I-70/East Eagle Interchange

Transcription

1

2

3 I-70/East Eagle Interchange Finding of No Significant Impact Prepared for: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Colorado Department of Transportation Prepared by: Town of Eagle, Colorado

4

5 Acronyms and Abbreviations AASHTO BMPs CDOT CDPHE EA EACP ECO Trails EPA ERS FHWA FONSI IAR IGA LOS MUTCD NEPA TOE UPRR USACE American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Best Management Practices Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Environmental Assessment Eagle Area Community Plan Eagle County Trails Environmental Protection Agency Eagle River Station Federal Highway Administration Finding of No Significant Impact Interstate Access Request Intergovernmental Agreement Level of Service Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices National Environmental Policy Act Town of Eagle Union Pacific Railroad U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

6

7 Table of Contents Page No. Chapter 1.0 Project Description Background Clarification of Project Approval Roles, Processes and Funding Purpose and Need Preferred Alternative Traffic Operations Stormwater Management Bridge Structures Retaining Walls Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Estimate of Probable Costs Permits/Approvals Project Funding and Implementation Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Chapter 2.0 EA Comments and Responses Common Concerns and Responses Individual Comments with Responses Chapter 3.0 Clarifications to the EA Chapter 4.0 Selection of Preferred Alternative Chapter 5.0 Finding of No Significant Impact Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Involvement Information Section 4(f) and De Minimis Finding Conceptual Layout Plan View TOC-i

8 List of Figures Page No. Figure 1-1 Project Location Map Figure 1-2 Preferred Alternative Figure 1-3 Proposed I-70 Interchange Bridges (Conceptual) List of Tables Page No. Table 1-1 Retaining Walls Table 1-2 Conceptual Level Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Preferred Alternative (2006 Dollars) TOC-ii

9 Chapter 1.0 Project Description 1.1 Background The Town of Eagle has determined in various studies over the past 10 years that a need exists to improve transportation in and around the Town of Eagle and especially in East Eagle. As development has grown in the area, traffic volumes have increased on all major roads in the Town of Eagle and especially on those with a connection between US Highway 6 (US 6) and Interstate 70 (I-70). Figure 1-1 shows the major roadway network in the general project vicinity. Figure 1-1 Project Location Map In September 2010, the East Eagle/I-70 Interchange Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed and signed. The EA and this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and with other applicable environmental laws, Executive Orders, and related requirements. As required by NEPA, an environmental analysis was conducted and all potential impacts associated with the proposed action were documented and mitigation measures identified. No significant impacts to the environment were identified during the course of this study. CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1

10 The analysis performed in the EA revealed that there are a limited number of resources that would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Preferred Alternative are fully discussed in Chapter 3.0 of the EA. A summary of mitigation for the Preferred Alternative is included as Appendix A of this FONSI. Appendix C includes the Section 4(f) De Minimis Finding for the project. 1.2 Clarification of Project Approval Roles, Processes and Funding The process for approval of this new interchange includes compliance with CDOT s Policy Directive 1601 and FHWA s Interstate Access Request (IAR). Final approval for new interchanges on the interstate system lies with FHWA. Clarification on the IAR process, local land use and transportation planning processes and funding of the proposed interchange is outlined below. 1. The Town of Eagle recently (in the summer of 2010) approved a land use plan known as the Eagle Area Community Plan. This plan, adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, identifies the East Eagle area as an area to receive future development. The plan also includes a transportation component which specifically identified the need for a new interchange connecting I-70 and US 6 east of the current Eagle Interchange. 2. The regional transportation planning process is initiated by the CDOT to select and prioritize projects for the CDOT region. This process is a requirement of federal legislation. The Intermountain 2035 Regional Transportation Plan was adopted by the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region (IMTPR) in January 2008 and includes the I-70/East Eagle Interchange. In addition, the regional transportation planning process identifies shorter term projects in the 6 year Statewide Transportation Improvement program (STIP). This interchange is included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program as a 100 percent locally funded project. 3. The Town of Eagle (TOE) is proposing a new interchange east of the existing Eagle interchange. The Town has submitted technical information to meet the requirements of CDOT's Policy Directive 1601 and FHWA's IAR. Land use decisions related to planning and zoning are made by the Town of Eagle, as described in Point 1 above. CDOT and FHWA do not make local land use decisions. The Town of Eagle is applying to CDOT and FHWA for permission to connect their proposed local connector road to the interstate. New accesses on the interstate require FHWA approval, and this federal action requires that NEPA and all other federal laws and regulations are followed. FHWA is the lead federal agency for the EA and the FONSI process to assure compliance with NEPA. CDOT and FHWA are also responsible for ensuring that the proposed 1-2 CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

11 project is included in the Long Range Plan and STIP. If it is included in the plan and STIP (which this interchange is) then FHWA evaluates the project to determine that it is operationally acceptable, i.e., it won't have a negative impact to the interstate. The interstate is owned and maintained by CDOT and CDOT s Policy Directive 1601 process has to be followed to approve any interstate access changes. 4. The FHWA determination of engineering and operational acceptability for the I-70/East Eagle Interchange was issued on January 28, This determination is subject to an eight-year limitation. 5. The Town of Eagle is responsible for all costs associated with the development, administration and evaluation of the proposal for the new interchange. Design and construction of this project will be 100 percent locally funded. 6. Once the Town of Eagle secures funding for the proposed interchange, a final construction and maintenance Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will be prepared and submitted to the Chief Engineer of CDOT for approval. Upon completion and approval of the Final IGA, CDOT will issue a CDOT state highway access permit. The Final IGA and the access permit will serve as the enforcement document to ensure all parties abide by the items agreed upon within the IGA. 1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of these transportation improvements is to improve roadway connectivity in the East Eagle area to accommodate anticipated growth and development. This need is an important component of the 2002 Eagle Transportation Plan and the Intermountain 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (January 2008). The primary needs to be met by these transportation improvements are: Relieve existing and future congestion along Eby Creek Road, at the two ramps with I-70, at Chambers Avenue, and at US 6. Improve East Eagle local system connectivity between I-70 and US 6. Support plans for future development in the East Eagle area. Address current safety problems along Eby Creek Road by reducing overall traffic congestion and providing a second connection between I-70 and US 6 that is built to modern design standards. CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-3

12 1.4 Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative (Alternative A-1) provides a full diamond interchange at I-70 with the connector road to US 6 passing under I-70. A conceptual layout of the Preferred Alternative is located in Appendix D. Two new bridge structures would be constructed on I-70 to carry I-70 over the connector road. The existing 14-foot by 14-foot concrete box culvert that is used for access to land parcels on the north and south side of I-70 would be extended to accommodate the westbound on-ramp and the eastbound off-ramp. The existing size of the culvert would be matched in the extension. There would be no access to the north of I-70 from the interchange. The connector road would head south from I-70 toward US 6 with an at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The connector road would be a local road owned and maintained by the Town of Eagle. The connector road will have three 12-foot lanes (two southbound, one northbound) within the interchange; four 12-foot lanes (two each direction) between the southerly ramp roundabout and the local connector road roundabout; and two 12-foot lanes (one each direction) between the local connector road roundabout and the US 6 roundabout. There is currently no revenue train activity on the UPRR line through the study area, and the number of trains does not warrant a grade separation. (There is an occasional train that uses these tracks for maintenance purposes.) A revenue train is train service provided to a freight rail customer, for which the rail operator receives revenue. The UPRR has indicated a desire to resume train service along this portion of their line in the future, but no exact plans are available at this time. If service is resumed in the future, it is anticipated that the volume of train traffic will remain well below the level that would warrant a grade separation. However, in case a grade separation is warranted in the future, the Preferred Alternative would be designed to not preclude this possibility. With the relatively short distance between the UPRR and US 6 (100 feet), a slight shift (50 feet) in the US 6 alignment is anticipated to accommodate the roundabout. Additionally, there would be roundabouts at the on- and off-ramps where they intersect with the connector road on the north and south side of I-70, and a roundabout where the connector road would intersect with the Town's proposed extension of Chambers Avenue. This configuration would require a maximum grade along the connector road of six percent. Application has been made to CDOT for the connector road access point to US 6, which is required by the State Highway Access Code. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission has approved the Town s Public Crossing Permit for an at-grade roadway crossing of the railroad. The Preferred Alternative assumes that the existing 14-foot by 14-foot access culvert would be maintained and the existing size extended to continue its use for drainage and access purposes. This culvert is currently maintained by CDOT and would continue to be so. This existing concrete box culvert was placed when I-70 was constructed to 1-4 CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

13 provide access to parcels of private property north and south of I-70 right-of-way as well as drainage. The extension of the box culvert is for the purpose of maintaining this access to remaining portions of private property north of the proposed interchange. Fencing would be continued similar to the existing situation along the north side of I-70. Fencing would be constructed along the east side of the connector road from I-70 to the railroad initially. If a local access road is added to the east, there would be a fence break for this road. Preliminary layouts of this alternative indicate all desirable highway and local roadway design standards and criteria can be met (see Figure 1-2). Conceptual plan, profile, and typical section sheets for the Preferred Alternative are included in Appendix D of the EA Figure 1-2 Preferred Alternative Note: The proposed local access road shown on this figure is a part of the No Action Alternative. CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-5

14 1.4.1 Traffic Operations The Preferred Alternative was developed to provide a safe and efficient connection between I-70 and US 6 with minimal congestion. These goals would be accomplished using the following facilities and practices. Traffic Control at Intersections Roundabouts are proposed on the connector road at the following locations to provide safe and effective traffic control: I-70 Interchange north side ramp termini I-70 Interchange south side ramp termini Connector road/us 6 intersection Connector road/local access road intersection Due to the large proportion of retail development anticipated to be in or near the study area by 2030, traffic volumes at the new interchange will be somewhat higher during the evening peak hour than the morning peak hour. The roundabouts will operate at level of service (LOS) A during both peak hours in Traffic Control at Railroad Crossing Railroad crossing protection and vehicle queue management would occur in phases triggered by combinations of rail and vehicular traffic. Phase I for the currently inactive rail line would be implemented with the initial connector road construction and improvements on US 6. The connector road roundabout on US 6 would be constructed to allow for two-lane eastbound operations (one through lane and one left-turn lane). The eastbound approach would be two lanes with adequate storage to accommodate left-turning queues predicted from a fourminute freight train blocking the connector road/uprr crossing during off-peak periods (600 feet of storage for the east roundabout and 400 feet of storage for the west roundabout). The southbound approach to the US 6 roundabout would be designed to accommodate a WB-67 vehicle between the splitter island and the railroad tracks. A WB-67 vehicle is an Interstate Semitrailer (WB67 US Customary or WB-20 Metric) generally used as the minimum size design vehicle on state highways per the AASHTO Greenbook. Overall length of a WB-67 vehicle is 73.5 feet, with a width of 8.5 feet, height of 13.5 feet, with a trailer length of 53 feet, and a minimum design turning radius of 45 feet. The southbound approach would be constructed with sufficient width to allow a vehicle caught on the tracks to maneuver around a queued vehicle at the southbound yield line of the US 6 roundabout. The westbound approach to the US 6 roundabout would be constructed with a 200-foot-long right-turn lane to provide space for queued 1-6 CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

15 right-turning vehicles. Crossbuck (warning) signs and striping would be placed at approaches to the tracks, in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requirements. Conduit would also be installed for signal and messaging technology for Phases III and IV. See the design details on the plan sheets in Appendix D of the EA. Phase II would be implemented with activation of the rail line as defined by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulations and would include installation of automatic bells, lights, and gates at the local access road extension and connector road railroad crossings. Signing to prohibit vehicles from stopping on the tracks would also be installed. The UPRR would be obligated (per license agreement between the UPRR and the Town of Eagle) to notify the Town of Eagle when the rail line is activated and would install the crossing equipment prior to activation. The Town of Eagle would be responsible for the cost. Phase III would be implemented when the connector road crossing is blocked by rail movements for an average of 10 minutes per day during weekday peak periods (6:30 to 8:30 AM and 4:30 to 6:30 PM) during a 90-day period. This phase would include installation of traffic signals on the eastbound approach to the US 6 roundabout and the southbound approach to the connector road roundabout located north of the railroad. The signals will only be active when a train is passing. The purpose of these signals is to prevent vehicles from entering the roundabouts that would then be queued at the railroad crossing and thus lock up the roundabout. Phase IV would be implemented when the connector road crossing is blocked by rail movements for an average of 30 minutes per day during weekday peak periods during a 90-day period. This phase would include installation of message board signs at strategic locations (I-70 ramps, US 6 west of Eby Creek Road) that would be triggered by a rail movement and advise motorists to take alternate routes to avoid the connector road rail crossing. Phase V would be implemented when the crossing exposure (product of daily vehicle traffic and number of trains; as defined in FHWA s Guidance on Traffic Control Devises at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, November 2002) exceeds 250,000 on average on the connector roadway during a 90-day period. This phase would include the construction of a grade separation (underpass) of the connector roadway across the railroad. Vehicular traffic and train movement data for Phase III through Phase V would be measured along the connector road at the railroad crossing. The Town of Eagle will CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-7

16 gather and monitor the data and be responsible for implementation of Phases III through V. The Town will notify CDOT and FHWA of the monitoring results. See Appendix B of the EA for the letter describing the Town's commitment. Access Control The Preferred Alternative would provide a much higher level of local access compared to the No Action Alternative. Access control would be accomplished with an Access Control Line (A-Line) established along I-70 to incorporate the new interchange ramps and a portion of the connector road. An A-line is an Access Control Line authorizing CDOT, FHWA, and appropriate local governments to regulate, restrict or limit access to and from an interstate. Access control is an important safety measure at an interchange because it reduces the number of conflict points created by driveways and/or cross streets. As the necessary right-of-way for the Preferred Alternative is dedicated to the Town of Eagle by the current property owner and then from the Town to CDOT, CDOT will ensure, to the extent possible, that the A-Line on the north side of the interstate will be continuous without any breaks. There would be no access provided from the new interchange to the property north of I-70. The only exception is the break in the A-Line that currently exists at the existing 14-foot by 14-foot access culvert just west of the proposed new interchange. The A-Line would continue south from the interchange along both sides of the connector road to the proposed middle roundabout Stormwater Management The stormwater drainage system for the Preferred Alternative would be designed to accommodate all existing drainage systems, as well as any projected planned roadway improvements, and would include details consistent with CDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs). It is anticipated that all off-site flows currently passing through the study area would be collected north of the project and passed through the project to an outfall on the southern edge of the project and eventually into the Eagle River, as these flows have done historically. The developed flows on the project would be collected and deposited into a detention/water quality pond at a location just north of the UPRR right-of-way in the southwest quadrant of the connector road/local access road extension intersection. The proposed permanent stormwater system would meet applicable requirements of CDOT and the Town of Eagle and/or Eagle County drainage criteria. A stormwater management plan would be prepared for construction in accordance with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment requirements and would include additional temporary BMPs, such as silt fence, erosion logs, erosion bales, and inlet protection. It is also anticipated that the water quality control pond proposed adjacent to the UPRR and just west of the connector road would be built prior to construction so it would be in use during construction. 1-8 CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

17 1.4.3 Bridge Structures The new I-70 Interchange as detailed in the Preferred Alternative would require construction of two new bridges on I-70 to carry I-70 traffic over the connector road in both directions. The proposed structures would be centered over the connector road. In one concept, each would have two spans of approximately 90 feet, for a total bridge length of 180 feet. A two-span bridge could accommodate future pier locations for a future transit facility in the median of I-70. The bridge cross-sections would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes, a 10-foot outside shoulder, a 6-foot inside shoulder, and 1.5- foot barriers on each side, for a total width of 43 feet. It is anticipated that the structures would be precast concrete girder bridges. This bridge type would allow for relatively quick construction, thereby minimizing the disruption to I-70 traffic while providing a cost-effective solution. A formal Structure Type Study will be performed during the preliminary design phase to determine the most effective structure type and span configuration. The bridges would be designed and constructed in accordance with FHWA, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and CDOT requirements and specifications. During the design process, the need for possible future widening will be considered. At this time, however, since the I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS does not designate I-70 for future widening, the need for possible future widening seems remote. Figure 1-3 shows an architectural rendering of one possible concept for the proposed bridge structures. Figure 1-3 Proposed I-70 Interchange Bridges (Conceptual) CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-9

18 1.4.4 Retaining Walls The Preferred Alternative would include retaining walls at the proposed interchange. Walls are planned along the north side of the westbound off-ramp (northeast ramp) to minimize excavation into the existing slopes, as well as along the south side of the eastbound off-ramp (southwest ramp) to minimize land disturbance. The walls would have a maximum exposed height of 14 feet. Wall types being considered are mechanically stabilized earth systems and cast-in-place concrete. Table 1-1 lists the location, approximate length, minimum height, and maximum height of the proposed walls. Table 1-1 Retaining Walls Location Approximate Length (feet) Minimum Height (feet) Maximum Height (feet) NE Ramp SW Ramp Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Sidewalks and pedestrian/bicycle paths are included as part of the East Eagle Interchange project to address the desired plans for the area. These would include sidewalks, shoulders, and/or paths along the connector road and would be included during final design. Coordination with ECO (Eagle County) Trails is ongoing, and facilities would be consistent with the ECO Trails Master Plan for the area, as well as any facilities proposed in the planned development adjacent to the connector road. Facilities included in the Preferred Alternative would connect with those planned by ECO Trails. Several alternative alignments are being considered by ECO Trails for the section of the US 6 pedestrian/bicycle trail through the study area. Plans for the planned development adjacent to the proposed interchange would include sidewalks and paths that would be consistent with ECO Trails' plan(s). The Preferred Alternative would include sidewalks on both sides of the connector road to connect to the planned ECO Trail system on the north side of the railroad tracks. These details are shown on the figure in Appendix D Estimate of Probable Costs A conceptual level estimate of probable costs was developed for the Preferred Alternative based on conceptual design and layout prepared for the EA. The estimate of probable costs for the Preferred Alternative is shown in Table CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

19 Table 1-2 Conceptual Level Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Preferred Alternative (2006 Dollars) Facility Item Estimated Cost Proposed I-70 Interchange I-70 to US 6 Connector Road US 6 Connection Bridges and I-70 Traffic Control $3,500,000 Ramps and Concrete Box Culvert Extensions $5,500,000 Underpass Roadway (between ramps) $1,000,000 I-70 Interchange Total $10,000,000 Roadway (including roundabout at local access road) $2,500,000 Railroad Crossing $500,000 I-70 to US 6 connector road Total $3,000,000 Roadway Improvements $1,750,000 Intersection $1,500,000 US 6 Connection Total $3,250,000 Right-of-way Costs $3,400,000 Contingencies $3,000, Environmental mitigation for impacts is included in the above costs. 2. Pedestrian/bicycle amenities are included in the above costs. Preferred Alternative Total Rounded Cost $22,650, Permits/Approvals The following permits or coordination may be required for the Preferred Alternative and will be obtained prior to construction. FHWA interstate access approval is required. An IAR has been submitted to FHWA. This has resulted in an FHWA Letter of Engineering and Operational Acceptability. Final IAR approval may be given upon completion of the NEPA process. After the FONSI is completed, CDOT will submit a written request for FHWA IAR approval. This approval will allow CDOT to create a break in access control at I-70. Colorado Discharge Permit System permits are required. This stormwater discharge permit will be required to ensure the quality of stormwater runoff. This permit is enforced by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is required. This permit may be required for filling in wetlands and other waters of the United States located in the study area. CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-11

20 Section 402 permit issued by the CDPHE may be required. This permit will be required for dewatering of construction areas, if necessary. In Colorado, these permits are called Construction Dewatering permits. Section 401 Water Quality Certificate is required in conjunction with an Individual Section 404 Permit. The certificate must be obtained from the Water Quality Control Division of the CDPHE. Section 401 Water Quality Certifications are required prior to the issuance of federal permits and licenses to ensure that proposed projects would not violate the state's water quality standards or other aquatic resource protection requirements. Permits for storm sewer crossing as required and needed. State Access permit, issued by CDOT, is required for all requests for new or modified access to state and federal highways. Any existing accesses adversely affected by the project will be notified of the proposed changes. Construction Access permits from CDOT and the Town of Eagle for temporary access needs are required. Fugitive Dust permit may be required and is issued by CDPHE, Air Pollution Control Division. It will be required if more than 25 acres of land are impacted and/or project construction is longer than six months. Any change in the interstate access control will require FHWA approval prior to construction of the project. This includes any new or modified A-line crossings for the culvert extension. Other local permits may be required, as issued by the Town of Eagle or Eagle County, as needed, such as utility or survey permits, erosion control/grading permits, or air permits. 1.6 Project Funding and Implementation The East Eagle Interchange would be 100 percent locally funded with an anticipated source through the Eagle River Station Metropolitan District. The Eagle River Station Metropolitan District (a privately funded entity) has been established, and it is anticipated that bonds will be issued through the district to fund the interchange. Bonds would be paid back through a combination of public and private sources. Construction could start as soon as 2014, but the exact date is still uncertain as of this point in time. Although not formalized, it is anticipated that CDOT would administer the construction within the CDOT right-of-way. It would be anticipated that, upon completion, the interchange would become CDOT's responsibility and the connector road would be the Town of Eagle's responsibility. An 1-12 CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

21 IGA between CDOT and the Town of Eagle would be prepared to outline maintenance and other responsibilities. 1.7 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation These are described in detail in Chapter 3 of the EA. They are summarized in Appendix A of this FONSI. There are minor changes in the mitigation measures as described in this FONSI from those that were in the EA. CHAPTER 1.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-13

22

23 Chapter 2.0 EA Comments and Responses Following publication of the EA on September 21, 2010, the 30 day public and agency review period began, concluding on October 22, During the review period, no comments were received that required any changes to the Preferred Alternative. A public hearing was held on October 14, There were 15 attendees at the Public Hearing. One person submitted one written comment, which is noted on page 2-5 as Comment #1. Thirty-five comments from area residents were submitted during the public and agency review period. Nine of these comments express support for the Preferred Alternative and the remainder express concerns about or opposition to a new interchange at East Eagle. These are reiterated below and contained in their submitted form in Appendix B. A number of questions were asked about the role of various agencies in the interchange approval process. Section 1.2 of this document (on page 1-2) has been added to clarify roles and responsibilities. No impacts to the environment were identified in comments received that were not fully addressed in the EA. 2.1 Common Concerns and Responses Many commenters had common concerns. These questions and concerns are listed below, with comment responses provided. Common Comment A: What is the need for an East Eagle Interchange? Common Response A: The purpose of these transportation improvements is to improve roadway connectivity in the East Eagle Area to accommodate anticipated growth and development. This need is an important component of the 2002 Eagle Transportation Plan and the Intermountain 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (January 2008). The needs for an interchange in this location are described on page 1-6 of the EA, including: Relieve existing and future congestion along Eby Creek Road, at the two ramps with I-70, at Chambers Avenue, and at US 6. Improve East Eagle local system connectivity between I-70 and US 6. Support plans for future development in the East Eagle area. CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-1

24 Address current safety problems along Eby Creek Road by reducing overall traffic congestion and providing a second connection between I-70 and US 6 that is built to modern design standards. These needs exist regardless of whether or not there is a pending development near this interchange. The Town of Eagle recently adopted Resolution No. 1, which approves an updated comprehensive land use plan known as the Eagle Area Community Plan. This Plan envisions future intensive land use activity east of Eagle which will be largely commercial. The Plan also references many transportation improvements needed, including a new interchange connecting Interstate 70 and US 6 east of the current Eagle Interchange. Common Comment B: Preference for an interchange to serve the Airport (on west side of Town). Common Response B: Two different interchanges are proposed in the general Eagle area, one to the west to serve the airport and another one to the east, which is the subject of this NEPA process and discussed in the EA and FONSI. These two different interchanges respond to two different purposes and needs. Neither one has higher priority over the other. Various alternatives were considered as described in Section of the EA, on page 2-8. Locations west of the existing Eby Creek Interchange were previously evaluated in great detail in conjunction with the Eagle County Airport Interchange and Connector Road Environmental Assessment. A Preferred Alternative was identified as a part of this study, a Finding of No Significant Impact was approved, right-of-way is in the process of being acquired and preliminary design drawings have been completed. This new interchange is thus farther along in the planning and design process than an interchange in the East Eagle area and at this point is awaiting funding for construction. An interchange west of the existing Eagle Interchange does not meet the purpose and need that is defined in Chapter 1.0 of the EA. Both of these interchanges are on the Intermountain 2035 Regional Transportation Plan which indicates that both are needed. Common Comment C: The Town of Eagle should make improvements first to Eby Creek Road. Common Response C: The Town s number one transportation priority is the improvement of the Eby Creek Road corridor. A feasibility study evaluating 2-2 CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

25 potential long term improvements for this corridor has been completed and the preparation of construction plans is underway. For more information on this project, please contact Tom Gosiorowski, Town Engineer, at Common Comment D: What is the proposed funding? Common Response D: The East Eagle Interchange would be 100 percent locally funded with an anticipated source through the Eagle River Station Metropolitan District. The Eagle River Station Metropolitan District (a privately funded entity) has been established, and it is anticipated that bonds will be issued through the district to fund the interchange. Bonds would be paid back through a combination of public and private sources. Common Comment E: How will an interchange at East Eagle improve traffic congestion in Eagle? Common Response E: A full and complete description of the traffic effects of a new interchange at East Eagle is contained in the EA, pages 3-25 to These effects are also summarized in the table of Impacts and Mitigation contained in Appendix A of this FONSI. In the future year 2030, as a result of forecasted population and employment growth in the Eagle and Gypsum area, traffic conditions along Eby Creek Road in Eagle are projected to be severely congested, with Level of Service (LOS) F at most intersections. (Information describing the different levels of service and what they mean is contained in the EA, page 1-9, Figure 1-4, and Figure 1-5.) When a new interchange is added at East Eagle, traffic splits between Eby Creek Road and the new connector road between US 6 and I-70. This altered traffic pattern results in less congestion along Eby Creek Road, with future congestion projected to be LOS D or better at three of the four Eby Creek Road intersections. Expressed in another way, on Eby Creek Road in 2030, the No Action Alternative would result in 490 hours of delay in the AM peak hour and 1,445 vehicle hours of delay in the PM peak hour, compared to 205 hours of delay in the AM peak hour for the Preferred Alternative and 178 hours of delay in the PM peak hour. CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-3

26 This reduction in congestion provided by a new interchange and connector road would improve conditions for drivers, transit users, bicyclists and emergency service providers. The Preferred Alternative is expected to have LOS C or better in opening day (on all four Eby Creek Road intersections) and LOS D or better in 2030 at three of the four Eby Creek Road intersections. By 2030, the roundabout at US 6 and Eby Creek Road is projected to be congested with both the No Action and the Preferred Alternatives. A short stretch of US 6 (less than a mile) just east of the Eby Creek Road roundabout is projected to operate at LOS E during evening peak hours with the Preferred Alternative. Traffic operations would be LOS D or better during all other period of the day on US 6. Common Comment F: What is the role of the agencies involved? Common Response F: The Town of Eagle (TOE) is proposing a new interchange east of the existing Eagle interchange. Land use decisions related to planning and zoning are made by the Town of Eagle. CDOT and FHWA do not make local land use decisions. The Town of Eagle is applying to CDOT and FHWA for permission to connect their proposed local connector road to the interstate. New accesses on the interstate require FHWA approval, and this federal action requires that NEPA and all other federal laws and regulations are followed. FHWA is the lead federal agency for the EA and the FONSI process to assure compliance with NEPA. The interstate is owned and maintained by CDOT and CDOT s 1601 process has to be followed to approve any interstate access changes. For more information about TOE s request for a new access to I-70 contact Town Manager, William Powell at willy@townofeagle.org or and Town Engineer, Tom Gosiorowski at tom@townofeagle.org or Common Comment G: How does this interchange relate to the public referendum? Common Response G: The referendum vote that was held on January 5, 2010, was on the change in zoning on a piece of property in the Town, not on the East Eagle interchange. The vote on the change in zoning failed by a count of 1,019 (yes) to 1,175 (no). The referendum was held because the Town Board of Trustees in their approval of the Eagle River Station Planned Unit Development chose to have the final approval of the project submitted to a vote because they felt it was very likely that a referendum vote on the project would occur though a petition submitted by citizens of the Town and it would occur more quickly through this process. The community had endured a very lengthy public 2-4 CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

27 hearing process during the review and approval of the Eagle River Station project and the Town Board was eager to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. No vote is required for development in the Town. The Town Board is authorized to approve development applications and zoning changes on lands within their jurisdiction without a vote by the citizenry. A zoning change is not required for the interchange to be built. The need for the interchange is not dependent on development occurring in the East Eagle area. This interchange is not being planned to serve a single development and it is unlikely that a single development in and of itself would create impacts that would necessitate an additional interchange. The purpose of the interchange at East Eagle is to improve roadway connectivity in the East Eagle area to accommodate the anticipated growth and development, consistent with future development anticipated in the Town s adopted master plan the Eagle Area Community Plan. In addition, development can happen in East Eagle without an interchange at the location being discussed in this FONSI. Section 3.17 of the EA provides information about the type of development that would likely occur in the Eagle and East Eagle areas with no new interchange in this location. The role of CDOT in approval of this interchange is described in Section 1.2 of this document (on page 1-2) and in the Common Response F (page 2-4). 2.2 Individual Comments with Responses The following text presents verbatim comments received. The comments thus may include misspellings and errors in grammar. Comment 1: I support the Town s funding for the need of transportation improvements. For us personally, we are fond of the alleviation of Eby Creek traffic. This is not only an inconvenience for us, but a safety issue at peak times. Response 1: The proposed new interchange at East Eagle is anticipated to noticeably reduce vehicle hours of delay on Eby Creek Road, as illustrated on Table 3-9 on page 3-37 of the EA. It will also improve level of service by two levels (from F to D) at most of the Eby Creek Road intersections, as described on page 3-31 of the EA. These are two different ways (vehicle hours of delay and improvements to level of service) to illustrate how this project improves traffic CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-5

28 on Eby Creek Road. Level of service in this document refers to the amount of congestion on a roadway or at an intersection. Level of service A is the least congestion and level of service F is the most congestion. For further information, see page 1-9 of the EA. Comment 2A: What s the point without the big Target store development? Better to locate this interchange 3 or 4 miles west to serve Eagle Ranch and the airport. Response 2A: See Common Response A (page 2-1). Comment 2B: Or locate another hundred yards west and use it to connect Highway 6, Chambers and Rule Road. Response 2B: Similar to the Airport Interchange, an interchange on the west side of the Town of Eagle does not meet the purpose and need for this project, which is described in Chapter 1.0 of the EA and reiterated in the Common Response A (page 2-1). Comment 3A: I still am not sure how an East Eagle Interchange would do anything to improve traffic congestion in Eagle. The main bottleneck from my observations occurs because of the need for roundabouts at Chambers/Eby Creek and the I-70 exits. Response 3A: See Common Response E (page 2-3) and response to comment #1 above. Comment 3B: The Town should focus all of its attention on improving this area before directing resources towards East Eagle. Response 3B: See Common Response C (page 2-2). Comment 3C: If Trinity/RED needs an interchange in East Eagle, let them finance it themselves. Response 3C: See Common Response D (page 2-3). 2-6 CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

29 Comment 4A: It is quite amazing that the Town of Eagle cannot afford to start any work on a portion of the Eby Creek Road improvements at this time, yet they are going ahead with the planning and building for the East Eagle Interchange and a connector road to Highway 6, a plan endorsed so far only by the developers of Eagle River Station and Tom Gosiorowski. Response 4A: See Common Response C (page 2-2). The East Eagle Interchange is in the planning phase of the project. No plans are yet underway for design or construction of the interchange. The East Eagle Interchange is identified as a necessary improvement in the Eagle Area Community Plan, which was approved by the Town s Planning and Zoning Commission. Comment 4B: An interchange and road to nowhere that will ultimately clog Highway 6 into Eagle and back up traffic even more on Eby Creek Road at the roundabout during peek hours. Response 4B: See Common Response E (page 2-3). Comment 4C: This project will surely increase the value of the properties around it, accept for the residential areas. It cost taxpayers plenty and the developers little, if anything. Response 4C: There is no firm correlation between a new interchange and property values. See Common Response D (page 2-3) for description of proposed project funding. Comment 4D: Several people have suggested some quick, easy and inexpensive modifications and improvements that would help to relieve some of the traffic congestion and dangers at the interchange of I-70 and Eby Creek Road: 1. Make longer right turn lanes on off ramps 2. Add a right turn lane on Eby Creek Road to enter the westbound I-70 on ramp 3. Make a four way stop at Eby Creek Road and Market Street CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-7

30 Response 4D: Improvements to Eby Creek Road and the I-70 Eagle Interchange were identified in the I-70 Eagle Interchange Upgrade Study, April, This study recommended roundabouts at the Eby Creek intersections with Market Street and the I-70 ramps. Even with these improvements, there would still be severe congestion (levels of service E and F) on Eby Creek Road and the Eagle Interchange by 2030 as indicated in the East Eagle Interchange Interstate Access Request, December, The recommended improvements in the area that provide LOS C or better operations in 2030 include the Preferred Alternative for the East Eagle interchange project plus the Eagle County Airport Interchange, and some improvements to Eby Creek Road. These improvements, as outlined in the Intermountain Regional Transportation Plan (2004), consist of: Roundabouts at the I-70/Eby Creek Road Ramps Roundabout at Eby Creek Road/Chambers Avenue Widen Eby Creek Road to four lanes between I-70 and US 6 Modify Eby Creek Road/US 6 roundabout for a two-lane operation A description of level of service is provided in the response to comment 1. The Common Response C also provides information about improvements to Eby Creek Road. Comment 4E: The people who use these roads often have very good solutions to some of the problems, so why not try them before plunging ahead with an interchange in the wrong location? The residents of Eagle Ranch have expressed interest in an interchange in West Eagle or for the airport as a better solution to what has been and is being planned. Response 4E: See Common Responses B (page 2-2). There was no comment received on this EA from the Eagle Ranch Homeowner s Association or Metropolitan District. Comment 4F: The East Eagle Interchange was one of the reasons the Eagle River Station was defeated and now we should pay for it for the developer? Response 4F: See Common Response D (page 2-3). Comment 5: RMR is the owner of approximately 380 acres that are adjacent to the proposed interchange and connector road between the interchange and US 6. All of this 2-8 CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

31 land would be served by the interchange and is within the growth boundary of the Town of Eagle's Community Area Plan. RE-50J School District bought a 35 acre parcel from us that may be used as a high school site. Our plans for the RMR land is a mixture of residential homes and commercial retail projects. We also have a proposal for a Senior Campus on the land along the Eagle River. The land east of the Eby Creek Road is where the majority of the future growth for the Town of Eagle will occur. The proposed interchange would make it unnecessary for anyone living in the homes or working or shopping on Chambers Avenue east of the present interchange from having to use the existing interchange. Response 5: The traffic analysis contained in Section 3.4 of the EA agrees with the statements made in Comment 5. New land uses planned to occur in the East Eagle area would likely use a new interchange in East Eagle rather than the existing Eby Creek Road Interchange, although some traffic going west might use the Eby Creek Road interchange. The Eagle Area Community Plan (EACP) does not include much of the privately owned land east of the proposed interchange within the growth boundary. Comment 6: The Town of Eagle recently approved Resolution No. 1, Series 2010 of the Planning and Zoning Commission adopting an updated comprehensive land use plan known as the Eagle Area Community Plan (EACP). The EACP outlines present and future land use patterns, transportation needs, and many other related community planning goals. Several visions of the EACP support a future East Eagle Interchange, as follows: The EACP envisions future intensive land use activity east of Eagle that will be largely commercial, with some residential. See Chapter 4: Future Land Use Map and East Eagle Mixed-Use Intent of the EACP. Chapter 7 Transportation, Mobility and Circulation of the EACP recognizes the public support for improvement to traffic circulation. The EACP specifically references many transportation improvements needed, including a new interchange connecting I-70 and US 6 east of the current Eagle Interchange. In general, the East Eagle Interchange is a very important part of the overall transportation plan of the Town of Eagle, will relieve congestion on other CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-9

32 arterials, will provide greater connectivity and mobility between I-70 and US 6, and will also serve regional needs. Response 6: Chapter 3.0 of this document has been updated to include the recent land use plans in the East Eagle area. As you point out, the proposed East Eagle Interchange is consistent with the land use plans as documented in the Eagle Area Community Plan. Comment 7: Please look at West Eagle instead closer to Costco. Why disrupt beauty when a new interchange will only create more traffic coming into the core of Eagle. The airport and Costco are the more important issues. And forget the Eagle River Station scenario when more downtown businesses have closed. Stop beating a dead horse. Response 7: See Common Responses B (page 2-2) and E (page 2-3). Comment 8: My comments regarding the East Eagle Interchange are that I am strongly opposed to it. I do not feel that this is a wise use of money, even if it s privately funded, at this time. I also am opposed to the additional development impacts that the interchange will bring. Response 8: The projected construction costs for this interchange (approximately $19 million) are actually fairly reasonable compared to other options such as the Eagle County Airport Interchange, which is projected to cost approximately $80 million. In response to the comment about the additional development impacts the interchange will bring, here is information about analysis done during the NEPA process to evaluate that: An expert panel (consisting of representatives from CDOT, FHWA, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Eagle County, the Town of Eagle, the Town of Gypsum, Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce, and Eco Transit) was convened in October 2006 to provide advice on the likely development impacts (or induced growth) associated with an interchange in the East Eagle area. Information provided to the panel included research about the land use effects of new interchanges, existing and future land use and zoning for the Eagle Valley, socio-economic forecasts, a list of planned transportation and land use projects, and information about potential constraints to growth. The expert panel determined that growth is anticipated within the study area regardless of whether or not an 2-10 CHAPTER 2.0: EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES