stormwater Discharge Permit, from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), would be necessary to discharge stormwater to the South Platte River. RTD currently holds an MS4 permit through CDPHE, and the proposed culvert/outfall would add another facility to this permit. Other permits would include: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Activities Stormwater Discharge Permit, City and County of Denver and CDPHE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Floodplain Development Permit, City and County of Denver Revocable Street Occupancy Permit, City and County of Denver Sewer Use and Drainage Permit, City and County of Denver Groundwater Discharge Permit, CDPHE Temporary impacts due to construction of the culvert/outfall would include possible erosion impacts from exposed soils and construction staging areas. In addition, construction will occur in the South Platte River for installation of the outlet and energy dissipation structure. These impacts will consist of temporary sediment discharges to the River. Based on the current the alignment and profile, groundwater may be encountered near the South Platte River and dewatering of the construction trench may be necessary for portions of the new culvert/outfall. In cases where groundwater is not contaminated, it can be discharged to a local storm sewer after obtaining a NPDES groundwater discharge permit through CDPHE. If the groundwater were contaminated, it would need to be treated before it is discharged. Additional temporary water quality impacts would also be associated with spills and leaks from construction equipment (temporary) and permanent (operational) phases of the CRMF and commuter rail project.

178 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 15 of 34 Runoff would be collected and routed through a stormwater detention facility on-site that includes accepted Best Management Practices for treatment of stormwater before it is discharged into the new culvert/outfall. The major storm flows from the City and County of Denver conveyed in the new culvert/outfall would only be those in excess of the capacities of the existing storm sewer systems. All work would be performed according to the requirements of the NPDES Construction Activities Permit, which include development and implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan by the contractor. Once construction is complete, exposed soils would be revegetated or otherwise stabilized, and no further impacts should occur. A NPDES construction activities permit and RTD s MS4 permit would be obtained. These permits require the permit holders to have spill prevention plans. The purpose of a spill prevention plan is to have operational processes for handling fuels and other volatile substances, first to prevent spills and, second, for providing containment and clean-up should a spill occur. Indirect Impact The construction of the new storm sewer would not change the runoff characteristics of the land use in the project area and would therefore have no indirect effects. Mitigations Storm water runoff is highly regulated during construction and operation. With the acquisition of appropriate permits, no additional mitigation is required. 1.6 CRMF DRISCOLL ANALYSIS This section of the addendum memo provides additional analysis for the entire CRMF site, as opposed to focusing on the culvert/outfall. At the request of RTD, the team conducted FHWA Driscoll Model analysis to estimate potential water quality issues, based primarily on the amount of impervious surface at the proposed CRMF site. Methodology, analysis, and results are presented below. Additional calculations are provided in Appendix E Methodology Surface Water For the CRMF site, the FHWA Driscoll Model was used to estimate potential water quality impacts from copper and zinc, two vehicle related constituents in roadway runoff that are indicative of other pollutants associated with roadways. The Driscoll Model is an empirical probabilistic dilution computer model used to estimate the impact that highway runoff has on a receiving water body. Site-specific information is entered into the model, following the procedure, and the model computes the magnitude and frequency of concentrations of a particular constituent for the receiving water body. The model compares the once- inthree-year concentration to the acute toxicity value defined by the EPA for that constituent. The comparison indicates whether a water quality problem is likely (FHWA 1990). For this analysis, the annual mass loadings of the existing and proposed conditions are calculated and compared, and a percent increase is estimated. This percent increase is used to provide guidance in selecting and sizing appropriate BMPs for mitigation of the estimated increases in pollutant loadings. It

179 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 16 of 34 should be noted that the model is generally limited for use with drainage basins of 1 to 2 square miles or greater, and the CRMF is located in the lower part of the Montclair basin which is 9 square miles in area. Potential water quality impacts resulting from the proposed CRMF site were estimated from the conceptual layout. There is a general correlation between the amount of new impervious area and impacts to receiving water quality due to increased runoff, and the proposed site has less overall impervious area than the existing site. Design Basis/References/Assumptions The models were based on procedures described in the document Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Stormwater Runoff by Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center of McLean Virginia. The methods and parameter values for the model were taken directly from the guidance documents. See attached model inputs, as well as supporting reference tables and figures (Appendix E). MQS = 230 cfs (from the North Metro RTD Driscoll Model). The contributing drainage basin is the Montclair Basin from the CCD Master Storm Drainage Master Plan. The project ROW area was estimated from project design CAD file, as well as the impervious areas (or area of highway ). Pavement, building rooftops, and future rail locations with asphalt or concrete cap with a ballast cover are considered impervious. The existing and future conditions are urban. Rainfall is from Table 2 of the guidance document. Assume a median site (50% of sites having a median EMC less than indicated concentration.) CVQS for arid areas = 2.0 Receiving water Total Hardness (Figure 5) = 120 mg/l Analysis Results of the analysis are listed in the following Table. Table CRMF Driscoll Model Results Site CRMF Receiving Stream S. Platte Approximate Annual Mass Load of copper from Runoff to Receiving Stream Existing 0.01 (pounds/year) Future* 0.0 Approx. Percent Change -100% Approximate Annual Mass Load of zinc from Runoff to Receiving Stream Existing 0.04 (pounds/year) Future* 0.02 Approx. Percent Change -50% *The future condition is the preferred proposed alternative without BMPs in place. Mitigations As shown above, the total loads are decreased in the future condition due to a decrease in overall imperviousness of the site due to removal of the TOFC yard and construction of the CRMF. Further, there will also be attenuation in the ballast areas and treatment from structural BMPs that are not reflected

180 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 17 of 34 in the Driscoll model. Water quality BMPs proposed for this site will be designed according to Volume 3 of the USDCM. 1.7 WETLANDS Affected Environment No wetlands are present along the proposed project area. The majority of the project area is paved and the remainder is grassy park bordering the South Platte River where the facility would be located. A steep slope covered with staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) borders the river. No wetland vegetation exists within the proposed project area Impacts No Action Alternative No direct or indirect impact to any wetlands would result from the No Action Alternative CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative No direct, indirect, construction or operation impacts to any wetlands would result from the CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative. Direct impacts to the South Platte River bank and bed would occur due to installation of a discharge pipe and the energy dissipation structure consisting of a headwall, wingwalls, a concrete apron with baffle blocks or end sill, and the installation of riprap into the river. Approximately 0.03 acres of stream bottom will be impacted by placement of the outfall and energy dissipation riprap. The headwall would be placed where the existing grade intercepts the top of the culvert/outfall and would be located on the bank of the river, but not in the river itself. The end sill would be constructed more or less at the edge of the normal water surface in the river, with riprap protection extending into the river. Direct, permanent impacts to the South Platte River below the level of the Ordinary High Water Mark are expected to be less than 0.03 acres. Construction impacts could include increased turbidity and displacement of benthic communities, but these would be short term and minor. There should be no long-term adverse impacts to water quality, or to flora or fauna living in the river. Best Management Practices would be implemented during all phases of construction to address sedimentation and erosion, including the use of berms, brush barriers, check dams, erosion control blankets, filter strips, sandbag barriers, sediment basins, silt fences, straw-bale barriers, surface roughening, and/or diversion channels.

181 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 18 of Mitigation Impact Loss of channel sinuosity due to the placement of dredged or fill material Erosion resulting in sedimentation into the South Platte Contamination of other water features Table Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Impact Type CRMF Culvert/Outfall Alternative Construction Replacement per USACE requirements, if applicable. Construction When practicable, construction in waterways will be performed during low-flow or dry periods. Flowing water will be diverted around active construction areas. No fill material will be stored in other water features. No un-permitted discharges will be allowed. Construction and Operation There will be no equipment staging, storage of materials, use of chemicals (such as soil stabilizers, dust inhibitors, and fertilizers), or equipment refueling within 50 feet of other water features. 1.8 PARKS & OPEN SPACE Affected Environment Globeville Landing Park, owned and managed by the City and County of Denver, is located on the northeast corner of Washington Street (38th Street) and Arkins Court. Park features include a bicycle and pedestrian trail, part of the South Platte River Trail, fishing, picnic tables, a plaza and disc golf holes. The park is approximately 8.44 acres. No other park or open space facilities are located within the study area Impacts No Action Alternative Direct Impacts The No Action Alternative would not result in any direct impacts on any park or open space facilities. Indirect Impacts The No Action Alternative would not result in any indirect impacts on any park or open space facilities. CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Direct Impacts The Preferred Alternative would result in direct impacts on Globeville Landing Park; however, those impacts are on a temporary basis. The construction of the culvert/outfall would temporarily impact an area of approximately 0.58 acres and require a permanent drainage easement within Globeville Landing Park. The area that would be impacted is a grassy area. This area is utilized for active recreation, including one or two disc golf holes. Figure provides a graphic representation of the park and

182 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 19 of 34 impact area. During construction, this part of the park, including the one or two disc golf holes, would be closed for a period of approximately 20 working days. FIGURE1.8-1 Globeville Landing Park Indirect Impacts The Preferred Alternative would not result in any indirect impacts on any park or open space facilities. Mitigations Table Proposed Mitigation Measures Impact Temporary construction within Globeville Landing Park. Mitigation Measures Impact Type CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Construction RTD will provide advanced notice and signage of construction. RTD will provide signage during construction activities. RTD will relocate impacted (one to two) disc golf holes during construction activities. RTD will restore the park and features to their original condition after construction

183 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 20 of 34 activities. 1.9 SECTION 4(F)/6(F) Historic Resource One historic resource, the National Western Complex Historic District would be used as a result of the culvert/outfall project (Table 1.9-1). Table Summary of the Section 4(f) Historic Resource Smithsonian Site # 5DV10050 National Western Complex Historic District Source: CRMF Team Name Location NRHP Eligibility Criteria 4600 Humboldt Street Criterion A and C Section 106 Effect Finding No Adverse Effect Section 4(f) Use De minimis Resource Description The proposed alignment of the outfall will cross through a portion of the National Western Complex Historic District (5DV10050) (Figure 1.9-1). The district contains 47 buildings and features, including ten contributing buildings. The boundaries for this district run from the Denver Coliseum to south of I-70, north until the intersection of of 52nd Street and Race Court, and extending east to west from Humboldt Street (on the southerly portion and Brighton Boulevard on the northerly portion) to the South Platte River (Figure 1.9-1).

184 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 21 of 34 FIGURE1.9-1 National Western Complex Historic District Eligibility Determination The district has been determined eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO under Criterion A for its relation to commerce, economics and social history and under Criterion C for the diversity of building types and styles contained therein. The proposed alignment will pass within the district just to the south of the Denver Coliseum (5DV9282), which has been determined to be a contributing element to the district. The alignment crosses a substantial portion of the parking lot associated with the National Western Complex Historic District. The parking lot is not considered a contributing element of the district and has been subjected to modern disturbance such as erection of chain link fences subdividing it into sections and repaving. Because the outfall would be buried, it would have no permanent impacts upon the National Western Complex Historic District. Furthermore, construction of the outfall would be scheduled so as to not interfere with the events at the Denver Coliseum and National Western Complex. For these reasons, the Section 106 analysis concluded that the project would result in no adverse effect on this resource. Section 4(f) Use The Preferred Alternative would result in direct impacts on the National Western Complex Historic District. The construction of the culvert/outfall would temporarily impact an area of approximately 1.40 acres and require a permanent drainage easement within a parking lot of the National Western Complex Historic District (Figure 1.9-1), resulting in a direct use of this Section 4(f) resource. It is recommended that this use be considered de minimis since the use would not result in a change of functionality for the

185 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 22 of 34 remainder of the historic resource. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has an opportunity to comment, and the SHPO provides written concurrence with the no adverse effect determination under Section Park and Recreational Resources One park facility was identified during the Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) analysis: Globeville Landing Park (Table 1.9-2). Based on information obtained from the Colorado State Parks website and communications directly with Colorado State Parks, Globeville Landing Park was not acquired or renovated with Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) and therefore is not a Section 6(f) resource. Table Summary of the Section 4(f) Park Resource Resource Location Amenities Official With Jurisdiction Northeast corner of City and County of Washington Street Denver and Arkins Court Globeville Landing Park Source: CRMF Team. Bicycle and pedestrian trail (part of the South Platte River Trail), fishing, picnic tables, a plaza and disc golf Section 4(f) Use Direct Use Globeville Landing Park Resource Description Globeville Landing Park, owned and managed by the City and County of Denver, is located on the northeast corner of Washington Street (38th Street) and Arkins Court (Table and Figure 1.9-2). Park features include a bicycle and pedestrian trail, part of the South Platte River Trail, fishing, picnic tables, a plaza and disc golf. Table Description of Globeville Landing Park Location Northeast corner of Washington Street and Arkins Court, Denver, Colorado Size 8.44 acres Type Community park Access Automobile via Arkins Court or bicycle/pedestrian via the South Platte River Trail Facilities/Amenities Trail, fishing, picnic tables, plaza, and disc golf Usage/patronage Public, annual patronage unknown Relationship to other Access to the South Platte River Trail resources Ownership/Jurisdiction City and County of Denver Significance Neighborhood park Source: City and County of Denver, 2008a. CRMF Team, 2008

186 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 23 of 34 FIGURE Globeville Landing Park Section 4(f) Use The Preferred Alternative would result in direct impacts on Globeville Landing Park. The construction of the culvert/outfall would temporarily impact an area of approximately 0.58 acre and require a permanent drainage easement within Globeville Landing Park (Figure 1.9-2), resulting in a direct use of the resource. The area that would be impacted is a grassy area and is utilized for active recreation, including one or two disc golf holes. During construction, this part of the park, including the one or two disc golf holes, would be closed for a period of approximately 20 working days. At the conclusion of construction activities the park would be returned to its current condition Avoidance Alternatives Corridor-Wide Avoidance Alternatives A total of four design options and the No Action Alternative were evaluated for the culvert/outfall location. Three options were dismissed because they are not prudent and feasible, as discussed below. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative does not include the CRMF. This does not meet the purpose and need of the project; therefore, this is not a prudent and feasible alternative.

187 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 24 of 34 Design Option 1: Parallel to the existing 120 outfall (along 40th Street under the Pepsi Building to the South Platte River) This option would require a new tunnel for the culvert/outfall next to an existing 120 outfall along 40th Street, under the Pepsi Building. The outfall/culvert would then run through an existing open channel, which would need to be widened through Globeville Landing Park and under the South Platte River Trail before discharging into the South Platte River. This design option is not considered prudent and feasible based on the following reasons: This design option would involve extraordinary operational problems since part of the outfall/culvert would be located beneath a building, limiting maintenance access. The risk associated with constructing the outfall beneath the building would result in extraordinary safety problems because tunneling would be required. Installing the culvert/outfall underneath the Pepsi Building would result in costs of extraordinary magnitude, including between 30% and 40% additional costs due to the risk of tunneling. The culvert/outfall would impact Globeville Landing Park and the South Platte River Trail, two Section 4(f) resources, resulting in additional impacts. During construction of the culvert/outfall in 40th Street, the only access to the parking lot for the commercial property on the east side of 40th Street and south of Brighton Boulevard would be temporarily closed, resulting in severe adverse economic impacts on this business. The individual factors discussed above, and the accumulation of these factors has adverse impacts that present unique problems; therefore, this alternative is not prudent and feasible. Design Option 2: Diagonally from 40 th Street under the tracks and future pnr site to 38 th Street and Wynkoop Street, then down 38 th Street to the South Platte River. This option would run diagonally from 40th Street under the railroad tracks and future pnr site to 38th Street and Wynkoop Street. The culvert/outfall would then follow 38th Street northwest to the South Platte River. This option would be the shortest and would be located within proposed RTD and existing City and County of Denver right-of-way. This design option is not considered prudent and feasible based on the following reasons: Constructing the culvert/outfall in 38th Street would require the reconstruction of approximately 1,700 feet of 38th Street. This would cost approximately 50% more then the Preferred Design Option, a cost of extraordinary magnitude. Construction of the culvert/outfall in 38th Street would require a temporary closure of 38th Street for four to four and a half months. This would result in extraordinary community disruption as 38th Street is a major arterial and traffic would be detoured onto adjacent streets, causing severe impacts to local businesses. The individual factors discussed above, and the accumulation of these factors has adverse impacts that present unique problems; therefore, this alternative is not prudent and feasible.

188 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 25 of 34 Design Option 3: Open channel for the preferred design option The project team evaluated an open channel following the same alignment as the preferred design option. The benefit of an open channel is that it would be less expensive to construction; however, it results in additional impacts to Section 4(f) resources, as compared to the Preferred Design Option. The Denver Coliseum, part of the National Western Complex Historic District, would permanently lose parking and the parking lot would be divided by the culvert/outfall. This would result in permanent adverse impacts to the National Western Complex Historic District property, creating additional Section 4(f) impacts. The northern portion of the Globeville Landing Park would be disconnected from the remaining portion of the park as a result of this alternative. This would create a permanent adverse impact to this Section 4(f) resource, likely making the northern portion of the park unusable and directly impacting the disc golf course, an attribute of the park. The open channel would need to be built to go over the sanitary sewer mains, which would result in a 15 to 20 drop into the South Platte River, a major hydraulic structure. Ongoing maintenance would be costly as a result of the open channel and additional maintenance would be required at the outfall to the South Platte River. Resource-Specific Avoidance Alternatives Park Resource Globeville Landing Park Design option 2 was developed to avoid this Section 4(f) resource. As discussed above, this design option was determined to not be prudent and feasible and therefore was screened out. Shifting the design option to the south would not avoid the park, and would also impact the South Platte River Trail, another Section 4(f) resource. Shifting the alignment north is not feasible and prudent because it would intersect the National Western Complex Historic District, another Section 4(f) resource. To avoid the National Western Complex Historic District a 1.3 mile culvert/outfall would be required following Brighton Boulevard to Race Court to the South Platte River. This alignment would be approximately 2.3 times longer then the Preferred Design Option. This would result in a cost at least 2.3 times more then the Preferred Design Option, a cost of extraordinary magnitude; therefore this is not a feasible and prudent alternative Measures to Minimize Harm Historic Resource National Western Complex Historic District (5DV10050) Table shows the mitigation measures that will be taken to minimize impacts on this resource. Additional mitigation for this resource will be developed through consultation with SHPO, the official with jurisdiction.

189 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 26 of 34 Table Proposed Mitigation Measures Impact Temporary construction within the National Western Complex Historic District Mitigation Measures Impact Type CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Construction Monitoring during excavation. Park Resource Globeville Landing Park Table shows the mitigation measures that will be taken to minimize impacts on this resource. Additional mitigation for the resource will be developed through consultation with the City and County of Denver, the official with jurisdiction. Table Proposed Mitigation Measures Impact Temporary construction within Globeville Landing Park. Mitigation Measures Impact Type CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Construction RTD will provide advanced notice and signage of construction. RTD will provide signage during construction activities. RTD will relocate impacted (one to two) disc golf holes during construction activities. RTD will restore the park and features to their original condition after construction activities Least-Harm Analysis Since this analysis only includes a Preferred Design Option and no alternate options, there are no alternatives to compare and therefore a least harm analysis was not completed TRAFFIC Affected Environment The proposed alignment of the culvert/outfall is in the vicinity of Brighton Blvd. and 43 rd Street. Just east of the CRMF area, 43 rd Street is about feet long, with one lane in each direction. It is a local street that provides access for a small number of businesses to Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. is a 4-lane arterial street that connects directly to Broadway about 2 miles south of the CRMF vicinity, and to I-70 about one half mile north of the CRMF vicinity. Brighton Blvd. is heavily traveled by local commercial traffic and commuters to local businesses and downtown Denver. Brighton Blvd. carries about 16-18,000 vehicles per day at this location. The alignment also crosses the parking lot of the Denver Coliseum.

190 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 27 of Impacts No Action Alternative Direct Impacts There would be no direct traffic impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Indirect Impacts There would be no indirect traffic impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative The culvert/outfall would temporary impact transportation during its construction. Once construction is complete, no traffic impacts would remain. Direct Impacts Brighton Blvd. is likely to carry the majority of the construction traffic, with most of that using Brighton Blvd. north of the construction area to get to and from I-70. Non-project Brighton Blvd. traffic is not expected to experience significant delay as a result of construction traffic, as most construction activities involving construction vehicles are likely to occur outside the peak traffic hours (4-6 p.m.). When the culvert/outfall is being constructed under Brighton Blvd., traffic is expected to be reduced to one lane in each direction for up to a month. The volume carried by Brighton Blvd. today is outside the reasonable capacity of a 2-lane street, so this lane reduction is expected to result in some delays for Brighton Blvd. traffic, especially during the morning and evening peak hours. There would be transportation impacts during construction to 43rd Street, which exhibits very low volumes but provides business access east of Brighton Blvd. 43rd Street serves a very small number of properties and those properties have alternate access (40th Street via Wynkoop to the south, 44th Street to the north). The proposed alignment crosses the Denver Coliseum parking lot. Construction would result in temporary disruption to typical traffic flow across the parking lot. Given the development of construction in stages, access for vehicles across the parking lot would be maintained throughout construction. As one stage is completed it would be resurfaced to allow parking and drive aisle access. It is estimated that up to 20 parking spaces may be removed from use during each stage of construction across the parking lot. However, given the volume of parking available, this would not be an impact. Indirect Impacts During the construction period, some non-project traffic that uses Brighton Blvd. in this area could divert to Washington Street via 38th Street or to York/Josephine Streets to avoid short-term delay caused by the temporary lane reduction. Both of these alternate routes are expected to be able to handle some additional traffic, with the possible exception of the 40th/Josephine intersection, which often experiences unacceptable peak hour delays today.

191 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 28 of 34 Mitigations Impact Temporary traffic and parking impacts associated with construction traffic, lane closures on Brighton Blvd., and temporary closure of 43 rd Street. Table Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Impact Type CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Construction RTD will include mitigations for these impacts in the traffic/parking control plans as part of the CRMF Construction Management Plan CULTURAL RESOURCES The information presented in this section is preliminary, based on currently available information. Cultural resource surveys and field work, consistent with Section 106, will be conducted in January, This section will be updated` upon completion of the field work and analysis. Given the proposed path of the CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative, no direct impacts are anticipated to historic resources. No property acquisitions or structures would be required to implement this alternative. However, historic impacts and affects will be formally documented in January, It is unknown at this time if archeological resources would be impacted during construction excavation. Future field work will document the potential impacts and affects of archeological resources in January, This analysis will also propose formal protocols for monitoring and addressing any archeological findings during construction Affected Environment The proposed alignment of the outfall will cross through a portion of the National Western Complex Historic District (5DV10050). The district contains 47 buildings and features, including ten contributing buildings. The boundaries for this district run from the Denver Coliseum to south of I-70, north until the intersection of of 52nd Street and Race Court, and extending east to west from Humboldt Street (on the southerly portion and Brighton Boulevard on the northerly portion) to the South Platte River. The district has been determined eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO under Criterion A for its relation to commerce, economics and social history and under Criterion C for the diversity of building types and styles contained therein Impacts No Action Alternative Direct Impacts There would be no direct traffic impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Indirect Impacts

192 Drainage Culvert/Outfall Technical Memorandum Addendum December 28, 2007 (Revised March 11, 2009) Page 29 of 34 There would be no indirect traffic impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative. Direct Impacts The proposed alignment will pass within the district just to the south of the Denver Coliseum (5DV9282), which has been determined to be a contributing element to the district. The alignment also crosses a substantial portion of the parking lot that surrounds the Denver Coliseum. The parking lot is not considered a contributing element of the district and has been subjected to modern disturbance such as erection of chain link fences subdividing it into sections and repaving. Because the outfall would be buried, it would have no permanent impacts upon the Denver Coliseum. Furthermore, construction of the outfall would be scheduled so as to not interfere with the events at the Denver Coliseum and National Western Complex. For these reasons, it is recommended that the construction of the outfall through the National Western Complex Historic District would have no adverse effect upon this property. Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts to cultural resources would result from implementation of the CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative. Mitigations Table Proposed Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Type Mitigation Measures CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Specific mitigations will be developed pending completion of the January, 2008 field work and analysis.

193 Attachment A CRMF Drainage Culvert/Outfall Alternative Area 1560 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO Phone: Fax: