HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application"ffi
submitted bY:
Weldon Allen
Regional Transportation Director
Colorado Department of Transportation'Region 3
Concurred bY:
Parnela A. Hutton, P'E' |''
'
ChiefEngrneer ,,1'' :. l'.:"
Colorado Department of Transportation
t" '" t .' " '':' : . ..
ApprovedbY: ':,, :,'r'
ENVIHONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Submitted Pursuant to:
42 USC a332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303
bY the
US Department of Transportation' Federal Highway Administration'
and
Colorado Department of Transportation
ia r )r ^t,\
l)ate
KartaS,'Pgtty,P'E',' l,l ',', ' '",,i
,
FHWA Divis ion Administrator' C olorado Division
peieratHighwayAdministration '
"
. '
Date
PB
A federar agency may pubrish a notice in the Federar Register,pursuant to 23 uSC s139(1)' indicating that
oneormorefederalagencieshavetakenfinalactiononpermits,licenses,orapproval""'"]:::::T"one ul rlrurv rvsv!* -
project. If such notice is published, claims seeking judiciar review of those federal agency actions will be
barred unless such claims are fired within 1go days after the date of publication of the notice' or within
such shorter time period as is specified in the federal laws pursuarrt to which judicial review of the federal
agency action is allowed. If no notice is pubrished, then the periods of time that otherwise are provided by
the federal laws governing such claims will apply'
ENVIBONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PrePared for:
US Department of Transportation' Federal Highway Administration'
and
Colorado Department of Transportation
PrePared bY:
Town of Parachute
and
JACOBS
December 2OO9
I-TAParachute
West
Interctrange
ADT
APCD
AM
APE
AST
BGEPA
BLM
BMPs
BOD
CAA
CAQCC
CDOT
CDOW
CDPHtr
CDPS
CEQ
CFR
cfs
CO
coz
COGCC
CR
CSS
DOLA
EA
EDR
EPA
EPB
EIS
FEIS
FEMA
FHWA
FTA
GHG
12109
Average DailY Traffic
Air Pollution Control Division
Morning (Ante Meridiem)
Area of Potential Effect
Aboveground Storage Tank
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Bureau of Land Management
Best Management Practices
Biological OxYgen Demand
Clean Air Act
Colorado Air Qualily Control Commission
Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado Deparlment of Public Health and Environment
Colorado Discharge Permit SYstem
Council on Environmental QualttY
Code of Federal Regulations
Cubic Feet Per Second
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
CountY Road
Context Sensitive Solutions
DePartment of t'ocal Affairs
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Data Resources
Environmental Protection AgencY
Environmental Programs Branch
Environmental ImPact Statement
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Federal Emergency Malagement Agency
Federal HighwaY Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Greenhouse Gases
Environmental Assessment
I,70Paml
Wesr
Interclx
{,fi'wLdtx^!i
trge
h
IGA
IAR
LOS
LOSS
LUST
MBTA
MMT
MOE
mph
MP
MSATS
MVMT
NAAQS
NEPA
NHPA
NPDES
NRCS
NRHP
NRMI
OAHP
owJ
O3
PM
PMz.s
PMto
PWG
RAQC
RTD
RTP
SAFETEA-LU
SHPO
soz
SPF
SQG
Intergovernmental Agreement
Interchange Access Request
Level of Service
l,evel of Service of SafetY
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Migratory Bird TreatY Act
Million Metric Ton
Measure s of Effectiveness
Miles Per Hour
MilePost
Mobile Source Air Toxics
Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act
NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Register of Historic Places
National Resource Management Institute
Offrce of Arctraeolory and Historic Preservation
Officials with Jurisdiction
Ozone
Afternoon (Post Meridiem)
Particulate Matter 2'S-Microns
Particulate Matter 1 O-Microns
Froject Working GrouP
Regional Air QualitY Council
Regional Transportation District
Regional TransPortation Plan
Safe, Accountable, Flexible' Eflicient Transportation
State Historic Preservation Officer
Sulfirr Dioxide
SafetY Performance Functions
Small QuantitY Generator
EqurtY Act - A LegacY for Users
12'09
Environmental Assessment
AcronYms and Ahhreviations
STIP
SWMP
TDM
ULSD
UPRR
U.S.C.
USDOT
USFWS
USGS
UST
VMT
VOC
WHI
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Stormwater Management Plan
Transportation Demand Management
Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel
Union Pacific Railroad
United States Code
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological SurveY
Underground Storage Tank
Vehicle Miles of Travel
Volatile Organic ComPound
Weighted Hazard Index
l2l0s
Environmental Assessment
Executive SummarY
Executive Summary. """"""""8s-1
Ghapter 1.0 PurPose and Need
1.1 Background"""""""
"""' 1-1
1.2 Transportation Planning"""""' """' 1'2
1.3 Arrticipated Growth in the Region "' l'2
t.4 ProJect Purpose """""""' 1-3
1.5 Project Need""""' """""' 1-3
1.5.1 Connectivity
""""" 1-3
1.5-2 Traffrc OPerations
"' 1-3
1.5.3 Regional and Local Tralfic"""' """"""""" l'7
1.6 Conclusion
""" 1-8
GhaPter2.0 Alternatives
2.L Introduction """""'
"""" 2-t
2.2 Coordination and Involvement """""" """""" 2-l
2.gAlternativesDevelopmentandScreeningProcess............2.|
2-3.1 Project Goals """""2-3
2.3.2EvaluationCriteriaandMeasuresofEffectiveness......................2-3
2.4 Alternatives Analysis' """ 2'5
2.4.|screeningoflnitialRangeofAlternatives(I,evel1).'.....................2-5
2.4.2 Alternatives Development and comparative Evaluation (kvel 21""""""" ""2-7
2.4.2 More Deta,ed Arternatives Development and Evaluation (Level3).....""""" """""""""2-7
2.5 Nternatives Advanced ""' 2'9
2.5.t No Action Alternative """""""2-9
2.5.2 Preferred Alternative' """""' 2-lO
2.6 Project tr'unding """""" 2-12
Ghapter 3.0 Affected Environment' lmpacts' and Mitigation
3.1 Land Use """"' 3-3
.....3-3
3.1.1 ExistingConditions
i
Environmental Assessment
Paqe No.
12109
3-5
3.1-2 Impacts""' :
3.1.3 Mitigation
"""""""'3-5
g.2 Socioeconomic Conditions"""' """" 3-5
3-2.1 Existing Conditions' "":"""""" """"""""'3-5
3-2.2 Impacts""'
"""""""3-8
3.2.3 Mitigation
"""""""3-9
3.3 Right-of-trIay/Retocation """"" """' 3-9
3.3.1 Existing Conditions' """"""""'3-9
3.3-2 Impacts""'
""""""'3-9
3.3.3 Mitigation
"""""";''-'
g.4 Air QualitY
""' 3-1O
3.4-l National Ambient Rir Quality Standards' """""""""3-10
3.4.2 Existing Conditions' """""""'3-1O
3-4.3 Impacts""'
"""""3-1O
3.4.4 Mitigation
""""""3-11
3.4.5MobileSourceAirToxics-Compliancewith40CFR1502.22....3-11
3.5 Tlater Resources and Water Quality """""""' 3-13
3-5.1 Existing Conditions' """""""'3-13
3.5.2 Impacts""'
""""""3-15
3.5.3 Mitigation
""""""'3-16
3.6 Vegetation and Noxious Weeds"" "' 3-17
3.6.1 Vegetation Existing Conditions """"""""3-17
3-6.2 Vegetation Impacts """"""""3-19
3.6.3 Mitigation
""""""3-19
3.6.4 Noxious Weeds Existing Conditions """"'3-20
3.6.5 Noxious Weeds Impacts""' ""'3-21
3.6.6 Mitigation
""""""'3-2t
3.7 Flsh and Wildlife"" """" 3-22
g.7.t Existing Conditions' """""""'3-22
3.7.2 Impacts""'
"""""'3-23
g.7.3 Mitigation
""""""'3-23
3.8 Historic Propertles """" 3,-24
3-8.1 Existing Conditions' """""""'3'24
g.a.2 Impacts""'
""""""3-27
3.8'3 Mitigation
""""""3-28
3.8.4 Native American Consultation """"""""3-24
r 2,09
Environmental Assessment
3.9 Hazardous Substances "' 3'24
',:Z;', ffi:::""'- -- 3-2e
3.9'3 Mitigation"
""""" 3-30
3.1O VisualResources/Aesthetics"""""""
"""""' 3-31
3.10.1 Existing Conditions """"""" 3-32
3.l|.2lmpacts""'
""""" 3-33
3.10'3 Mitigation"
"""""' 3-33
3.11 Constmction""""""
" "....:..
:;
3.11.1 Impacts""' :
3.11.2 Mitigation"
"
---------.-. :-::
3.L2.]Methods
""""""" 3-35
3.12.2 Past Conditions """""'
""""' 3-36
3.12.3 Existing Conditions """""""' 3-37
J.t2.4 Foreseeable Future projects..... """""""' 3-38
3-12'5 Analysis """"""" 3-39
3.72,6 Global Climate Change
..'...... 3-39
3.13 Permits Required """"" 3-41
g.t4 Summary of ImPacts ""' 3-42
3.15 Summary of Mitigation Measures """""" """ 3'47
Ghapter4.0 Transportation lmpacts
4.1 Introductiott """""'
"""" 4-1
4.2 Compatibility wlth Transportation Plans """"' 4-1
4.3 Existing Conditions """"' 4-t
4.3.1 Traffic Volumes and Patterns"""""""" "" 4'2
4.3-2 ExistingTraffic Operations ""'4-2
4.3.3ImpficationsoflmprovementsatCR-215&I-70(ExistingParachutelnterchange)........4-5
4.4 Future Conditions """""' 4'7
4.4.t Traffic Forecasts" "' 4-7
4.4.22ollopeningDayNoActionVolumesandoperations.....'........................4-1.4
4.4.32o35NoActionAlternativeTraIficVolumeandoperations........................4-16
4.4.42ollopeningDayPreferredAlternativeVolumesandoperations......'......4-18
4.4.52o35PreferredAlternativeTra.fficVolumeandoperations....................,....4.2o
4.5 Traflic Safety Arralysis " 4-22
4.5-1 Crash History"""
' 4-22
4.5.2 Crash Projections
' 4'23
4.5.3 Crash Analysis Summary """ 4-25
iii
Environmental Assessment
1210s
4.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities """"" """"' 4-25
4.7 Transit
""""" 4-25
4.8 Summary of Transportation Impacts """"""' 4-26
4.g Mitigation
""' 4-28
Ghapter 5.0 Bomments and Goordination
5.1 Introduction""""""
"""" 5-l
5.2 Agency Coordinatiolr """"""
"""""' 5-1
5.2.1 AgencY ScoPing
""'5-1
5.2.2 Froject Working Group """"""5-2
5.3 Public Involvement Activities """""" """"""" 5-3
5'3.1 Public Meetings"'
""5-3
5.3.2 Project Web Site """""""""'5-5
5.3.3 Public Hearing
"""'5-5
5.4 Conclusion
""" 5-6
Ghapter 6.0 Section 4lll 0e lllininis lmpact
6.tSection4(f)-DepartmentofTransportationActof1966..................6-1
6.1.1 Introduction "" """ ""' " """""6-1
6.2DescriptionofSection4(f)PropertiesintheStudyArea..................6-2
6.3 Impacts to Section 4(ff Properties"""""" """" 6-4
6.4 Findings of De Minlmls"' """"""""' 6-4
6.5 Measures to Minimize Harm """""" 6-5
6.6 Coordination """"""
"""' 6-6
6.7De&lnimisJFinding.........6-6
Appendices
Appendix A: Agency Involvement and Coordination
Appendix B: Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis
Appendix C: Initial Slte Assessment Form
AppendixD:Sectionlo6,Section4(fl,andNativeAmericanConsultation/Correspondence
Appendix E: Public Involvement
r 2l0s
lv
Environmental Assessment
Gompact Disc r,^-:^ ,.--oi^- nr rhi
Technicar memoranda, the system.Iryel studv & Interstate Access Request, r.d ?r' erectronic version of this
Environmentar Assessment are included_-onli'" co-p""t oi"" "ttiit "ii"Jirtrre back cover' Note: the technical
reoort entitred nopriii r-70 parachut" wi"i'iirt.riing" nol.cti;as" ttt cuttu,ol Resources Inuentory' Garfield
Cor.rty, Colorado, April 2008 was prepareJ Uy ott'tt" and is not included'
Environmental Assessment
1210s
Table 2-1 Evaluation criteria and Measures of Effectiveness (MoE) """""""""2-4
Table 2-2 Summary of l,evel 3 Screening Impacts..'.. ......2-9
Table 3-1 Population Statistics"' """""""""3-6
Table 3-2 Housing Statistics
""""3-7
Table 3-3 Economic Statistics
"""3-8
Table 3_4 peak Hour Existing and projected 2035 Traffic Volumes (Vehicle Miles Traveled)"""""" "'3-12
Table 3-5 common porlutants Associated with Transportation projects """""3-15
Table3.6CommonVegetationWit}rintheStudyArea...'...............3.18
Table3-TstateofColorado,CDoT,andGarfieldCountyListedWeedSpeciesobserved
in the Study Area""""" """""""3-21
Table 3-g Historic properties Identilied in the Area of potential Effect """"""'3-25
Table3.gVoCEmissionReductionsfromoil&GasOperations...3-38
Table 3-loCarbon Dioxide (COz) """"
"""""3-41
Table 3-11Summary of Impacts """""""""'3-42
Table 3-12 Summary of Mitigation Measures """""""""3-47
Table 4-1 Existing Intersection LoS, Delay, and Queues """"""' """""""""'4-5
Table4-22ol1NoActionlntersectionLoS,Delay,andQueues..........,..........4.74
Table4.32o35NoActionIntersectionLOS,Delay,andQueues.................,...4-16
Tabre 4_4 2011 preferred Arternative Intersection LoS, Delay, and eueues"".'""""" """4-18
Table 4-5 2035 preferred Arternative Intersection LoS, Deray, ad Queues"""""""" """4-2o
Table 4-6 Summar5r of Transportation Impacts""""""" """"""""+-26
Table 5-1 Project Working Group Meetings"' """""""""5-2
Table6-lSection4(f)Resources:HistoricProperties.,....6.2
12109
vi
Environmental Assessment
Figure 1-t Project Vicinity and Study Area """"" ..................'... .
"L
flgUrc r-r rrvJvv! ---
Figure 1-2 Growth Charts l-4
Figure 1-3 Existing Major Travel Patterns""
Figure 1-4 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Definitions "' 1-5
Figure 1-5 Existing and 2035 Traflic Volumes """".'' 1-6
Figure 1-6 Regional Travel Patterns"" """" l-7
Figure 2-1 Arternatives Development and Screening process"""""""" """""- 2-2
Figwe2-2 l'evel 1 Alternatives and Screening """""" """"""""'2-6
Figure 2-3 l'evel2Build Alternatives"""" """"""""''-'
Figure2-4Alternative6ModifredRoundaboutDesign...........,.....2-11
Figure 3-1 Land Use"'
""""""" 3-3
Figure 3-2 7'orirrg
"' 3-4
Figure 3-3 Constraints to Development """"""
"""""' 3-6
Figure 3-4 PMls Monitoring Stations""""""' """"""' 3-11
Figure 3-5 Water Resources
" 3-13
Figure 3-6 Vegetation communities within the Study Area""""' """"""""' 3-19
Figure 3-7 Historic Properties"
' 3-26
Figure 3-8 Potential Contamination Sites """"""""" 3-30
Figure3.9oilandGasWellsNeartheStudyArea....,.................3-37
Figure 4-1 Average Existing Daily TraIfic """""""'
"""' 4-3
Figure 4-2 Existing pM peak Hour T\rrning Movement volumes...' """""""""4-4
Figure 4-3 Existing Interstate Operations
"' 4-6
Figure 4-4 2011 and 2035 No Action Average Daily Tra{frc ............... """"""' 4-8
Figure 4-5 2011 No Action peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes """"""""4-9
Figure4-62o35NoActionPMPeakHourT\rrningMovementVolumes........4.1o
Figure 4_7 2011 and 2035 preferred Alternative Average Daily Traffic"""""""' """"""' 4-11
Figure4-82o11FreferredAlternativePeakHourTralfic..........................,....4-|2
Figure 4_9 2035 preferred Arternative peak Hour Turning Movement vorumes" """"""' 4-13
Figure4-lo2ol1NoActionPMPeakHourl,evelsofService.........4-15
Figure4.ll2035NoActionAlternativeInterstateoperations......,4-|7
Figure4.L22o|lPreferredAlternativePMPeakHourLevelsofService..........4-19
Figure4-l32035PreferredAlternativeInterstateoperations.......4-21
Figure4.l42os]safetyPerformanceProjection-A11Crashes............'...........4-24
vll
Environmental Assessment
-
Figure 4-15
Figure 5-1
Figure 6-1
2035 Safety performance projection - Injury/Fatal crashes' """"4-24
Project Web Site Screenshot
""""5-5
Historic Resources """"""""""'6-3
12109
Environmental Assessment
vlll
Weot
Int€nchangc
The Town of Parachute (Parachute)' in-coordina-
tion with the Colorado Department of Transporta-
tion (CDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)' has identifi:|'n" need for
,-n..t"U connectivity with I-70 and is studying a
new interch.'gti""i*est of Parachute' The study
-.. i" located in Garlield County along l-70 west
of the existing Parachute/Batflement Mesa inter-
change (exit number 75)'
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been
prepared to evaluate the impacts of ttre proposed
improvements' Various alternatives' including the
No O"atort Alternative' were considered and are
described in Chapter 2' Based on comparative
evatuationandpublicandagencycomment,aPre-
ferred Alternative was id'entified' The Preferred
Alternative would provide a fu1l accessinterchange
at the existing US 6 bridge over l-7O about 2'3
miles west of Parachute at milepost (MP) 72'4'
Since the opening of I-7O ttrrough Parachute in
1984, this location has been identified as a site for
" pot"rrtitf interchange' The interchange would be
equipped with roundabout intersections at the
,"*, ,..-*als, incorporating the existing sharp
curves on US 6 into the design of the round-
abouts.
Chapter 3 discusses environmental impacts and
mitigation measures associated witll the No Action
Alternative and the Preferred Alternative' No sub-
stantialimpactswereidentifiedduringthecourse
of this project' The assessment of social' eco-
nomic, and environmental impacts involved coor-
dination with a number of local' state' and federal
agencies and with the public at large' Impacts that
would result from construction of the Preferred
Alternative include:
. Acquisiti on of 4'2 acres of right-of-way'
' Conversion of land to transportation use'
' Increase in impervious surface area by an
additional 4'76 acres' but no direct impacts to
water resources such as the Colorado River or
Parachute Creek'
. Removal of native salt desert vegetation and
disturbed roadside vegetative communities'
. Minor impacts to historic US 6 and Haver-
meYer-Wilcox Canal'
. Ind.irect impacts to wildlife resulting from both
tJle loss of vegetation and changing traffic pat-
terns.
. Potential discovery of hazardous materials
during construction'
. Mod'ification of the existing visual environ-
ment.
Chapter 4 describes the existing and future trans-
port.tion conditions for the project arrd presents
^transportation impacts for the No Action Alterna-
tive arrd Preferred Alternative'
Chapter5discussestheagencyarrdpubliccoor-
dination and involvement activities conducted
during tlre development of this EA'
Public involvement was conducted througlrout the
development of this EA to ensure widespread pub-
licawarenessoftheprojectandtoprovideoppor.
tunitiesfortimetyp.,rt"inputtoprojectdecision-
making. Participants included interested citizens'
property owrlers, and the general public' TWo pub-
lic open houses were conducted leading to the
release of the EA document' Ottrer public outreach
activities included newspaper ads' postcard mail-
ings, and the Project Web site'
A public hearing will be held during the 3o-day
public review period of this EA' The purpose of the
hearing is to receive comments from tlee public'
resource agencies, local jurisdictions' and other
interested parties on this EA and the Preferred
Alternative identified in this EA' Prior to the hear-
es-1
River or
r 2los
Environmental Assessment
ing, copies of ttris EA \Mill be made available for
public review at four locations:
. Colorado Department of Transportation'
Glenwood SPrings
2O2 Cenlennial Street
Glenwood SPrings' CO 81601
. Parachute Town Hall
222 Grand ValleY WaY
Parachute, CO 81635
. CDOT Region 3
222 Sottlh Sixth Street
Grand Junction, CO 8L5Ot-2769
. FHSIA - Colorado Division
123OO West Dakota Avenue' Suite 180
Lakewood, CO80228
Chapter 6 provides information about the Section
otq-.tr"",ion conducted for the project and
FIfWA's intent to make de minimisfrndings for
i-p..t" to historic US 6 and Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canal.
1210s
es"2
Environmental Assessment
1.1 Background
The Town of Parachute (Parachute)' in-coordina-
tionwiththeColoradoDepartmentofTransporta.
tion (CDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)' has identifred the need for
*rtt""U connectivity with I-70 near Parachute'
it " "t .aV area is located along l-7O about 2'3
miles west of the existing Parachute/Battlement
Mesa interchange (exit number 75)' Figure 1-1
illustrates the location of the study area'
Since the opening of I-70 through Parachute in
1984, this location has been identifred as a site for
" r",""O, proposed interchange' The interchange
i"-ia".rtif "J in the Stateuide Transportation
Improuemert Program(STIP) and the-Inte rmountain
Z OS O n"gional Trarsportation Plan (RTP)'
1-t
Environmental Assessment
r 2109
Figure 1'1 Proiect Vicinity and Study Area
ProoosedParachute
/i \
par't gtvd F $ Il Ii I u
i
61.nd nivd
,., lloltiul'" Ditri.t,UdhY B.,trsrtfk! l|oGlnchrt!cdo
!inritI lEtlr
ri[5t
Prolect
.'/
t/
{
,/th., ^
1.2 TransPortation Planning
Through its transportation planning process'
Parachute has identified other transportation proj-
ects to address mobility needs. For example, the
Town of Parachutt Mu'stt' Plan Centennial Edi-
O.", ,OOt (Town Master Plan) promotes the con-
nection to the proposed I-70 Parachute West
Interchange by planning an extension of Cardinal
Way on the south siae of Parachute and building
Parachute Park Boulevard on the north side of
Parachute.
Exlending Cardinal Way to the west on the south
sideofParachutewouldprovideanewconnection
toUS6intheareaoftheproposedl.ToParachute
West Interchange' This connection would serve
hnd uses south of I-70 within Parachute' The
town also is proposing to constructParachute
park Boulevard on the north side of town to pro-
vide a shorter connection between County Road
i"*l ,rt (the main road north of town) and US 6'
This new roadway would serve land uses on the
north and west sides of Parachute by facilitating
connectivity with the proposed I-7O Parachute
West Interctrange'
Also, CDOT has constructed auxiliary right-turn
larres and traffic signals on the ramp terminals at
the existing Parachute interchange' These
l*r.o,,"rn*ts alleviated some of tJle existing con-
g."rio., at the existing interchange'
The improvements at the existing intercharrge arrd
the construction of Parachute Park Boulevard are
included in the No Action Alternative for the I-70
Parachute West Interchange project' Funding for
the Cardinal Way extension has not been identi-
fied, so it is not n* ot the No Action Alternative'
1.3 Anticipated Growth in the Begion
Parachute and unincorporated Battlement Mesa
areas have experienced considerable population
and emplo1'rnent growth in the last several years'
This pattern is expected to continue as factors
such as oil and gas development and tourism
increase employment and housing needs in the
area.
According to Garfield County and Colorado State
Demographer data' Parachute and the surround-
l* ""t**orated
areas (including Battlement
;;; are projected to increase in population at a
rate of approximately 5'5 percent !:1y"* between
2OO5 and 2O35 (see Figure 1-2)' This represents
an annual growth rate that is about triple the pro-
jected growth rate for the entire state of Colorado'
This aggressive growth pattern results in a 2035
population of about Z5'AOO' compared to the exist-
ing 2OO5 poputation of 5'1OO in tl:e Parachute/
Battlement Mesa area' Much of this grow'th is
anticipatedtobedrivenbylimitedopportunities
for affordable services and housing in resort com-
munities in western Colorado' like Aspen and
Glenwood Springs, leading maJly n."o,,. to live in
towns like Carbondale' Rifle' and' increasingly'
Parachute'
2l
IL
0
ffiirr*do state DemograPher
Environmental Assessment
1-2
Figure 1'2 Grovuth Charts
Another impetus for population increases is oil
ut a *." employment' The oil and gas industry
;;;;""" to expand its presence in the Piceance
BasinnearParachute,drillingaIraverageofabout
ipoo new natural gas wel1s per year' This pace of
development is expected to continue through at
least2OTT,when projections showa decrease in
,"* *rO- ,uring this boom period' oil and gas
r*pfoy*..rt is projected to grow at a rate of about
2.6 Percent annuallY'
This growth will place increased demand and pres-
sure on already congested local and regional travel
routes.
1.4 Proiect PurPose
The overall purpose of this project is to improve
.or.t."ti"ity with I-70, improve traffil operations
a *" area-including at the existing- Parachute
interchange, and improve mobility for both
regional and local trallic'
The project will address identified transportation
needs (see below), and be consistent with the RTP'
the STIP, and Parachute and Garfreld Count5r
plans.
1.5 Proiect Need
The following project needs for the I-70 Parachute
West Interchange are based on the identified
transportation problems discussed in Sections
1.5.1, 1.5.2, and 1'5'3:
. ImproveconnectivitY'
. Improve trallic oPerations'
. Accommodate regional and local traffic'
The following subsections describe the transporta-
tions problems and other background associated
wittr these needs'
1.5.1 ConnectivitY
Connectivity between Parachute arrd the Battle-
ment Mesa area is limited by only one access point
to I-7O, the existing Parachute interchange at
CR 215. This is the only facility with conrrections
i" t"rt.", destination" sucft as Grand Junction
ald Silt. This limited connectivit5r aJfects mobility
.i*rt.""t trips, mobility of local do,"l and limits
mobility of emergency vehicles to and from loca-
tions served bY l-70'
Major travel patterns in the Parachute area are
displayed in Figure 1-3' As shown' one of the
*"iot p",,"rns is between the Una Bridge area
west ofParachute and areas served by l-7O east of
Parachute. Also, trips between areas served by I-
7O west of town 'rra Uott' north and south of I-7O
account for a sizable portion of travel' 24 percent
and, 17 Percent, resPectivelY'
Traflic from land uses north of Parachute must
Jso travel out-of-d'irection for points west' These
land uses would have improved connectivity to I-
70 viathe new Parachute Park Boulevard and the
proposed I-70 Parachute West Interchange (refer
to Section 1'2)'
As with land uses north of Parachute' land uses
southofParactrute(includingBattlementMesa)
are restricted to the existing single access point
with I-70. The proposed interchange would be con-
sistentwithCountyplanningprocessestoprovide
a second access toBattlement Mesa' thereby
i*p.orirrg mobility and connectivit5r for areas
south of I-70'
Lack of redundancy has been cite! a,s a concern
for emergen"y tt""""' Since the existing Parachute
interchange is the only connection with I-70 read-
ily accessible in the Parachute and Batflement
Mesa area, and the only crossing of I-7O for most
lald uses, any disruption at the existing inter-
change can seriously hinder emergency services'
Further, congestion at the existing Parachute
intercharrgeresultsindelayformanyemergency
call resPonses'
1.5.2 Traffic 0Perations
Evaluation of tra-ffic operations' inctualng opera-
tions at interchange"' i" Uu'"td on level of service
(LOS) calculations conducted in accordance with
l-3
Environmental Assessment
12'0s
TrffiIIroi.t.rtht- Ptt"h'te and areas north 0f
Paiachute at l-70 interchange
ABOUT 1(],(]tlo PER DAY
I-0,1, t+soohrors l-70 to Battlement Mesa
rD 30% (3,000) to Points east
a 24% t2,4001 to Points west
7/A
-lJ ,/ \'
^/)
^/r/./1r{ ,4_
iillIil,*-,'r.tolt,*thernParachute&
Baitlement Mesa at l'70 interchange:
ABOUT 10,250 PEB DAY
45% (4,650) cross l-70 to
northern Parachute
Sffi& 38% (3,850) to Points east
t 17sht1,750) to Points west
Trips tolfrom Una Bridge area:
ABOUT 1,300 PEB OAY
-'*. 60% (800) to Points east
-
40% (500) to Pointswest
Proposed Palachute
Park Blvd
$\"
Existinq Travel Patterns Sources:'.'i.nit'aluts," - origin and destination
surveY (0d 2007)
". 'l]iirar';. ur,i ,ollected existing rrallic
counts (SePt 2007)
Anows shown are proportional in size
to the number of daily trips made't
Studylrea
the Highutag Capacitg Manual2OOO' LOS is a term
used to describe the
-operatinS
nerformlnce of an
ilt"."""Uon or roadway' The operation.is
described by a letter designation from "A" to *F'"
with LOS A representing essentially unintermpted
flow with minimal delays' and LOS F representing
. Ur"utao* of traffic flow with excessive conges-
tion and delay' This performance measure is a tool
used by traffrc tttgit'""t" to objectively evaluate the
;;;. Ld congestion conditions on a roadway'
Typically, operations at LOS D or better for peak
periods are considered to be operating acceptably'
while intersections and roadways operating at LOS
F are in need of improvement' A-graphical repre-
sentation of each LOS category for unsignaiized
intersections is presented in Figure 1-4' (The
;; terminals at the existing interchange were
*t-L"rr"d and improvements were recently
.o*ft"t"d to install signals')
1210s
Environmental Assessment
1-4
Figure I'3 Existing Maior Travel Pafierns
Congestion at the existing Parachute interchange
U"O""U"" I-7O traffrc operations and results in
excessive delays tor mttorists' This congestion is
expected to get more severe and for extended peri-
"i" or a*. in the future' These poor traffrc opera-
tions are expected to get worse as traIfic volumes
increase. A large portion of this traIfic is heavy
overslzed vehicles that exacerbate the problem'
Figure 1-5 shows existing and projected traffic
volumes on key roadways in the area' as well as
existing ald projected LOS at the existing Para-
chute interchange'
Poor traffrc operations are evidenced by:
. Excessive detays for motorists - the exist-
ing ramp terminals currently operate at LOS F
and average vehicle delays of several minutes
occur in the PM peak hour'The planned instal-
lation of trallic signals and turn lanes here will
temporarily'll"uld" this problem' but by 2035
theincreaseintra{frcisprojectedtocausethis
Problem in the future'
' BackuPs onto the mainline of I-7O - ttrese
backups increase the potential for serious
rear-end crashes' The maximum (95 percent)
PM peak hour queue length on the westbound
off ramp at CR 215 is 1'150 feet; the off-ramp
length is about 1'100 feet' The plalned
improvements are expected to temporarily alle-
viate this Problem'
' Agigressive driver behavior at the existing
ramp terminals - this behavior increases the
likelihood of intersection crashes' As delay
increase s at stop -controlled intersections' driv-
ers tend to take greater risks to move through
the intersection' The planned improvements
are expected to temporarily alleviate this prob-
lem.
' Emergency vehicle delay - the existing
interchange provides the only access to I-70
and is often congested or could be blocked by
an incident'
. Limited accessibility - there is only one
access Point to I-70 in the area'
LOS lntersections
a No delaYs at intersections
with continuous flow of
traffic. High IrequencY of
oaos available for turning
iraffic. No observable queues'
AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY OF
O.1O SECONDS.
B Similar to LOS A, with slightlY
longer average delaYs'
AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY OF
't o-1 5 SECONDS'
C Moderate delaYs at
intersections with satisf actorY
to good traf{ic flow' Light
coigestion; inf requent backuPs
on critical aPProaches'
AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY OF
1 5-25 SECONDS'
D ProbabilitY of delaYs along
everY aPProach' Significant
congestion on critical
apPioaches, but intersection
f unctional. Moderate queues
observed '
AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY OF
25-35 SECONDS.
E Heavv traflic flow condition'
HeavY delaYs Probable' VerY
limited available gaPs for
cross-street traffic or main
street tu,ning tralfic' Limit of
stable flow'
AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY OF
35-50 sEcoNDS'
F Unstable traffic flow' Heav.Y
congestion' Traffic moves tn
forced flow condition'
Average delaYs greater than
on" ,inrt" highlY Probable'
AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY OF
MORE THAN 50 SECONDS"
1-5
Environmental Assessment
1210s
Figure 1'4 Unsignalized lntersection L0s
Definitions
D
Each of these issues is exacerbated by the high
n"*"*"*" of trucks at the interchange' Currently'
-riorr, l L percent of vehicles at the interchange are
trucks, which increases the level of delay and
n"""" *tt ns and decreases the safety of the
interchange. Trucks generally require larger gaps
in traJfrc to make turirs' longer acceleration and
decelerationlengths,andwiderturningradii'allof
*t r.t, negatively impact traffrc operations'
1210s
Environmental Assessment
1-6
West
Intercharge
Figure
ilt
llotes:. Oil & gas development and
traffic is Proiected to Peak
around 20'17. Traffic on
CR 21 5 north of Parachute
would be about 7,400
vehicles Per daY {VPD) in
2017. and would droP as
well-drilling slows'
. Growth in Population and
non-oil & gas emPloYment ts
expected to oupace oil &
gas growth beNveen todaY
and 2035.
Eistirg Tratlic SourEes
rc00I Tralf6 oata
26u,6"5 g6gntY lfeb 2007)
3 Una LLC (Sept 20071
a All Tratic Data (Sept 2007)
t
Not To Scale
tEGEt'lD
x.xXX Erisling ArcIage oailv Tralfic (ADT)
x,xxx 2035AEr
tr Eistins PM Peak Los
i ii 2035 PM Peak tos
1.5.3 Begional and Local Traffic
The mix of regional traffic (traffic that does not
begin or end in town) and local traffrc on the loca1
streets of downtown Parachute results in reduced
;;;;". safetY due to high volumes on 1st
Street and high truck traffic percentage' deteriora-
tionoflocalinfrastructure,increasedcongestion,
increasednoise,increaseddust'arrdlocaltrip
delaY'
As oi1 and gas exploration and drilling expand in
the area around Parachute' the number of regional
trips serving the various aspects of the industry
.*".U a" weU' With the location of the existing
Parachute interchange adjacent to th3 town cen-
ter, many of these tegionat trins ulfcal road-
ways in the town "t"ttt to access I-7O' Specific
quality of life issues resulting from the existing
i"*, ,t regional trips on local streets that have
been raised as part ofthe project include pedes-
trian safety, increased noise' decreased air quality'
and local trip delay' A considerable portion of
regional trips are made by heavy trucks' with
truck percentages as high as 60 percent on US 6
i* *""a of Parachut"' it'" increased impact of
these heavy vehicles further exacerbates tJre prob-
lem and impacts local infrastructure' An origin
and destination survey conducted for-this project
identified many regional trips on local streets'
These trips, shown on Figure 1-6' include:
1. Trips between points west on U::"tU points
"r."t ort I-7O' Because the next I-70 inter-
change (De Beque) is about 1O miles to the
Points North
on CR 215
I
I
I
I
' ^"099*9'
\CR 300)
PABACHUTEi
I
I
l
Proposed Parachute ---]
BAITIEMEHI,MESA
Park Blvd ie
,'-Plspsssdlqatdinar
WaY E/enston
./
,'./
'l
Points ltest
on l'70
tr
Not To Scale
tEGEtTD
(. ,) Maior RegionalTravel Patterns
{. .) that use Local Boads
Local Roads CurrentlY lmPacted hY
Regional Traffic
Souree: Jacohs Cartu
1-7
Environmental Assessment
r 2109
Figure 1'6 Regional Travel Patterns
west, these trips use the existing Parachute
interchange and travel through town'
2. Trips between points north of Parachute and
- points west on I-7O' These trips travel through
Parachute to access the existing Parachute
interchange'
t.6 Gonclusion
A new interchange in the western Parachute area
is needed to address the concerns identifred in the
project purpose and documented in the project
,r""a". ih" "pecifi"
needs relate to system connec-
tivrty, interstate operations' and regional and local
trallic. With substantial anticipated growth in both
population and employment in the area' the need
for connectivity ,Jle capacity improvements will
intensifY.
Tomeettheseneeds,thisprojectmustprovidea
viablealternativerouteforregionaltraffic'while
improving interstate operations in the Parachute
area. The project musiaddress the identified needs
forthecorrid.orby"best'addressingklowncon-
nectivity issues, known interstate operations
issues, and larown regional and local traffic
issues.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) describes the
process followed to evaluate alternatives and iden-
ir, ,. *.r"t ed Alternative for the I-70 Parachute
West Interchange project' and to assess associated
impacts. The alternatives development and evalua-
don process is described in Chapter 2' Chapter 3
describes the affected environment and environ-
mental consequences associated with the Pre-
ferred and No Action Alternatives' and mitigation
measures for the Preferred Alternative' Chapter 4
describestransportationimpacts,andChapter5
discusses the public and agency involvement pro-
cess. Chapter 6 provides information about the
Sectron 4(f) evaluation conducted for the project
and FFilVA's intent to make deminimis findings for
i-p".t" to historic US 6 and Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canal'
InadditiontothisEA'Paractruteispreparinga
Sy"t"* Level Study and Interstat"^1""""" Request
o, U.trf of CDOTto address CDOT and FHWA
interstate access request requirements' CDOT will
submit the study to FHWA to request approval for
the Interstate Access Request'
12109
1-8
Environmental Assessment
2.1 lntroduction
In accordance with the National Environmental
;;;, Act (NEPA)of 1969' the Council on Environ-
mental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing
of NEPA require ttt"i a range of alternatives to the
p.opo".a t.tiot' be evaluated for Environmental
lmpact Statement (EIS) projectl' The aPPlication of
utt".rr.tlrr"" can also be applied to projects docu-
mented with an Environmental Assessment (EA)'
This chapter describes the process used to identiff
reasonable alternatives for the proposed l-7O Para-
chute West Interchange Project'
2.2 Goordination and lnvolvement
Agency coordination ald public involvement activ-
ities were specifically designed to be open' inclu-
sive, and ongoing throughout the EA process' The
,ro"""* inctuaed outreach activities to encourage
agency and public awareness' input' review' and
comment' These activities included agency and
public scoping meetings' public open house meet-
,irr", .*.* briefings' project mailings' and a
project Web site' t""'aAitiot" a 3o-d'ay public and
agency review period and public hearingwill follow
fi,UU""tio" of this EA; see Chapter 5: Comments
and Coordination for more information on this
process. Descriptions of several of these methods
of involvement are provided below'
. Agency Scoping Meeting - An agency scop-
ing meeting waJeta with local' state' and fed-
eral agencies that have a regulatory
responsibility for various resources' such as
wetlands, historic properties' wildlife' and
water resources' The purpose of the meeting
wastodefinethescopeoftheprojectandiden.
tiff areas of concern for resources in the study
area. Input was also solicited and provided via
email, Ietters, and telephone conversations'
. Public Meetings - TWo general public open
houseswereheldduringkeypointsintheproj-
ect to gather public input on the project' The
first meeting, a public scoping meeting' was
held at the Town of Parachute Town Hall on
October 3,2OO7 'This meeting solicited public
input on the needs and goals identilied for the
project and provided an opportunity for public
and project team interaction and collaboration'
Themeetingalsowasusedtoidentifyissuesof
concern. The second meetingwas again held at
the Town Hall on November 29 ' 2OO7 ' T}:lis
meeting solicited comments on the alternatives
developed for the project and provided another
opportunity for the public to provide input on
environmental issues'
Web site - A project Web site (http:/ /
;-rar.har'r se.net) WaS
;;*l.p provide real-time access to project
information and progress' Links t: tl': project
W.t "it were provided on ttre Colorado
Department of Transportation (CO!l ana
".*" "t Parachute (Parachute) Web sites' The
putfic can provide comments on the project
via the Web site'
2.3 Alternatives Development and Screening
Process
The alternatives presented in this chapter were
developed based on results of the NEPA scoping
processandincoordinationwiththeprojectteam'
including the Federal Highway Administration
i"trol,?"oT, and Parachute' Members of the
;;;;;"r-, as wellas tlee public' plav important
roles in the alternative development process' The
nro.."" used to develop' screen' and refine alter-
-natives
involved the following four steps (also see
Figure 2-1).
1. Develop project evaluation criteria and mea-
sures of effectiveness (MOE) based on the Pur-
2"1
Environmental Assessment
1110
Need for the Project and Project feasiblefrom a technical' economic' and envi-
ronmental standpoint' Use the evaluation cri-
teria and MOE at a qualitative level for this
stage of alternatives screening to reduce the
number of alternatives'
4. Evaluate and compare the remaining alterna-
tives with each other through a more detailed
comparative screening (Leve1 3) to arrive at the
Freferred Alternative'
pose and
goals.
2.
3.
Develop and screen a range of alternatives to
etiminate ttrose that would not meet the Pur-
,."" ".U
Need and those that have potential
fatal flaws (Level 1)'
Conduct an initial comparative screening
(Level 2) on the remaining alternatives to iden-
ti$, tt o"" alternatives that are most practical or
Purpose-;
and llleed
t
Proiect ---7
Goals
Leuel I Screening 9-\
Based on Fatal Flaws
and AhilitY to Meet
Project PurPose and
Need
level 2 Screening
-+4Based on GomParative AnalYsis 6
ol PurPose and Need Elements ?
and Prolect Goals
Gtober 2007
<1 1- PurPose
and lleedel
q 1- Proiect
. Scoping
a' ilovember 2007
a
?
Q
ilovember 2007
a
61
ldentification of
Alternatives lor
ITEPA AnalYsis e
V
DEGlSl0t{
DOCUMET'lT
(Final Oecisionl
€
(' '- December2ooT
'LLerrel3Screening_4.z_EnvironmentalD0cumentation
BasedonDetailedAnalysisof ? Detailad r'
--"-"---
-
April 2009
Purpose and Need Elements / AltcrnitiYcs o
Enyironmental Assessment
and Proiect Goals 6 AnalYsrs - - May 2009
4 E Puhlic Hearing
/\
?.q
r 2ll]s
Environmental Assessment
2-2
Figure 2'1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process
2-3
2.3.1 Proiect Goals
Project goals were developed to guide the alterna-
tives development and screening process' These
include goals that support the basic needs of the
;;;;* ft " go.t" that are viewed as crucial to
iroj..t "rr""""" by the stakeholders' While the
,""a" must be addressed by the project' the goals
f.oria" a framework by which the proposed
improvements can exceed those requirements' The
goals identifred for this project are:
. Accommodate existing and future tralfrc vol-
umes at the new connection between US 6 and
r-70.
. Meet transportation safety needs of all users'
. Be consistent with adopted plans' including
land use, transportation' and adopted zoning'
. Avoid and minimize ad'verse impacts to the
natural and human environment'
. Frovide practical and financially realistic
transPortation imProvements'
. Incorporate Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
into the planning and design' CSS is a collab-
orative, interdisciplinary approach that
involves all stakehold'ers to develop a transpor-
tation facility tJlat fits its physical setting and
preserves scenic, historic' and environmental
resources, while maintaining safety and mobil-
itv.
2.i1.2 Evaluation Criteria and Measures of
Effeetiveness
In order to objectively compare potential alterna-
tives, seven evaluation criteria were selected to
reflect the Purpose and Need and the project goals'
Foreachcriterion,MOEweredevelopedtogauge
how the alternatives met the evaluation criteria'
The MOE were applied to the alternatives using
information available at each level of screening'
Evaluation criteria that relate to the project Pur-
pose and Need include:
. Connectivity - Abi[ty of the alternative to
improve connectivity with l-70 in the Para-
"frut. area for all users' including emergency
access vehicles'
. Interstate oPerations - Ability of the alter-
native to provide improved traffrc operations
along I-7O and at the existing Parachute inter-
change.
. Regional and Local Traffic - Ability of the
alternative to reduce regional traffrc on local
streets.
Alternatives must also address federal and state
requirements and", where possible' exceed the
pto.i..t needs and requirements' Additional evalu-
ation criteria include:
. Mobility - Ability of the alternative to address
travel demald needs'
' SafetY - Ability of the alternative to provide
safe operations ald to reduce potential con-
flicts for all users.
. Environmental - Ability of the alternative to
minimize impacts to environmental resources
identified as having the most potential to allect
alternative selection'
' ImPlementatlon - Ability of the alternative to
minimize construction impacts' including
costsandright-of-wayimpacts;abilityofthe
alternative to comply with local and regional
Planning objectives'
MOE for eactr criterion are described in Table 2-1'
Environmental Assessment
1210s
e' merge' diverge)
Abilityof alternativ";;-t;;;it"provedinterstateoperationr
Ability of alternativ" to prou'
-
iltrafficonlocalstreets
f . eUUtV of alternativ" to t"d'@
ss to and from l-70
Ability of alternative to address travel demand needs at new t*::T::i::::tfl
lffi ";il;;;" to provide acceptable traffic operations at new interchange (LoS)
AbilityofalternativetoprovideacceptabletraffrcoperationsatexistingParachuteinter-
change (LOS)
5. Ability of alternativ" to "'*
Table2.lEvaluationGriteriaandMeasuresofEffectiveness(M0E)
Potential water resources effects
Potential induced growth or other indirect or cumulative effects
Potential visual effects
R"tatiu" cost of the alternatives
Degree to which the alternative complies with local plans and Policies
Public inPut ald PercePtion
Relative construction imPacts
Ability of ttre alternative to provide a Context Sensitive Solution
maintenance services
1.
c
J.
4.
1.
2.
3.
12109
Environmental Assessment
Griterion
MOE
1.
2.
J.
4.
5.
sers (autos' trucks' bicYcles'
;i;;i..
^ ,t a p"a""trians) at the interchange
$$,S:.h-$il$j z. Abitity of alternative to reduce potential cgnfffls--tetween all users (autos' trucks' bicycles'
ffi' ililJJ:"**fi-:; a" sllounaing road network
titii1$;s{ffi*}i e. Ability of alternative to provide ad'equate roadway geometry for heavy truck traffic
: o' nu,"LJ
- r^--'^+6 'iclrt disfances at new interchange
i' O Ability of alternative to provide adequate sight distances
il - ative to meet desirable design standards
ii 5. Ability of altern r tt
2-5
2.4 Alternatives AnalYsis
The following sections provide the results of the
Jternatives evaluation process, which identified a
Preferred Alternative for evaluation in this EA'
2.4.1 Screening of tnitial Bange of
Afternatives hevel l)
The range of alternatives developed for the I-70
ParachuteWestlnterchangeprojectwerescreened
basedonttreirabilitytoaddressPurposeandNeed
elements, or identification of "fatal flaws" deemed
to make an alternative unrealistic for implementa-
tion. Fatally flawed alternatives are alternatives
with 1) exorbitant costs; 2l legaT' logistical' or engi-
neering infeasibility; or 3) unacceptable environ-
mental or community impacts'
A total of eight basic alternatives were developed
for Level 1 screening, including the No Action
Alternative (Alternative A)' Build alternatives were
developed with a low level of detail - location and
basic configuration - consistent with tlee level of
detail available for analysis' The Level 1 screening
resulted in elimination of six build alternatives'
and carried forward' two alternatives to Level 2 -
Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative C (new
full interchange at US 6 bridge)' Different varia-
tions were created for different alternatives' For
example, Alternative B had three variations' while
Alternative C had four variations' These are
described below' The No Action Alternative is car-
ried forward for full evaluation and is used as a
baseline comparison for environmental analysis'
Figure 2-2 displays a summary of Level 1 screen-
ing. Alternatives eliminated from consideration in
Level 1 screening included:
. Alternative B - New half interchange at US 6
bridge - would not ad'dress the Connediuitg
atd' Regional Traffic on l'ocal fireets needs
because it would not provide access for a
major east-west movement (from points east
on I-7O to points west on US 6)' Much of the
existing trallic would' continue to use local
streets and the existing interchange' (Note:
three variations of Alternative B were devel-
oped; Alternatives 7,2, arrrd 3' and were
screened out')
. Alternative D - Improvements to the exist-
ing Parachute interchange (exit number 75)
- would not address the Connectiuitg and
Regional Traffic on lncal Streets needs because
it does not provide a second access to/from I-
7O for an alternate route' This alternative
would also require extensive improvements to
the surrounding local road network to ade-
quately serve the projected future demand'
Th""" ,"q,'ired improvements would extend
well beyond the interchange itself'
. Alternative E - New interchange at existing
I-7O underpass west of Parachute-Una Road
- would not address Regional Traffic on Local
Streetsneed because it is located too far from
t-Jre major trip generators to remove tralfrc from
local streets'
. Alternative F - New interchange at Para-
chute-Una Road (County Road (CR) 3OO) -
would not address Regional Traffic on Local
Streetsneed because it is located too far from
the major trip generators to remove tra-fIic from
local streets, a"s well as other alternatives' and
would require a new structure over I-70'
resulting in high Project costs'
. Alternative G - Other interchange locations
west of Parachute - would not address
Regional Traffic on l'ocal fireets need and
would require a new structure over I-70'
resulting in high Project costs'
. Alternative H - Improvements to adjacent
interchanges in De Beque and Rulison -
these interchanges are located too far from the
study area to effectively address ltre Connectiu'
itg, Interstate Operatiors' ot Regional Traffic on
lncal Streets project needs; these improve-
ments would not change the predominant
travel Patterns in the area'
Environmental Assessment
1210s
Figure 2'2 Level 1 Alternatives and Screening
@ rrtutllrr
lmprove interchanges
adiacent to existing
Parachute interchange
Rulison and 0e Beque'
@ rurutnnu
New interchange at
eilsting underpass west
ol Parachute'Una Road
US 6 bridge over l'70
(O rtttutnnrr
- New interchange at
Parachute'Una Road
2.4.2 Alternatives DeveloPnent and
Comparative Evaluation fievel 2)
Alternative C and the No Action Alternative A were
""tt "a forward in Level 2' In Level 2' fowr varia-
tions of Alternative C were developed and screened
on a mostly qualitative basis using the project
screening criteria ald MOE outlined in Section
i3.r.mlni" level of screening' project needs are a
*"3o, consideration, and project goals are used
*tt.r" appropriate to distinguish alternatives'
Build alternatives carried forward for evaluation in
I-evel2 include:
. Alternative C - New full interchange at US 6
bridge - this alternative met the Purpose and
Need and did not have fatal flaws' Four varia-
tions of Alternative C (4a' 4b' 5' and 6) were
developed during Level 1 screening for evalua-
tion in I'eve|2' Those four variations are
shown in Figure 2-3' (Note that build alterna-
tives 1, 2, artd'3 were variations of Alternative
B and were screened out in l'evel 1')
During I'evel 2screening' only Alternative 5 was
eliminated from further consideration' This alter-
native would not provide the same level of safety
n"**r""e as the other alternatives; the button-
hook off-ramp includes a high speed off-ramp fol-
lowed by a low speed curve' This alternative would
also require some realignment of US 6 north of I-
70, increasing its overall cost'
2.4.3 llore Detailed Afternatives Development
and Evaluatian fievel ?)
Three build alternatives were carried forward from
l,evel 2 screening, which were the three variations
ofAlternativeC(Alternatives4a'4b'and6)'and
were evaluated in greater detail in tlv1t 3' After
the comparative Irvel 2 screening of a-lternatives'
additionalpublicandagencyinputresultedinthe
refinement of alternatives' At this stage of evalua-
tion and screening, a greater level of detail was
used to help with alternative compaflson'
Because all three build alternatives have no dis-
cernibledifferencesinregardtoconnectiviWand
."rr.rr", and local traffic' the Level 3 screening
focusedonmoredetailedanalysesoftrafftcopera-
tions, safet5r, environmental impacts' and imple-
mentation'
Environmental Assessment
1210s
Traflic OPeratlons
Traffic operations wete analyzed for the afternoon
1eili|eai hour, which is the highest hour for
existing arrd future travel demand in the area' A11
three alternatives would accommodate trajlic
J.-roa adequately, but Alternative 4a would
cause slightly more delay at the ramp terminals for
motorists exiting the freewaY'
SafetY
In gerieral, roundabout intersections have been
shown to be safer than staldard'' stop-controlled
.. "t*rr-"ontro1led
intersections in both Colorado
and throughout the United States' FHWA's Round-
abouts: An Informational Guide ind'icates that sin-
*r"-r"rt" roundabout intersections' like those
iropo""d for the I-70 Parachute West Interchange
project, reduce crashes by 51 percent' and reduce
crashes that result in injuries by 73 percent' This
isaresultofreducedspeedandpotentialvehicle
conflicts. Alternative 6 also incorporates the sharp
curves on US 6 into tlle roundabout design' which
improves trallic safety by reducing speeds of vehi-
cles traveling througlr this section' Further' the
curves in the roundabouts would be designed to
accommodate the long trucks that comprise a sub-
stantial portion of traffrc in ttre area'
Environmental
None of the three build alternatives would directly
impact l<nown sensitive environmental resources'
Ho*euer, historic property investigations con-
ducted after the trvel 3 Screening identified two
historic resources - historic US 6 and the Haver-
meyer-Wilcox Canal' None of the alternatives
would be expected to adversely affect these his-
toricresourcesand,therefore,theresourcesdid
not influences alternative selection' Differences in
indirect effects would be minor'
Thebuildalternativesslightlydifferwithregardto
their relative potential to adversely affect water
**t, in the Colorado River' All other variables
i"it g "q""f, an alternative closer to the river
would have a greater potential for pollutants from
spills and stormwater runoff to enter tl.e river'
dorrr"r".ly, providing a buffer between.the alter-
native and river alows for greater frltering of pol-
lutants by soil layers' Since Alternative 6 is farther
from the river, it has a reduced potential to
adversely affect water quality in the river com-
pared to Alternatives 4a and 4b'
Implementatlon
tto direct residential or business impacts are
anticipated for any alternative' A11 of these alterna-
tives would require the acquisition of about 3
acres of private property north of I-70'.South of I-
7O, the required private property acquisition for
each build alternative is summarized below'
. Alternative 4a - 3'2 acres
. Alternative 4b - 3'8 acres
. Alternative 6- 1'1 acres
The differences in cost between build alternatives
were estimated' Alternative 4a is about $OOO'OOO
morecostlythanAlternative4b,mostlybecauseof
the need to widen the bridge over I-7O to accom-
modate left-turn lanes' Alternative 4b is about
$5OO,OOO more costly thal Alternative 6 because
it requires more private property acquisition'
Summary
Table2.2glmmartzestheimpactsforthet}rree
build alternatives'
r 2109
Environmental Assessment
Tahle2.2Summaryoflevel3Screeninglmpacts
Traffic OPerations
SafetY
Environmental
Right-of-lIIaY
Impacts
Adequate
Lowest safetY rating
Moderate Potential to
affect water qualitY of
Colorado River
No adverse effect to his-
toric ProPerties
6.3 acres of Private
proPerty
Adequate
Adequate safetY rating
Moderate Potential to
affect water qualitY of
Colorado River
No adverse effect to his-
toric ProPerties
6.9 acres of Private
proPertY
$500,000 more tharl
Alternative 6
Adequate
Highest safety rating
Lower Potential to a-ffect
water qualitY of Colorado
River
No adverse effect to his-
toric ProPerties
4.2 acres of Private ProP-
erty
l,owest cost alternative
$1'2 million more thal
Cost Alternative 6
While each build alternative accommodates future
tra-ffic demarrd, Alternative 6 rates best in safety'
right-of-way impacts, and cost' For these reasons'
Alternative 6 was carried forward as the Preferred
Alternative for analysis against the No Action
Alternative.
2.5 Alternatives Advanced
As a result of the evaluation process and input
from the public and other affected stakeholders'
the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alter-
native were advanced for detailed analysis in this
EA. These altematives are described below'
Descriptions of the social' economic' environmen-
tal, and transportation impacts associated with
the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alter-
native are found in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EA'
Public and agency comments and coordination are
found in ChaPter 5 of this EA'
2.5.t llo Action Afternative
The No Action Alternative includes only those proj-
ects that already have committed funds for
improvements. These improvements would be
madewhettrerornotanyot}rerimprovementsare
made in conjunction with the project' The No
Action Alternative is fully assessed and is used as
a baseline for environmental analysis purposes'
Committed projects included in the No Action
Alternative include Parachute Park Boulevard' the
northwest arterial from CR 2 15 north of Parachute
to US 6 in western Parachute' and improvements
to the existing Parachute interchange' At the exist-
ing interchange, CDOT recently installed wire-
"pL o"m" signals and right-hand turn lanes on
the off-ramps (see Section l'2fot more detail)'
Compared to ttre Preferred Alternative' the follow-
** "auro,rges
and disadvantages were identifred
for the No Action Alternative'
Advantages
. Traffic signals and ramp improvements at the
existing interchange have provided some
improvements to trallic operations at the exist-
ing interchange, but will not fully accommodate
the projected 2035 demand at that location'
. No additional property acquisition would be
required beyond those that are part of the
committed Projects'
. No additional impacts to the natural' cultural'
or human environment would occur beyond
those that are part of the committed projects'
' No additional delays or inconvenience as a
result of roadway construction would occur
beyond ttrose ttrat are part of the committed
Projects.
2-g
Environmental Assessment
r 2l0g
Disadvantages
. Would not fully address the Purpose and Need
for the Project'
. Would be less effective at improving safety in
the surrounding transportation network and
reducing conflicts between all users'
. Would not be as compatible with Parachute
andGarfieldCountyplanningprocessesorthe
2O3O lntermountain Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP)'
2.5.2 Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 6' Modifred
Roundabout Design' Figure 2-4) is the result of a
CSS process' The CSS process involved all stake-
holders, including municipalities, agencies, alrd
tfre puUtic, in a collaborative process to develop a
t *"pott"tlon facility that fits its physical setting
and preserv"" t"""it' aesthetic' historic' and envi-
ronmental ."*o'-l'"""' while maintaining safety and
mobility. As such, this CSS approach considered
the total context within which the transportation
imProvement Project would exist'
The Preferred Alternative would provide a full
accessinterchangeattheedstingUS6bridgeover
I-70 west or paralnute' This interchange would
consist of a diamond interchange layout with
roundabout intersections at the ramp terminals'
The new roundabout on the north side of the inter-
change would be designed to convert the existing
sharp curve movement on US 6 into the round-
about conliguration' In addition' the roundabout
-ry t. designed to provide a blpass lane for the
higher volume of traffic expected from westbound
US 6 to westbound I-70' The new roundabout on
the south side would also convert the existing
sharp curve movement south of I-70 into the
roundabout design and would include the existing
frontage road inlrsection as part of the round-
about. A new connection between tlee roundabout
irrt"r"."tion and the frontage road would be con-
structed.
Acceleration and deceleration lanes on I-7O would
be constructed to meet or exceed current stan-
dards.Allotherdesignelements,includingdrain-
age facilitie*, pu'ut*J"t design' and cross-section
elements, would be designed to meet or exceed
current design standards'
2.5.2.1 Traffic 0Perations
The Preferred Alternative would provide adequate
traffic operations at the proposed interchange and
would improve operations at adjacent inter-
changes, consistent with the project Purpose and
Need.
2.5.2.2 Structures
The Preferred Alternative would not require any
new bridge or retaining wall structures' Providing
asidewalkwould,"q,i'"wideningof.theexisting
bridge and is not part of the Preferred Alternative'
This could occur at a later date to coincide with
planned improvements of bicycle/pedestrian con-
nections to Parachute'
2.5.2.3 Preferred Alternative Advantages and
Disadvantages
The following ad'vantages and disadvantages have
been identifred for the Preferred Alternative'
Advantages
' Meets the project Purpose and Need'
. Provid'es an additional access point for emer-
gency vehicles requiring the use of I-70' The
[ropo"td I-70 Parachute West Interchange
would provide improved emergency vehicle
connectivity to I-7O and improved emergency
vehicle mobility and response time' Refer to
1210s
Environmental Assessment
2-10
2-11
Environmental Assessment
12109
Elloc)a
ca
CE
oE
o)
=lc
=tE
o,
(g
ct)
<l
C{
6'
E')
u-
Figure 1-1 for the location of emergency ser-
vices in Parachute' The proposed interchange
also supports the Town Master Plal and Gar-
field County planning processes to improve
connectivitY.
. Provides about 15 percent reduction in traffrc
volumes using the existing interchange'
thereby improving trallic operations along I-70
in this area (see Chapter 4)' Reduced traffrc
volumes would also improve overall operations
on Garfreld CR 215 in the existing I-70 inter-
change area, reduce potential conflicts' reduce
aggressive behavior, enhance emergency
u.""""", and improve accessibility'
. Accommodates 2035 traffic demand in the
interchange area'
. Is comPatible with Parachute' Garfield County'
and region Planning Processes'
. Minimizes impacts to private property and the
natural environment'
Disadrrantages
' Temporary delays and inconvenience as a
result of roadway construction would occur'
. Acquisition of 4'2 acres of right-of-way'
. Conversion of land to transportation use'
. Increase in impervious surface area by an
additional 4.76 acres,but no direct impacts to
water resources such as the Colorado River or
Parachute Creek'
. Removal of native salt desert vegetation and
disturbed roadside vegetative communities'
' Minor impacts to historic US 6 and Haver-
meYer-Wilcox Canal'
. Ind.irect impacts to wildlife resulting from both
the loss of vegetation and changing traffic pat-
terns.
. Potential discovery of hazardous materials
during construction'
. Modification of the existing visual environ-
ment.
2.5.2.4 Estimate ol Probable Gosts
The estimated conceptual cost range for the proj-
ect is $12 6illion to $14 6illion' This is a total
project cost that includes the following elements:
. Earthwork
. New RoadwaY Connection
. Drainage
. Traffic Control/Lighting
. Utilities/Force Account Utilities
' Contingencies/Unlisted Items
. Urban Design/LandscaPing
. Construction SigninglTratrrc Control
. Mobilization
. Right-of-WaY/Easements
. Design Engineering
. ConstructionEngineering
. ConstructionSurveYing
. EnvironmentalEnhancements
. Environmental Compliance and Mitigation
. Public ParticiPation
2.6 Proiect Funding
Parachute has identified the I-7O West Parachute
Interchange as a recommended improvement in
the Town Master Plan' This project is also
included in the current Stateuide Transportation
Improuement Program(STIP) and the 2O3O Inter-
mountainRTP'
1210s
2-12
Environmental Assessment
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative likely
would be locally funded' Funding for the EA' inter-
change approvals (Interchange Access Request and
16O1 processes), and preliminary design came
from several sources- Parachute' Garheld
CounQr, Battlement Mesa Company' and the Colo-
rado Department of l'ocal A{fairs (DOLA)' Similarly'
adaitional funding for design and construction is
expected to come from some or all of these sources
a" weU as development and user fees'
2-13
Environmental Assessment
12109
3-l
This chapter describes the existing social' eco-
nomic, and environmental setting for the I-70 Para-
chute West Interchange project study area' It also
describes the potential environmental impacts that
could occur as a result of implementation of either
the No Action Alternative or the Preferred Alterna-
tive. Mitigation measures are identifred for impacts
associated with the Preferred Alternative' As the
project sponsor, the Town of Parachute (Parachute)
would assume responsibitty for adhering to all
mitigation measures outlined in this Environmen-
tal,issessment (EA)' This responsibility would be
documented in an Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) between Parachute and Colorado Department
of 'transportatlon (CDOT)' This IGA would be pre-
pared once Parachute is in a position to commit to
funding of project design and constructton'
Per requirements under the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)' all resources were
reviewed for presence in ttre study area and for
impacts. This chapter presents evaluation of only
those resources that could be aJfected by project
activities. Information on resources with no antici-
pated effects were summartzed' in technical memo-
randa (see enclosed Compact Disc)' This simplifies
the document, makes it more relevant to decision-
makers, and makes it easier for the public to read'
Resources potentially aJfected by the project and
discussed within this chapter include: Land Use'
Socioeconomic, Right-of-Way / Relocation' Air
Qualrty, Water Resources and Water Qualiff' Veg-
etation and Noxious Weeds, Fish arrd Wildlife, His.
toric Propertie s, Hazardous Substances' Visual
Resources/Aesthetics, and Cumulative' This
chapter also includes Construction arrd Permits
Required sections'
The study area is located in a montane' arid cli-
mate, where several common environmental
resources were not present or a'ffected within
study area boundaries, and therefore would not be
aJfected. These resources include: Noise' Threat-
enedandEndangeredSpecies'Wetlands'Environ-
mental Justice, Farmlands' Paleontological
Resources, Floodptains, and Parks and Recre-
ation. The following section briefly explains why
these resources would not be affected'
Noise - The existing US 6 flyover consists of a
rural typical section with no direct access to I-70'
Land use within the study area consists of vacant
private property, Bureau of Lald Management
iu"*l ,""or.".land, and CDOT right-of-way'
Aftnorrgt, noise will change due to the change in
traffic patterns, the study area does not contain
*y roi"" sensitive receivers and' therefore' no
,roi"" ir.rp""ts would occur' The Preferred Alterna-
tive would reduce traffic on existing US 6 througit
Parachute and, therefore' reduce noise levels to
noise-sensitive receptors within town'
Environmental Justice - There are no resi-
dences or businesses located within the study area
and,therefore,nolow-incomeorminoritypopula-
tions exist within the study area' Census blocks
located south and east of tl.e study area (in Para-
chute and the Battlement Mesa development)
show greater percentages of minority populations
than Garfield County' Also' the Census block
group that includes the study area' Parachute'
La tn" Battlement Mesa development has a
greater percentage of low-income households than
6..n"fa County' Therefore' low-income or minor-
ity populations may exist in these areas' However'
a review of potential project impacts to all other
resources from the project indicates that any
effects to such populations would be beneficial'
Farmland - There are no farmlands identifred as
unique or of statewide or local importance in the
study area. However, certain portions of the study
area are identified as prime farmland soils' if irri-
gated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium'
The Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) Field Service Center in Glenwood Springs
r 2,0s
Environmental Assessment
Ghapter 3.0
Affected Enuironment, lppacts, and Mitigation
indicated this area needs to have been actively irri-
gated for two of the past five years for that desig-
i^tion to apply. The study area is mostly within
CDOT right-of-way and has not been actively irri-
gated in the past five years' Since there are no
areas of prime or unique farmland nor farmland of
local or statewide importance present within the
study area, farmlalds would not be affected'
Threatened and Endangered Species - A fie1d
study of the area was cond'ucted in Fall 2OO7 to
assess the presence ofhabitat for federal and state
listedthreatenedandendangeredspeciesasdeter-
mined by the U'S' Fish ald Wildlife Service
PSFWSj and the Colorado National Heritage Pro-
;""r. The project team also coordinated with the
ivlaUf. Program Manager for CDOT prior to con-
ducting site surveys' Items of particular interest
included: close survey of cottonwood stands and
perch sites for signs of eagle activity' presence/
.b""rr""d,eterminationofprairiedogswithintlte
study area, and determination if a presence/
absence survey would be necessar5r during the
flowering season for accurate identification of any
existing populations of Parachute beardtongue or
Uinta basin hookless cactus' The Colorado River is
located outside the study area' There are no antic-
ipated water depletions or impacts to water qual-
ity, and effects to protected Colorado River fish
and designated critical habitat is not anticipated'
The freld survey included areas of possible direct
and indirect land disturbance resulting from the
proposed project' No areas ofthreatened or endan-
g"..a "p""ies
habitat were observed during the
field visit.
Floodplains - A review of Federal Emergency
Marragement Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insur-
ance Plan maps showed that the study area is not
in any delineated flood zone (FEMA' 2OO6' Map
Referlnce # O8O20517OOB)' Flood zones desig-
nated as loo-year floodplains exist in association
with the Colorado River to ttre south and east of
the study area. The boundary for the 1oo-year
floodplain runs along the southeastern side of the
Union Pacilic Railroad (UPRR)' which runs along a
..i".a profile near the study area' The railroad
serves as a barrier between floodwaters and the
study area. The project would not directly or indi-
,..,t, affect the 1oo-year floodplain or floodplain
e1.',rations. It would not appreciably change or
modi{y floodplain hydraulics or support incompat-
ible development in the floodplain'
Wetlands - A field survey of the study area was
conducted on Septembet 2l' 2OO7 artd again on
October +,2OO7 'The study area contains I-70 and
US 6 and several culverts under these roadways
that transport runoff from the roadways into dry
gulches located sporadically throughout the area'
None of the gulches exhibit hydrologic conditions
capable of supporting wetland vegetation' Vegeta-
tionwithinthestudyareaconsistsmainlyofsalt
tolerant desert species and weedy species'
A small area of common reed grass (Phragmites
australisl,a facultative wetland species' was iden-
tified south of I-70; however' the area did not
exhibit wetland hydrolory or soils' The field survey
concluded ttrat the study area does not contain
any wetlands, nor could' it maintain a hydrologic
"y.t" ,t., would be conducive to forming hydric
soils. For these reasons, the project would not
affect anY wetland resource'
Parks and Recreation - No recreation facilities
or parks exist in the study area and none are
planned. Nearby park and recreational facilities
would not be alfected by project activities'
Paleontological Resources - No fossils were dis-
covered during the {ield survey and there are no
previously recorded fossil localities within the
",rray
area. Therefore, the paleontological evalua-
tion conducted for the project recommends a pale-
r 2l0s
3-2
Environmental Assessment
ontoiogical clearance for the portions of the study
area that occur within the I-70 median' to the
southeast of I-7O, and for most of tlee northwest-
ern portion. Outcrops of fossiliferous Wasatch
(nenequel Formation occur along the northwest-
ern margin of the study area' The project is not
anticipated to affect these outcrops' However'
*h", the project design plans are frnalized' the
CDOT Staff Paleontologist will examine them and
determine the exlent of impact to DeBeque Forma-
tion bedrock, and the scope ofpaleontological
monitoring, if any, that is required' If any subsur-
face bones or other potential fossils are found any-
where within the study area during ground
disturbance, the CDOT Staff Pateontologist will be
notiliedimmediatelytoassesstheirsignifrcallce
and make further recommendations'
3.1 Land Use
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
Aerial photography, visual survey' U'S' Geological
Sr*"y (USCS) Land Cover data for Garfreld
c.r.;; the Toutnof Parachute Master Plan(2oo2l'
trre Titn of Parachute Master Plan Centennial Edi-
tion(2OO8\,and the Garfield Countg Comprehen-
siue Plan of 2o0}were used to characteize latd
use in the studY area'
The study area is located within an unpopulated
segment of unincorporated Garheld County (see
filrrre 3-1), which is serviced by Parachute (Toutn
of Parachute Master Plan' 2OO2l' East of the study
Jt". rt" the Parachute and the Battlement Mesa
developments. BLM owns land north and souttr of
3-3
Enuironmental Assessment
12109
the study area; however, no BLM land is present
within the study area' Land cover within and adja-
cent to the study area consists mostly of shrubs
and bush rangeland' Land use in and near the
study anea consists of transportation use and
scattered gas well operations' No residences or
commercial businesses are located within the
studY area.
Zoninginformation for tl.e study area was
obtainld from the Garfield County Department of
Building and Planning' Three zoningdistricts are
identified in the study area: Riglrt-of-way'
Resource Land, and Agricultural/ Re sidential/
Rural Density. As shown in Figure 3-2' the study
area is zonedapproximately equally for each of
these designations'
According to the Garfield Countg Comprehensiue
Plan of 2 OOO, Agricultural/ Residential / Rural Den-
sity zones allow for the most flexibility when com-
pared to any other zone' Uses' such as communidr
build,ings, resource extraction' and equipment
",o."g", are allowed within this designation'
Trre Toun of Parachute Master Plan Centennial Edi-
tion, 2}OSdiscusses annexing land south of I-70
and west of Parachute' These annexations would
direct growth west of Parachute' toward the pro-
posed interchange' In addition' street and circula-
r 2l0g
Environmental Assessment
3-4
tion improvements are planned to facilitate access
and mobility. For example, improvements to the
Parachute Park Boulevard "West Bypass" would
provide access from north of I-70' while the exten-
*io., of Cardinal Way west would provide access
from south of I-70'
i.1.2 lnPacts
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative' land uses would
likely remain unchanged within the study area'
Congestion and mobility at the existing inter-
change and on local streets would worsen over
time, increasing travel times and reducing accessi-
bility to adjacent land uses'
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would result in the con-
version of land to transportation use' but would
not require any residential or business relocations
(see Section 3.3). It would improve connectivity
with I-70, improve overall interstate operations
both on I-70 and at the existing Parachute inter-
change, arrd improve mobility for botl. regional
and local tralfic.
Improving access along I-70 by building the Para-
ct ut West Interchange is consistent with local
area planning. For example' the Toutn of Parachute
Master Plan Centennial Edition' 2OO8' discusses
tlre new interchange, and promotes access to the
interchange by planning an extension of Cardinal
Way on the south side of town and building Para-
ct ute Park Boulevard on the north side of town'
According to agency scoping' there are 1'600
homes planned south of the interchange and three
ptanned unit developments planned in Battlement
Mesa. The Preferred Alternative is part of a larger
plan to provide for orderly growth and improve cir-
culation in the area'
Under certain conditions, new interchanges can
alter land use patterns by facilitating interchalge-
related development (e'g', service stations' restau-
rants). Changes in traffic patterns and improved
access also can increase the attractiveness of
some areas for develoPment'
To evaluate indirect land use effects and the
potential for induced growth from the Preferred
'Alternative, constraints to development were iden-
tified and mapped (see Figure 3-3)' This analysis
indicated that development near the proposed
interchangewouldbeconstrainedbythepresence
of undevelopable land, land use regulations' and
physical geography' The land north of the study
ute. i" owned by the BLM and is not eligible for
development. In addition, during right-of-way
acquiJtiort for the project, the access control line
will be revised to prohibit direct access to and from
the interchange.
As mentioned in Section 3'1'1' the private prop-
erty near the proposed interchange is zoned as
Agicultural/ Residential/ Rural Density and
Resource Land use' Although this zoning category
provides considerable flexibility in permitted uses'
commercial, interchange-related development
would require tezonktgapproval' The Resource
zorwrgalso prohibits this type of commercial
develoPment.
Development further south would be greatly con-
strained by the UPRR, the Colorado River and its
floodplain, and the floodplain regulations that
restrict floodPlain develoPment'
i.1.3 Mitigation
Because the Preferred Alternative would not result
in adverse effects on land use' mitigation would
not be necessary. Mitigation for right-of-way
impacts is discussed in Section 3'3'3'
3.2 Socioeconomic Gonditions
i.2.1 Existing Eonditions
Population
The study area is located approximately 2'3 miles
west of Parachute' Garfield County' Parachute'
and the Battlement Mesa development have expe-
3-5
Environmental Assessment
12'05
rienced population glowth over the past few yea-rs
and, as a result of natural gas exploration and res-
idential development, this trend is expected to
continue. Table 3-1
for Garfield CountSr,
Mesa.
shows PoPulation statistics
Parachute, and Battlement
Garfield CountY
Town of Parachute
Battlement Mesa
29,974
658
1,477
43,791
l,,006
3,497
46.1%
52.9'/,
136.8%
50,673
1,360
t46,271.
"12,200
188.6%
797.1%
262.7%n 13,600*3,750
(includes unincor- (includes, u"l1t^?t
porated areas) Porated a-reas)
Source:USCerrszsBuredu,lggoaruT2oo0;.ColoradoDepartmertofl'ocalAffairs,20o5and20o6l"C"rfila- ct"ntg, Colorado frate Demograplrcr 1210s
Environmental Assessment
3-6
Enuironment, lmpacts, and Mitigation
Table 3'1 PoPulation Statistics
% Ghanqe2ooo tsgo'2oio
Total Housing Units
Population growttr is expected to continue as oil
and gas development and tourism increase
emplo5rment and housing needs in the area'
A."oraittg to Garfield County and Colorado State
Oemograptrer data, Parachute and the surround-
irrg rrtitt"otporated areas (including Battlement
Mesa) are projected to increase in population at a
rate of approximately 5'5 percent per year between
2005 anJ 2}35.This represents an annual glowth
rate that is about triple the projected growth rate
for the state ofColorado' This aggressive growth
pattern would result in a 2O35 population of about
ZS,8OO, compared to the existing 2OO5 population
of approximately 5,1OO in the Parachute/Battle-
*"rt M""" area. See Section 1'3 for more informa-
tion on projected population growth'
Parachute population has a median age of 29'3'
The population of Battlement Mesa is older' with a
m"aian age of 40.0 years, which is attributable to
the large number of retirees tlat Battlement Mesa
has attracted (US Census Bureau' 2000)' House-
hold incomes for Battlement Mesa are higher; the
median household incomes of Battlement Mesa
and Parachute are $36,680 and $31,2O8, respec-
tivelY.
Housing
The growth in housing units in Parachute has not
mirrored the growth in population in the area'
From 1990 to 2OOO, the number of housing units
in Parachute decreased by one (from 409 to 408)'
At the same time, the number of vacant housing
units in Parachute decreased signifrcantly' while
the ownership of houses increased' These trends
are due to a large number of houses that were left
vacant after a collapse in the oil shale business in
ttre early 198Os, then reoccupied as population
increased in the 1990s'
Housing units in Battlement Mesa more than dou-
bled from 1990 to 2000' In addition' the number
of housing units occupied by owrrers increased
signifrcantly, indicating a thriving and growing
cJmmunity. Table 3-2 shows housing statistics
for Parachute and Battlement Mesa' There are no
housing units within tJee study area'
CommunltY Facilltles
Several community facilities serve the residents of
the Parachute/Battlement Mesa area' Garfield
CountSr School District #16 serves the residents of
Parachute and Battlement Mesa' There is one Gar-
freld County School District administrative office
and four schools. The one pre-school and high
school are located in Parachute' and the elemen-
tary school and middle school are located in Bat-
tlement Mesa.
Battlement Mesa Medical Center and Grand River
Hospital and Clinic (in RiIle) provide medical
response services in the area' Garheld County pro-
vides police response services' with two police offi-
cers stationed in Parachute' The Grand Valley Fire
ProtectionDistricthasafiredepartmentlocatedin
Parachute.Noneofthecommunityfacilitiesare
located within the studY area'
3.7
Table 3'2 Housing Statistics
Occupied
- Owner
- Renter
Vacant
Sour<:e: US Census Burectu'
t 2l()s
409
263
87
t76
146
199O and 2OO0
408
374
139
235
34
-o.20/o
42.2',/o
59.896
33.59/n
-76.7',/"
802
372
129
543
130
L,621
1,465
792
673
156
to2.lo/o
293.8%
514.o'h
23.g',h
20.Oo/o
Environmental Assessment
Battlement Mesa
lsso 2ooo 'il['Jl,tffiil'
EconomY
Table 3-3 provides economic statistics for Para-
chute, Battlement Mesa, and Garfield County'
Most industry in the area is associated with
nearby natural gas exploration, production' and
distribution. Approximately 7O drilling rigs were
actively working in mid-2006 on behalf of a num-
ber of exploration and production companies (Gar-
field Countg Socio-Economic Impact Studg\'
Roughly 4,000 people were estimated to be directly
"rrrptoy.a
by gas development companies and their
subcontractors in 2OO5'
Construction and retail industries' as well as edu-
cational, health, and social services comprise
much of the industry in the area (US Census
Bureau, 2OOO). As mentioned' in Section 1'3' oil
and gas development exist within the study area
and is projected to peak within the county around
2Ol7.Job forecasts from the Colorado Department
of l,ocal Affairs, State Demography Office reflect
this trend. From 2OO5 lo 2O2O' predictions indi-
cate an increase of 18,737 jobs (from 30'597 to
49,334, or 61.2 percent) in Garlield County' From
2O2O to 2035, total jobs will grow by 8'676 jobs
(from 49,334 to 58,01O, or 17'5 percent)' Projected
job growth is considerably greater over the first
period than the second Period'
The establishment of American Soda (a soda ash
processing plant) also has created new employ-
Lent and economic opportunities in the area
(Toun of Parachute Master Plan' 2OO2\'
3.2.2 lnPacts
lto Actlon Alternative
The No Action Alternative would not notably a-{fect
population growth or housing development near
the study area. Worsening congestion at the exist-
ing I-7O interchange at County Road (CR) 215 and
on t-ZO would make it increasingly dilfrcult to
access businesses, residences' and communit5l
facilities in Parachute and Battlement Mesa'
The transportation problems described in Chapter
1 would continue, adversely affecting emergency
service <lelivery and decreasing response times' As
discussed in Section 1'5' 1, lack of redundant
access to I-7O has been cited as a concern for
emergency access' Since the existing Parachute
interchange is the only connection with I-70 read-
ily accessible in the Parachute and Battlement
Mesa area, and the only crossing of I-7O for most
land uses, any disruption at the existing inter-
change can seriously hinder emergency services'
as well as access to businesses' residences' and
communit5r facilities'
Latror Force
Unemplo5,T nent
Per CaPita Income
Median Household
Income
Source: US Census Bureau,
3-8
1e (s.8%)
$1O,866
$22,O83
1990 and 200O
to (2.1%l
$14,114
$31,2o8
1l {2.7o/o\
$ 1O,79!l
$20,451
$i8,653
$36,680
s2 (6.s%l 756 (4.7%J 645 {2'7%l
$ 1 3,086 $z t ,s+ t
$29,176 $47,016
12'0S
Tahle 3'3 Economic Statistics
Environmental Assessment
1,341 16,o22
Preferred Alternative
Construction of the Preferred Alternative is not
anticipated to allect population growth or housing
development near the study area' Further'
impa.i" to oil and gas wells are not anticipated
since construction activities will not take place
near the wells. By addressing the transportation
needs discussed in Section 1'5' the Preferred
Alternativewouldimproveconnectivity'mobility'
and access along the I-70 corridor' Construction of
the new interchange would improve trallic flow'
provide redundant access to I-7O' and allow for
faster emergency response times' Also' as dis-
cussed in Section 4'4'3, the Preferred Atternative
would provide some congestion relief to the exist-
ing interchange, although it would not be expected
tololve all of the interchange's tralfi'c operation
problems.
i.2.3 Mitigation
No mitigation measures are necessary because the
Preferred Alternative would not result in adverse
socioeconomic impacts' Good communication with
emergency service providers, the community' and
residents in Parachute and Battlement Mesa with
regard to road delays, access' and special con-
"tr,r"tiort
activities will be conducted during the
construction Phase'
See Section 3.ll .2for mitigation measures associ-
ated with construction activities'
3.3 Right'of'WaYfRelocation
3.3,1 Existing Conditions
Right-of-way impacts were arralyzed using Garheld
County tax parcel mapping and highway plans
providld by CDoT. The study area is rural' con-
"l*ai.rg
of vacant lands and natural gas infrastruc-
tu.e. Highway rights-of-way associated with
existingl-7O ald US 6 mostly parallel those high-
ways. ihe riglrt-of-way width for I-7o ranges from
"rr-l*","f,
44O feet to more than 1'5OO feet at
tt e US 6 bridge. Right-of-way along US 6 in the
study area is approximately 21O feet wide' The
study area contains no residences' businesses' or
other structures'
3.3.2 lnPacts
No Action Nternative
The No Action Alternative would not require any
new right-of-way, property acquisitions' or busi-
ness and residential relocations'
Preferred Nternatlve
The Preferred Alternative would require approxi-
mately 4.2 actesof additional right-of-way within
the study area from separate parcels owned by one
land owner. This estimation is based on prelimi-
nary right-of-way research' and further study
would be conducted during the design stage' No
other property acquisitions would be required' No
business or residential relocations would occur'
3.3.3 Mitigation
For any person(s) whose real property interests
m.y fe irnpacted by this project' the acquisition of
tho"" prop.rty interests will comply fully with the
tJniform Relocation Assistance and Real Propertg
Aquisition Poticies Act of 1970' as amended' (Uni-
formAcf.The Uniform Act is a federally mandated
,roO* that applies to all acquisitions of real
prop..ty or displacements of persons resulting
from Federal or federally assisted programs or
projects. lt was created to provide for and ensure
h" f"i. and equitable treatment of all such per-
sons. To further ensure that the provisions con-
tained within this act are applied "uniformly'"
CDOT requires Uniform Act compliarrce on any
project for which it has oversight responsibility
regaratess of the funding source' Additionally' the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitu-
tion provides that private property may not be
taken for a public use without pa5rment of "just
compensation." A11 impacted owners will be pro-
vided notification of the acquiring agency's intent
to acquire an interest in their property including a
written offer letter ofjust compensation specifi-
3-S
Environmental Assessment
12'0s
cally describing those property interests' A Right-
of-W"y Specialist will be assigned to each propert5r
owner to assist them with this process'
3.4 Air 0ualitY
3.4.1 Nationat Anhient Air huality $tandards
The Clean Air Act of l97O (CAA)' which was last
amended in 199O, requires the US Environmental
Frotection Agency (EPA) to set national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for the following pollut-
ants:carbonmonoxide(CO)'ozone'nitrogendiox-
ide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM16 and
PMz.s), and lead' The State of Colorado has
"aoii"a the NAAQS for the above criteria pollut-
ants. Areas where criteria pollutants are measured
below the NAAQS (no violation) are designated as
attainment areas' Conversely' a-reas where con-
centrations of a given pollutalt exceed or violate
the NAAQS are designated as non-attainment
areas. Currently, Garfreld Count5r is in attainment
for all criteria Pollutants'
3.4.2 Existing Conditions
The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) at the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Envi-
ronment (CDPHE) monitors criteria pollutant con-
centrations for Colorado' However' since Garfield
County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants'
APCD does not have monitoring stations within
Garfreld CounQr' Therefore' monitoring is con-
ducted by Garfreld Count5r Board of Health to
monitor concentrations within the County' The
County is in the process of implementing an Air
Quality Monitoring Frogram with the assistance of
NaturalResourceManagementlnstitute(NRMI)at
the Colorado Mountain College and APCD at the
CDPHE. The NRMI has installed and monitored 7
PM16 stations and 17 Volatile Organic Compound
NOC) stations within Garlield County under the
direction of APCD (see Figure 3-4' PM19 Monitor-
ing Stations). NRMI continues to monitor the sta-
tlo=tts on a monthly and quarterly basis' There are
also six additional VOC stations being monitored
monthly. Grab samples are also collected on an
as-needed basis when there is a public odor com-
plaint. Garfield County has concluded that the
'fM1g t.rr"l" are relatively low' except for the urban-
ir.i"*".". The VOC concentrations are highest in
biogenic (forestry and agricultural) and stationarSr
"or..." (utilities, manufacturing industries)'
3.4.3 lnPacts
No Action Nternatlve
The intersection of CR 215 and US 6 (First Street)
currently experience signilicant vehicle delays and
the minor approaches of US 6 operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) F during peak hours' As discussed in
Section 4.4-3, this congestion is projected to
increase under the No Action Alternative' Intersec-
tions that operate at a LOS D or worse have higlrer
concentrations of vehicle emissions resulting in air
quality effects. Therefore, adverse air quality effects
are expected to worsen under the No Action Alter-
native.
Preferred Alternative
Geographic areas that exceed a particular NAAQS
pottuturrt standard are considered "non-attain-
Lent' areas for that pollutant' The study area
within Garfield County is currently in an attain-
ment area for all criteria pollutants for federal
standards,andtransportationconformityprovi-
sions of the CAA do not apply to this project'
Therefore, project-level CO and PMlg and PMz's
hot spot modeling is not required for this project'
as well as any aaaitionat analysis of criteria pollut-
ants.
The Preferred Alternative is identified within the
Intermountain Regional Transportation Plan (April
2OO4l.It would reduce tra{Iic congestion at t}re CR
r 2109
Environmental Assessment
3-10
215 interchange, thereby improving air quality in
that area. There are no anticipated impacts under
criteria pollutant air quality due to the Preferred
Alternative.
i.4.4 Mitigation
The project will be subject to the fugitive dust per-
mitting and control requirements of the Colorado
Air Quality Control Commission (CAQCC) Regula-
tion 1 (Emission Control Regulation for Particulate
Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfirr
Oxides for the state of Colorado, effective March 2'
2OO2) and Regulation 3 (Air Contaminant Emis-
sions Notices, effective January L, 2OOO)' A Land
Development Permit Application and Fugitive Dust
Control Plan will need to be prepared and submit-
ted to CDPHE, APCD. See Section 3'11'2 for best
management practices (BMPs) to be used during
construction-
3.4.5 Mohile Source Air Toxics'Compliance
with 40 cFfr 1502.22
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which
there are NAAQS, EPA regulates air toxics (see
Appendix B). Most air toxics originate from
human-made sources, including on-road mobile
sources, non-road mobile sources (e'g'' airplanes)'
area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary
sources (e.g., factories or refineries)'
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of
the 188 air toxics d'efined by the CAA' The MSATs
are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and
non-road equipment'Between 2000 and 2O2O' the
FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent
increase in vehicle miles of travel (VMT)' EPA's fuel
and emission standards will reduce on-highway
emissions of benzene, formaldehyde' 1'3-butadi-
ene, artd acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 per-
cent, and will reduce on-highway diesel particulate
matter emissions bY 87 Percent'
3-1 1
Environmental Assessment
12'09
Figure 3'4 PMr0 Monitoring Stations
rl la 345
Unavailable Information for ProJect Speciflc
MSAT ImPact AnalYsis
Availabte technical tools do not enable us to pre-
dict the project-specific health impacts of the
emission ctranges associated with the alternatives
in this EA. Therefore, a quantitative assessment of
the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on
human health cannot be made at the project level'
While available tools do allow us to reasonably
predict relative emissions chalges between alter-
natives for larger projects' the amount of MSAT
emissions from the No Action and Preferred Alter-
natives and MSAT concentrations or exposures
created by each of the project alternatives cannot
be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in
e stirnating health imPacts'
MSAT ProJect Level Comparative Analysis
For each alternative in this EA the amount of
MSATs emitted would be proportional to the VMT'
assuming that other variables' suctr as fleet mix'
are the same for each alternative' Tra{frc data pro-
fo""a for ttris project indicates the VMT estimated
ior the Preferred Alternative would be higher than
for the No Action Alternative in 2035 (Table 3-4)'
However, higher levels of regional MSATs are not
expected from the Preferred Alternative compared
to the No Action Alternative because regardless of
the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be
lower tl-al present levels in the design year as a
result of EPA's national control programs that are
projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87
pet"errt from 2OOO to 2030' Local conditions may
differ from these national projections in terms of
fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates' and
local control measures' However' the magnitude of
the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even
after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emis-
sions in the study area are likely to be lower in the
future in virtually all locations'
In sum, under the Preferred Alternative in the
design year, it is expected there would be reduced
MSATemissionswithinthestudyarearelativeto
nla 600
1. SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59' August 10' 2005
1210s
2035 Tralfic Volumes (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
Table 3'4 Peak Hour Existing and Proiected
US6 t42 265 525
US 6/I-7O east- ,,^la
bound ramP
US 6/I-IZO rvest- ..la
bound ramP
the No Action Alternative due to EPA's fuel and
emission reduction programs' In comparing the
alternatives, MSAT levels could be higher in some
locations within the study area than others' but
current tools and science are not adequate to
quantify them. However, on a regional basis' EPA's
vehicle and fuel regulations' coupled with fleet
turnover, will over time cause substantial reduc-
tions that, in almost all cases' will cause region-
wide MSAT levels to be considerably lower than
todaY.
Mitigation for Constnrction MSAT Emissions
Since construction activity may generate a tempo-
rar5r increase in MSAT emissions' implementation
of construction emission mitigation technologie s
and operational practices should help lower short-
term MSATs. In addition, ttre Safe' Accountable'
Flexible, E{Iicient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users has emphasized a host of diesel
retrofit technologies in the lads Congestion Miti-
gation and Air Quality provisions-technologies
that are designed to i""""" a number of MSATs'1
The following construction mitigation strate gies
will be implemented during construction:
. ljnnecessary idling of heavy equipment will be
limitedduringconstructionactivitytoprevent
exhaust emissions'
3-12
Environmental Assessment
No Action PreferredNo AGIlon rturr
Roadway Existing Alternative Alternative
2035 2035
. HeaW equipment will be maintained and
tuned per manufacturers specifications to per-
form at EPA certilication levels'
. Low-sulfur fuels will be used for diesel con-
struction equiPment'
There will be no significant MSAT levels as a result
of the Preferred Alternative due to EPA's projected
reduction of MSAT emissions' Therefore' longer
term mitigation strategies are not proposed for this
project. R a",*l"a discussion of MSATs can be
found in APPendix B'
3.5 Water Resources and Water 0uality
3.6., Existing Conditions
The study area is located adjacent to the Colorado
River and within the Colorado Headwaters-Plateau
Watershed (Hydrologic Unit #14010005)' The Col-
orado River is considered important to the econ-
omy and character of the community of Garfield
Corrrrty and much of the southwestern United
States.
Sutface Water
The Colorado River is located near and just south-
east ofthe study area' Parachute Creek drains
into the Colorado River northeast of the study
area.
Several roadside ditches in the study area serve to
collect runoff from I-70 and from US 6 and drain
offsite. These ditches divert roadway runoffinto
open, undeveloped areas and dry gullies located
b"t*."r, l-70 and US 6, and between US 6 and the
Colorado River floodplain' Surface water features
are shown in Figure 3-5'
3-13
Environmental Assessment
1210s
The Colorado River is monitored by the USGS
approximately 26 miles downstream from the
siuay area, where daily flow discharges average
1,590 cubic feet Per second (cfs)'
G,roundwater
Groundwater resources in the Colorado Headwa-
ters-Plateau W atershed range from non-tributary
aquifers to shallow alluvial, or tributary aquifers'
The study area is in the Piceance Basin of the
Uinta-Animas Aquifer' This aquifer is composed of
Lower Tertiary rocks consisting of silty sandstone'
siltstone, and marlstone and receives about
24,OOO acre-feet per year of recharge' approxi-
mately equal to its annual discharge' Groundwater
recharge for the basin happens primarily in
upland areas nea'r the aquifer's margins' Dis-
"t urg" occurs in the valleys of Picealce Creek'
other tributaries to the White River' and in the
Grand Valley, 25 to 40 miles north of the study
area. Approximate water levels for ttris aquifer var5r
from 1OO feet above land surface to 5OO feet below
land surface; the surface generally is near or above
land surface in valleys in areas of groundwater
discharge. No wellhead locations are present
within the study area; however' several wellheads
are present beyond the study area to the north
and northeast of Parachute'
Water QualitY
The Clean Water Act requires that states adopt
water quality standards to protect the nation's
waters. These standards define how much of a pol-
lutant can be in surface water arrdlot groundwa-
ter while maintaining its desigpated use(s) (e'g''
drinking water, fishing' protection of aquatic [fe'
recreation, irrigation, or industrial)' De signated
uses for the Colorado River immediately down-
stream from the study area include' but are not
limited to, agriculture, aquatic life' recreation'
domestic water supply, and fish consumption'
Section 3O3(d) of tl-e Clean Water Act requires
states to submit to the EPA a list of those waters
that are not meeting their designated use(s)
because of excess pollutants' These include water
bodies where it is known that water quality does
not meet applicable water quality standards' and/
or it is not expected to meet applicable water qual-
ity standards ald for which technolory-based
elfluent limitations (and other required controls)
are not stringent enough to implement water qual-
ity standards. There are no stream segments on
the 303(d) list that are in or immediately down-
stream from the studY area'
Transportation projects can allect water quality
during both the construction and operation
Environmental Assessment
Affected Environment,Mitigation
Vehicle tra{frc
phases. For example, new highways would usually
consist of impervious surfaces that do not allow
natural frltration of rainwater and water-borne
pollutants. Instead, this rainwater rllns off these
"rr.fa."s
into ditches and waterways' often collect-
ing and carrying non-point source pollutants into
waterways. Common pollutants associated with
transportation projects are shown in Table 3-5'
Potable water for Parachute is provided by a diver-
sion from the Colorado River in Parachute directly
into the Parachute Water Treatment Facility'
Water is also drawn from Rebel Springs on the
south side of the Colorado River' This water is car-
ried by pipe into the Parachute Water Treatment
Faciliiy where it is mixed with the water diverted
from the Colorado River' The quality of Rebel
Springs water is high, and the water diverted from
the Colorado River is generally of good quality'
although precipitation events tend to impact the
q,rafity UV increasing sed'iment loading of the Colo-
rado River during spring ald fall' Parachute also
diverts water from Parachute Creek at the Cornell
Ditch, approximately 1'5 miles north of town' for
irrigation.
Domestic wastewater for Parachute and for Battle-
ment Mesa is treated at the Battlement Mesa sew-
age treatment faciUty, with an outfall located
Adhesives
Painting
Masonry / concrete demolition
LandscaPing and
earttrmoving
Materials storage
approximately 0.75 mile upstream from the study
area.
3.5.2 lnPacts
Water resources near the study area consist of ele-
ments that maintain the local ecosystem and pro-
vide water for agricultural and municipal use'
These resources to varying degrees support flood-
plains, drinking water supplies' recreation' wild-
lif", "qr.ti" life and habitat, and water quality of
the Grand Valley' In general' these resources can
be impacted by various human activities'
No Action Alternative
Within and immediately adjacent to the study
area, ttrere would be no impacts to water
resourcesorwaterquality,includingaquaticlife
and habitat, as a result of the No Action Alterna-
tive, since this alternative would involve no trans-
portation imProvements'
Preferred Alternative
Parachute Creek is located over one mile upgradi-
ent from the Preferred Alternative and' as such' no
direct or indirect impacts to Parachute Creek are
anticipated. Similarly, the Colorado River is not
e*pe.itd to be impacted by the Freferred Alterna-
tive.
Tahle 3.5 Gommon Pollutants Associated with Transportation Proiects
FtffilE f..-Ad"hyatq t"b""tos' benzene' napthalene
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)' metals' phenolics' mineral spirits
Acidity, sediment, metal's, asbestos' aluminum' zinc' dusts
Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, Biological oxygen Demand (BoD),
u:f.rfittlty,' *etals, sulfur, aluminum sulfate
spills, accidents @el,grease,vocs
Oils, gasoline, diesel fuel, benzene and
trons, heavY metals, rubber
Spills, leaks, drr"!, ""di-"'t
Calcium, sodium, magnesium, chloride
derivatives, aromatic hYdrocar-
Deicing
Sour<:e. CDOT NEPA Manua\ Julg 2OO7
12109
3.15
Environmental Assessment
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would
aaa impervious surface to the study area' Cur-
rently, approximately 2'44 acres of impervious sur-
face associated with US 6 and I-70 exist within the
study area. The Preferred Alternative would create
,r, "dditiortaJ4.76
acres of impervious surface'
bri.grng the total acreage of impervious surface to
7.20 within the stud'y area' Additional impervious
surface would consist mainly of pavement for
rarnps, roundabouts, and the tie-in to US 6'
Without mitigation, the addition of impervious
surface will increase stormwater runoff' Currently'
most of the on-site runoff drains to the southwest
quadrant of the interchange' then outfalls to the
west along the north side of US 6' The Freferred
Alternative would maintain this historic drainage
pattern.
The Town of Parachute is not a Phase 2 Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) communit5r' and
therefore does not fall under MS4 requirements for
stormwater quality' However' due to the proximity
of the study area to the Colorado River' the Pre-
ferred Alternative would include a permanent
stormwater detention basin within CDOT right-of-
way in the southwest quadrant' The basin would
prorria. water quality and quantity benefits' and
would be designed to:
. Detain the 1OO-year post-developed flood to
the 100-year pre-developed runoff rate'
. Attenuate the post-development peak dis-
charge rates to pre-developed discharge rates
for the 1o0-year storm and the conventional
design frequency of the downstream drainage
sYstem'
' Limit peak runoff rates to match historic rates
for specified design conditions (i'e'' post-devel-
opment peakflows that equal pre-development
flows for a particular frequency of occurrence)'
. Provide sediment and debris collection that
improves downstream water quality'
Notwithstanding {iltration of stormwater' the
increase in impervious surface area could increase
runoff, sedimentation, and nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Potential nonpoint source pollution to sur-
face water from stormwater runoff related to
transportation activities or facilities include :
. Sed,iment loading during ald after construc-
tion due to excavation and surface exposure of
soil.
. Contamination from petroleum products' anti-
freeze,brake linings, and tire rubber deposited
on roadwaYs.
. Contamination or sediment loading from main-
tenance activities, such as pavement repair'
bridge painting, snow plowing' and sanding/
de-icing.
During construction, soil-disturbing activities and
ttre placement of new fill would expose surfaces
subject to erosion' Other construction activities'
such as tJre placement of concrete and storage of
fueling equipment, also have the potential to
release water contaminants' All construction
activities must be in conformance with federal and
state regulations'
AsdiscussedinSection3.l,thePreferredAlterna-
tive is not being built to accommodate any
planned d.evelopment near the interchange' nor is
it anticipated to induce growth' Therefore' no indi-
rect impacts associated with increased impervious
surfaceareasrelatedtoparkinglots,roofsurfaces,
etc., are anticiPated'
3.5.3 Mitigation
Although there are no direct connections between
the Preferred Alternative and the Colorado River
(the only water resource potentially affected by the
1210s
3-16
Environmental Assessment
Preferred Alternative), constrrrction activities will
include proper precautionary planning and imple-
mentation of BMPs to minimize soil erosion and
contain construction-related contaminants to
within the construction area' The use of standard
erosion and sediment control BMPs in accordance
with the Erosion Control and' Storm Water Qualitg
Guide(CDOT, 2OO2l will be included in the final
design plans. A11 work on the project will be in
conflrmity with Section lO7 '25 (Water Quality
Control) and Section 208 (Erosion Control) of the
CDOT Standard Specificatiors for Road and Bidge
Constntction-
The following specific BMPs will be applied as
approPriate during construction:
. A permanent stormwater detention basin will
be constructed within CDOT right-of-way in
the southwest quadrant'
. A11 disturbed areas will be revegetated with
native grass and forb species' Seed mulch
tackifier will be applied in phases throughout
construction.
. Where permanent seeding operations are not
feasible due to seasonal constraints (e'g'' sum-
mer and winter months), disturbed areas will
have mulch and mulch tackifrer applied to pre-
vent erosion.
Erosion control blankets will be used on steep'
newly seeded slopes to control erosion and to
promote the establishment of vegetation'
Stop"" should be roughened at all times and
concrete washout contained'
Temporar5r erosion control blankets will have
flexible natural fibers'
Erosion bales, erosion logs, silt fence' or other
sediment control device will be used as sedi-
ment barriers and {ilters adjacent to wetland
and surface waterways and at inlets where
approPriate'
Where appropriate, slope drains will be used to
convey concentrated runofffrom top to bottom
of the disturbed slopes' Slope and cross-drain
outlets will be constructed to trap sediment'
. Storm drain inlet protection will be used where
appropriate to trap sediment before it enters
ttre cross-drain.
. Check dams will be used where appropriate to
slow the velocit5r of water through roadside
ditches and in swales'
Work areas will be limited as much as possible
to minimize construction impacts to vegeta-
tion.
Temporary detention ponds will be used to
allow sediment to settle out of runoff before it
leaves the construction area'
Non-structural BMPs may include litter and
debris control, and landscaping and vegetative
practices will be imPlemented'
Settling ponds for effluent from dewatering
operations will be established if needed'
Waterusedforconstructionand/orirrigationwill
be d.erived through municipal sources' Therefore'
allocations will not exceed the upper Colorado
River Basin threshold'
If contaminated groundwater is encountered dur-
ing the dewatering process, mechanisms will be in
place to arralyze groundwater for contaminants
and effectively treat this groundwater pumped dis-
charge as necessa-ry per the Section 402 Permit
requirements (see Section 3'13)'
3.6 Vegetation and Noxious Weeds
3.6.1 Vegetation Existing Conditions
The study area lies within a desert-salt desert eco-
logical zone' The study area has been greatly inllu-
enced by the construction artd presence of I-70'
US 6, and natural gas lines and facilities on both
the north and south sides of I-70'
A vegetation survey of the study area was con-
auctea in Septemb er 2OO7 ' Areas between US 6
and I-70 are mostly disturbed, and only scattered
historic vegetation remains' Southeast of the US
6ll-7o flyover is a patch of native vegetation
3-17
Environmental Assessment
12'0S
located adjacent to a section of riparian habitat
associated with the Colorado River' Both of these
vegetation communities are located outside the
study area.
Salt-tolerant desert species are the dominant vege-
tation within the study area' Precipitation tends to
dry quickly in this area, restricting the ability of
;.; to infiltrate deep into the soil' Because the
water evaporates quickly on the surface' salt is
precipitated out of the water and leaches into the
soil root layer. Many plant species common to the
area are therefore salt tolerant shrubs' grasses'
and forbs. Species include fourwing saltbush (Atn-
plex canescens), greasewood' (Sarcobatus uermian-
latus\, rabbitbrush (Chry sothamnus spp'\' and
Western wheatgrass (Pascopgrum smithifl' Other
native species, such as pinyon pine ('Rnus edulis)'
were found scattered throughout the study area'
Table 3-6 lists common vegetation observed in the
study area and Figure 3-6 shows the vegetation
communities present' Weedy species are a-lso
found extensively throughout the study area' as
many areas have been disturbed' Species include
common sunflower (Helianthus anrutus\' Golden-
rod. (Sotidago spp.\, and red clover (Tifolium pre-
tense). Noxious weeds are present in the study
area, arrd are discussed further in Section 3'6'4
through Section 3'6'6'
Panianm uirgatum
Festuca arundinacea
Chrysothamnus sPP'
Atriplex cunescens
PascoPgn-tm smithii
Amaranthus Palmei
S ar cob atu s u ermi anla tu s
Grindelia squarrosa
PoPulus delloides
Pirus edulis
Solidago sPP'
Helianttws annus
Tifolium Pratense
Astragalus bisulcatus
Phragmites australis
JuniPerus scoPulorum
Kochia scoPaia
Table 3'6 Gommon Vegetation Within the Study Area
Switchgrass
Fescue
Rabbitbrush
Fourwing saltbush
Western wheatgrass
Pigweed
Greasewoc,d
Gumweed
Plains cottonwood
Pinyon Pine
Goldenrod
Common sunflower
Red clover
Two-grooved milkvetch
Common reed grass
Rocky Mountain JuniPer
Kochia
3-18
r 2l0s
Environmental Assessment
Affected Enuironment, lmPacts,ationand Mitig
i.0.2 Vegetation lmPacts
No Actlon Alternatlve
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would
not involve any chalges to the study area and
would not result in any impacts to existing vegeta-
tion communities.
Prefered Alternative
Anticipated direct impacts from ttre implementa-
tion of the Preferred Alternative would include the
removal and loss of native salt desert vegetation
and disturbed roadside communities' Impacts
would be expected from fill placement during con-
struction of transportation improvements and
damage by construction equipment' The addition
of roundabouts and new pavement would increase
impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff
and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher
levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from con-
struction equipment could a-lso create favorable
conditions for weedy species to estabLish'
3.6.3 Mitigation
CDOT revegetation BMPs and guidelines will be
followed to ensure adequate revegetation of the
study area. All disturbed areas will be replanted
with drought-tolerant, native vegetation as soon as
possible following construction' Parachute would
assume responsibility for adhering to the mitiga-
tion measures outlined below' This responsibility
will be documented in al IGA between Parachute
and CDOT. Specific mitigation measures will be
determined during frnal design in consultation
12109 Environmental Assessment 3-1S
with the CDOT land'scape architect' and will
include, as necessa-r5r:
. Minimize the amount of disturbance and limit
the amount of time that disturbed areas are
allowed to be non-vegetated'
' Appropriately revegetate all disturbed areas
with native vegetation, or protect from erosion
by the placement of riprap per standard engi-
neering sPecifications'
' Apply mulch and mulch tacki{ier to protect
soils from erosion where temporary or perrna-
nent seeding operations are not feasible due to
seasonal constraints (e'g', summer and winter
months).
. Use erosion control blankets on steep (3:1 or
greater) and newly seeded' slopes to control
erosion ald to promote the establishment of
vegetation.
. Prevent trapping of birds and anirnals by
using, only erosion control fabric with a mesh
of flexible natural fibers'
. Limit work areas as much as possible to mini-
mize construction impacts to vegetation'
. l,ocate equipment refueling and staging areas
at least 1OO feet from wetlands or waterways'
3.6.4 lloxious Weeds Existing Conditions
Noxious weeds are invasive, non-native plants
introducedtoColoradobyaccidentorthatspread
after being planted for another purpose and that
result in lands with decreased economic and envi-
ronmental value. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act
of 2OO3 (35-5.5-1O1 through 119' CRS) recognizes
tl-at "certain undesirable plants constitute a pres-
ent threat to the continued economic and environ-
mental value of the lalds of the state' and if
present in any area of the state must be man-
aged.'The legislation places all public and private
Ut as in Colorado under the jurisdiction of local
governments to manage noxious weeds' According
to Ur" Act, a noxious weed meets one or more of
the following criteria:
' Aggfessively invades or is detrimental to eco-
nomic crops of native plant communities'
. Is poisonous to livestock'
. Is a carrier of detrimental insects' diseases' or
Parasites.
. Has direct or indirect effects that are detrimen-
tal to the environmentally sound management
of natural or agricultural ecosystems'
UndertheNoxiousWeedAct'theStateofColorado
Noxious Weed lists xe categoized by control pri-
oritY:
High Priority (List A): Rare noxious weeds and all
County noxious weeds in dispersal conduits' High-
priority species are targeted for eradication or sup-
pression.
Medium Priority (List B): Well-established nox-
ious weeds with discrete statewide distributions'
Low Priority (List Cf: Extensive' well-established
infestations for which control is recommended but
not required.
CDOT maintains a priority weed mapping list'
Noxious weed' species from the Garfreld County'
CDOT, and State lists that were present in the
study area atthe time of the vegetation survey
(Sepiember 2OO7) are listed in Table 3-7' Noxious
*""a* present in the study area occurred as scat-
tered individuals and small patches adjacent to
the road.side- Areas with higher densities are
shown in Figure 3-6'
l2l0s
3-20 Environmental Assessment
C
C
BYes
* From lrsts of Nonous weeds knoutn to be present in Garfield countg'
**From CDOT Norious Weed Management Plantop 25 uteed species to be mapped'
***colorado Department of Agianlture ptant Industry Noxrous weeds web site, including 2003'
Reuised.RulesPertainirLgtotheAdministrationan'dEnforem""tf:l*::l:radoNoxiousweedAct(BCCR1203-19'includescountg
lists. State managemerlt plants includ'e tle fotlotuing d'isignations: A = species to be eradicated'' B = stop continued spread' ard C =
species to be lefi. to to"otiui"aiJion" a7?d,Lr"e of integraied uteed management controls supported'
shrub community that comprises a majority of the
study area. Without proper management' noxious
weeds could alter the vegetative community com-
position, alfecting the ecological functions the nat-
ural community provides' There are no
agricultural resources, wetlands' or rare species
identifred within the study area; therefore no
impacts to these resources are anticipated'
Without proper management, freld bindweed' salt
cedar, and cheatgrass could continue to spread in
the area and could establish in the riparian habi-
tat adjacent to the Colorado River'
3.6.6 Mitigation
Since soil disturbance associated with highway
construction activities can create favorable condi-
tions for tlle introduction and spread of noxious
weeds, a management plan for noxious weeds will
be incorporated into the project design and con-
struction process by the project contractor under
the direction of Parachute' Parachute would
assume responsibility for adhering to the mitiga-
tion measures outlined below' This responsibility
will be documented in an IGA between Parachute
and CDOT. Specifrc BMPs would be required dur-
ing construction to reduce the potential for tlle
1.21
Environmental Assessment
Table 3'7 State of Golorado' GDOT' and
Garfield Gounty listed weed species 0bserved in the study Area
Cheatgrass
Field Bindweed
Halogeton
Salt cedar
Notes:
Conuohntlus aruersis
Halogeton glomeratus
TamariskParuiflora
3.6.5 lloxioas Weeds lnPacts
No Action Nternative
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would
noi involve any changes to the study area' arrd
thus would not contribute to the spread of noxious
weeds. Weeds are prevalent in the area' however'
and without proper management' noxious weeds
would continue to spread in the study area'
Preferred Nternatlve
Soil disturbarrce caused by construction equip-
ment could increase the spread of noxious weeds
on roadsides and possibly introduce new noxious
weed species. Ground disturbance caused by con-
struction projects are often colonized by noxious
weed species preventing the establishment of
native vegetation. Contaminated construction
equipment also has the potential to introduce and
spread noxious weeds' In general' the noxious
weed. species present in the study area are very
adept at colonizing disturbed soils' especially field
bindweed and cheatgrass'
Therefore, there is the potential for weeds to alter
the habitat present within the study area' The
establishment and proliferation of noxious weeds
can alter the existing natural desert/salt desert
1210s
Garfield CountY G00T Weed List**
Weed [ist'
G0 State Noxious
Weed List***
1210s
introduction ald spread of noxious weeds ald
include:
. Detailed weed' mapping of t]:e study area will
be conducted by a weed specialist during the
design phase. Mapping will be included in the
construction documents along with appropri-
ate control method's and an implementation
plan for noxious sPecies'
. Id.entification of all existing noxious weed
infestations with the roadway riglrt-of-way will
occur during the design phase' Roadway right-
of-way areas will periodically be inspected by
Parachute or its consultants during construc-
tion and during post-construction weed moni-
toring for invasion of noxious weeds'
. An Integrated' Weed Management Plan will be
prepared that details weed malagement mea-
",rr"" to include removal or burial of heavily
infested topsoil, chemical treatment of lightly
infested topsoil, limiting disturbance areas'
phased seedingwith native species throughout
the project, monitoring during and after con-
struction, and other chemica-l artdlor mechan-
ical treatments'
. Weed management efforts will be coordinated
with local agencies and adjacent propertSr own-
ers to the extent Possible'
' Hay and agricultural materials used for the
project will be inspected and treated according
to ttre standards set forth in the Weed Free
Forage Crop Certilication Act (Title 35' Article
27.5, CRS).
. Herbicide use will include selection of appro-
priate herbicides and timing of herbicide
spraying, and use of a backpack sprayer in
and adjacent to sensitive areas' such as wet-
land.s, by a certified pesticide applicator'
. Certified weed-free hay and/or mulch will be
used in all revegetated areas'
. Fertilizers will not be used on the project site'
Supplemental weed control measures may be
"aa"a
during design and construction planning'
3.7 Fish and Wildlife
3.7.t Existing Condrtions
The study area is located in an open mountain
prairie that has been heavily developed' disturbed'
and fragmented by the construction of I-70' US 6'
and associated frontage roads' In general' the
study area provides minor areas of potential wild-
life habitat between I-70 and US 6' with adjacent
habitat areas located to the south of US 6 within
the riparian and floodplain zones of the Colorado
River. All riparian and floodplain zones are located
outside of the study area and south of the UPRR'
The location of I-70 and the UPRR may create a
barrier effect for existing wildlife populations'
influencing movement across the study area'
A field survey of the study area was conducted
during Fall 2007. Wildlife identifred as potentially
occuring within the study area include mammals
(mule deer, raccoon, ground squirrel' rabbit' fox'
coyote, and mouse and vole species)' reptiles
("rrt"" and various lizards)' and birds (various
songbirds, swallows, hawk' and owl)' The Colorado
River is located outside of the study area' and no
aquatic sPecies are Present'
Neither prairie dogs nor associated burrows were
observed within the study area at the time of sur-
vey. Elk, mule deer, and black bear commonly
cross I-70 and US 6 while moving to and from the
Colorado River. Discussion with JT Romatzke'
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) district wild-
life manager for the Parachute area' indicated that
wildlife mortality from vehicular strikes in the area
is very high due to the large volumes of cars and
truck traIfic on I-70 and US 6'
3-22
Environmental Assessment
Mule deer (Odomiteus hemionus\ tracks were
observed between I-70 ald US 6 headed south
toward the Colorado River' Barbed wire fencing
was present in various locations' but was dilapi-
dated and fallen over in many a-reas' providing
access for the deer to cross' Additionally' various
small rodent burrows and game trails were
observed in the riparian and floodplain area adja-
centtotheColoradoRiver;however'noindividuals
were observed at time of surveY'
An on-site nesting survey also was completed dur-
ing the Fall site visit to identify the presence or
.b-""rr." of any active songbird or raptor nest loca-
tions within the study area' In part' this survey
wasconductedtoidentifysongbirdorraptorsthat
receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (BGEPA).
The MBTA protects raptors and other migratory
birds and their active nest sites' The MBTA pro-
vides that it is unlawful to pursue' hunt' take'
capture or kill; attempt to take' capture or kill;
possess, offer to or sell, barter' purchase' deliver
o, "ar.".
to be shipped, exported' imported' trans-
ported, carried', or received aly migratory bird'
part, nest, egg, or product, manufactured or not'
Ho*.r"., the Migratory Bird Permit memorandum
issued in April 2003 stipulates that there is no
prohibition against destruction of inactive nests as
iorrg "" breeding season is avoided (approximately
April 1 to August 15)' Any disturbance to these
nesting a-reas must follow the stipulations outlined
in ttre MBTA of 1918' The BGEPA requires consul-
tation with US Fish and Wildlife Service and an
Incidental Take Permit for any impacts to golden
and bald eagles.
Several areas of optimal nesting habitat were
observed; however, no active nests were identified
at time of survey' Various avian species were
observed passing over and foraging within study
area boundaries, including common raven (Conrus
coraxl,various sparrow species (Spiz-ella spp'l'
black capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus\'
northern flicker (Cotaptes auratusl' rock pigeon
{Columb a li uza), house frtt'ch (Carp o daans mei -
canus\,Steller's jay (Cganocitta stellet!' and black-
billed magpie (Conruspica)' Potential perch sites
*.r" p."*t for eagles and raptors along the Colo-
radoRiverriparianzorrcandfloodplain;however'
no observations of these species were made at time
of surveY.
3.7.2 lnPacts
I{o Action Nternatlve
The No Action Alternative would not affect or
impact existing general wildlife species'
Preferred Nternative
Removal of low-lying shrubs ald vegetation during
construction of the interchange roundabouts may
potentially impact migratory bird species nesting
andcoverhabitat.Additionally,thelossofvegeta-
tion could affect reptiles, small mammals' and
rodent species through loss of habitat and foraging
resources.
The Preferred Alternative could also increase wild-
life/vehicular strikes since it would increase traffic
volumes on US 6, where there already is a high
number of existing annual strikes'
Because the Colorado River is located outside of
the study area and no depletions or impacts to
water quality are anticipated' there would be no
anticipated impacts to aquatic species from the
Preferred Alternative'
3.7.3 Mitigation
Mitigation for anticipated impacts to general wild-
life will include, as necessary:
. CDOT BMPs and revegetation guidelines will
be employed to minimize impacts associated
with vegetation removal'
. An active nesting survey will be conducted
within the study area by a qualified biologist
prior to the start of any constructron activities
to ensure compliance with MBTA and the
BGEPA' Should an active nest location be
identified during this suwey' appropriate
3-23
12109
Environmental Assessment
avoidance measures will be taken for the area
around the nest during construction'
Installation of big game fencing along I-70
ardlotus 6 will be considered during the frnal
design stage to help reduce the amount of
wildlife/vehicular strikes while still providing
them with access to a water source'
Wildlife-friendly erosion blankets will be used
to reduce imPacts to rePtiles'
Installation of warming/shade rocks for rep-
tiles will be used as necessary'
3.8 Historic ProPerties
Historic properties, including both historic and
archaeologica-l resources, are protected under the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966
(as amende d,, lgg2l and other statutes' as well as
Section 4(f), as amended and codified in the US
Department of Transportation Act of 1966' 49 USC
303 (c).
As part of the NHPA Section 106 historic proper-
tiesconsultation,CDOTinvitedthefollowinglocal
agencies and organizations to participate as con-
sulting parties, as provided in Section SO0'3(0(1)
of the regulation (see sample letter dated April 3'
2008, APPendix D)'
. Garheld CountY
. Grand. Valley Historical Society
. ColoradoPreservation
. National Trust for Historic Preservation
The Grand Valley Historical Society accepted tlle
invitation. No other responses to the letter were
received.
i.8.t Existing Conditions
The project team identified an Area of Potential
Bffect (APE) for historic property investigations'
The APE encompasses 93'9 acres around the US 6
overpass of I-70 (see Figure 3-7)' The State His-
toric Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with
the APE boundary in a letter dated March 1O'
2O08 (see APPendix D)'
A Class III cultural resources inventory was con-
ducted for the l-7O lParachute Interchange project
inMarch200stoidentifyhistoricproperties.Prior
to fieldwork, a hles search was completed through
the Colorado Historical Society Oflice of Archaeol-
ory and Historic Preservation (OAHP) in February
Z6Oe, arrd the BLM Glenwood Springs Field Oflice
in March, 2008. The frles search revealed 11 previ-
ous projects, the majority of which are related to
highway ald enerry development in the vicinity'
As a result of these projects, three historic and two
prehistoric properties have been recorded in the
"."tior," searched' Two of tJ:e historic properties
occur within or overlap the project's APE' They
include:
. One historic irrigation ditch (#5GF2ll8'2)'
. One segment of historic US 6 (#5GF2935'1)
Fieldwork was performed on March 12 ar,d 13'
2008. Approximately 51'8 acres of the 93'9-acre
APE have been disturbed by development of the
modern highway system, enerry pipelines' and
transmission/utility lines' Investigations resulted
in the identification and documentation of six pre-
viously unrecorded historic properties' as listed in
Table 3-8.
NRllP.ListedandEligibleHistoricPropettiesin
the Area ofPotential Effect
Historic properties in the project's APE that are
Iisted on, or eligible for inclusion on' the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are summarized
below and shown on Figure 3-7' For a detailed
description of all historic properties in ttre APE'
please refer to the Proposed' I-70 Parachute West
Interchange Project: Ctass III Cultural Resources
Inuentory, Garfield Countg, Colorado' April 2008'
12,09
Environmental Assessment
3-24
5GF654 HavermeYer-Wilcox Canal Yes
Table 3.8 Historic Properties ldentified in the Area of Potential Effect
Sesment of HavermeYer-5GF654.6 wiico* canal
Sesment oI HavermeYcr-
5GF654 7 wit"tcox Canal
Eligible with SHPO concurrence; calal sys-
te#, and in particular the forebay ald
pumphouse, -... listed on the NRHP in
1980.
Part of an eligible resoltrce, but non-sup-
n"*tg of the overall eligibility of the entire
linear resource.
Part of an eligible resource' but non-sup-
No porting of the-overall eligibility of the entire
Yesn
5GF2935 Historic US 6 Yes
5GF2935.1 Segment of historic US 6 Yes
One unrecorded feature of
5GF2935.1 thepreviously-recordedsite
5GF2935.1
5GF2935.2 Segment of historic US 6
5GF4136 Historic isolated find
5GF4137 Historic isolated find
linear resource.
Eligible.
Part of an eligible resource, but non-sup-
p*t-g of the.- overall eligibility of the entire
linear resource.
1. Historic US 6, Site #5GF2935: This site is
the overall historic US 6 atignment' which
roughly parallels I-7O on both sides through
the project's APE. CDOT indicated in a letter to
the SHPO dated September 19, 2008 that the
historic US 6 (#5GF2935 I 2935'1 / 2935'21 was
found to be eligible to the NRHP under Crite-
rion A for its association with regional trans-
portation and development, and with the rise
of the automobile as the preferred mode of
transportation in Colorado and the United
States. However, the two segments evaluated
Part of an eligible resource' but non-sup-
No porting of thJ overall eligibility of the entire
linear resource'
Part of an eligible resource' but non-sup-
No porting of the overall eligibility of the entire
linear resource'
No Not eligible'
No Not eligible"
for this project were found to lack sufficient
integrity to support the overall NRHP eligibility
of the entire highway, as discussed under each
segment below. In a letter dated October 3'
2008, SHPO concurred with this finding (see
Appendix D).
2. Segment of Historic US 6, Site #5GF2935'1:
This site is ttre segment of historic US 6
located between the Town of Parachute and
the Garfield/Mesa counQr line that roug?tly
parallels I-7O on the southeast side in the proj-
ic isolated find No Not eligible'5GF4138 Histor
Source: t\oposed l-7o Parachute West Interchange Project: Class III Culfilral Resources Inuentory, Garfield Counta, Colorado, Metcolf
Archaeological ConsuttonlJ,
-i,
apn 20OB; Stite Histoic Preseruation OJfice' 2008'
*WaspreuiouslyrecordedasDiomondDitch(Site#5GF2118.2)in20ol.hhasbeenre4esignatedas#5GF654.6aSportofthis
inuentory.
3-25
1210s Environmental Assessment
ect's APE. lt was previously recorded' and was
offrciatly determined to lack suflicient integrity
to support the overall eligibility of historic US 6
(#5GF2935). However, one previously unre-
corded feature of this segment was discovered
during fieldwork for this project' The feature is
. "*.U earthen and rock berm located south
of the current I-70 alignment and north of the
old highway alignment' It is approximately 12O
feet long, 3.5 feet wide, and O'5 foot high' The
feature is isolated and deteriorated having
been impacted by the modern US 6 overpass
and approaches, and recent pipeline construc-
tion. It was determined that this feature does
not charrge the eligibility status of historic US
6 as a whole or for Site #5GF2935'1'
3. Segment of Historic US 6, Site #5GF2935'22
This site was not previously recorded' This lin-
ear resource is a discontinuous segment of an
abandoned US 6 alignment that is located to
the north of westbound I-7O' This segment of
historic US 6 has been abandoned and is
highly deteriorated' This segment has lost the
grl.i-"jotity of its physical integrity' and
12'0S
3-26
Environmental Assessment
Figu rc3-7 Historic ProPerties
! ] ] frer ol Petentid lllut
* llrioahcilhf,dked
klarlflin k?8cl titil!
- , Sd US 6.f9{t!tl
S.$fft o, Hacf,tryar'llikor CmC
rrru hprdrd Sqttral ol lhvrrmyg-Sltor Crad
rrrrrr krrprctd Soputt 0l Hi$dk US I
does not support the overall eligibility of his-
toric US 6.
4. Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal, Site #5GF654:
The canal is one of the most notable' large-
scale engineering developments in Garfield
County history. This site is the overall Haver-
meyer-Wilcox Canal system' which roughly
parallels I-70 on the north side of the project's
apB. CpOf indicated in a letter to SHPO dated
September 19, 2OO8 that the Havermeyer-Wil-
cox Canal (#5GF654/654'61654'7) was listed
on the NRHP in 1980 arrd is significant under
Criteria A, B, and C' However' the two seg-
ments evaluated for this project (#5GF654'6
and #5GF654.7) were determined to lack suffi-
cient integrity and do not support the overall
eligibility of the entire canal' as discussed
under each segment below' SHPO concurred
with this finding in a letter dated October 3'
2008 (see APPendix D)'
5. Segment of Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal' Site
#5GF654.6: This site was originally recorded
during a2OOl inventory, but at that time was
thought to be part of the Diamond Ditch'
Based on new information and in consultation
with the OAHP and CDOT, the site has been
re-designated as segment #5GF654'6 of the
Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal system' Since 2OO1'
the northeastern 65 to 8O feet of this segment
have been destroyed by pipeline construction'
Overall, this ditch segment is badly deterio-
rated and overgrown, and does not support the
overall eligibility of the Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canal.
6. Segment of Havermeyer-trIilcox Canal' Site
#5GF654.7: This site was not previously
recorded. It is located on the opposite side of
existing US 6 from Site #5GF654'6' and was
truncated by construction of the US 6 over-
pass. No clear evidence of excavation was
observed, possibly because the channel has
silted in during nearly a century of erosion and
neglect. No features associated with the ditch
were observed' This ditch segment is badly
deteriorated and overgrown, and does not sup-
port the overall eligibility of the Havermeyer-
Wilcox Canal.
3.8.2 lmPacts
llo Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative' there would be no
change to the current existing conditions due to
this project. Therefore, this alternative would have
no direct or indirect impacts to the historic US 6 or
HavermeYer-Wilcox Canal'
Preferred Alternative
Site #5GF2935 (Historic US 6): The Preferred
Alternative would a-{fect two segments of historic
US 6. As shown on Figure 3-7, the newly-recorded
feature of Site #5GF2935'1, and an approxirnate
4Oo-foot portion of Site #5GF2935'2 are located
within the construction footprint of the Preferred
Alternative, and would be directly impacted by
construction of the project' Site #5GF2935'1 has
already been impacted by existing development'
It wilt be destroyed as part of the current under-
taking.
The impacted 4oo-foot portion of Site #5GF2935'2
is a part of the northern subsection of the seg-
ment. The western portion of segment #5GF2935'2
will remain intact but most of the eastern portion
willbedestroyedduringtheproject.Theintegrity
and nature of these segments have been evaluated
as non-supportive of the site's overall eligibility'
Site #5GF654 (Havermeyer-Wilcox Canalf: The
eastern third of Site #5GF654'6 is within the proj-
ect footprint and will be destroyed as part of the
current undertaking' The western half of Site
#5GF654.7 also will be destroyed as part of the
current undertaking' Both of these segments lack
integrity, and their destruction will not affect the
qrrJtl"" of significance of the overall canal sys-
tem.
Determlnation of Effect
FHWA and CDOT have made a determination' ald
the SHPO has concurred, that impacts to the his-
3-21
12'0S Environmental Assessment
toric US 6 segments (Sites #5GF2935'1 and
#5GF2935.2) and Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal seg-
ments (Sites #5GF654.6 and #5GF654'7) associ-
ated with the Preferred Alternative would result in
no adverse effect for purposes of Section 106 of the
NHPA. These determinations and SHPO concur-
rence are documented in Appendix D in a CDOT
letter dated September 19, 2008 and a SHPO letter
d.ated October 3, 2008.
The Grand Valley Historical Societ5r, as a consult-
ing party, was contacted in a letter dated October
2,2OO8, regarding these determinations (see
Appendix D). The societ5r did not comment on this
letter within the 30-day comment period'
i.8.3 Mitigation
Because it has been determined that the Preferred
Alternative would have no adverse effect to historic
US 6 and the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal' no
mitigation is necessar5r. Please see Chapter 6' for
a complete discussion of Section 4(f)' the de
minimisfindings, and measures to minimize
harm to historic US 6 and the Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canal.
3.8.4 llative American Consultation
Section 1O6 of the NHPA (as amended) and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regula-
tions (36 CFR 800.2[c]t2]tiil) mandate that federal
agencies coordinate witfi interested Native Ameri-
can tribes in the planning process for federal
undertakings. Consultation with Native American
tribes recognizes tl..e government-to- government
relationship between the United States govern-
ment and sovereign tribal groups' In that context'
federal agencies must aclo:owledge that historic
properties of religious and cultural significance to
one or more tribes may be located on ancestral'
aboriginal, or ceded lalds beyond modern reserva-
tion boundaries.
Consulting tribes are offered tJle opportunity to
identify concerrrs about cultural resources and
comment on how the project might affect them' If
it is found that the project will impact properties
that are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP and are
of religious or cultural significance to one or more
consulting tribes, their role in the consultation
process may also include participation in resolving
how best to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those
impacts. By describing the proposed undertaking
and the nature of any loeown cultural sites' and
consulting with the interested Native American
community, FHWA and CDOT strive to effectively
protect areas important to American Indian peo-
ple.
In May 2008, FHWA contacted the following three
federally recognized tribes with an established
interest in Garlield Count5r, Colorado' and invited
them to participate as consulting parties (see let-
ters dated May 15, 2OO8 in Appendix D):
. Southern Ute Indian Tribe (Colorado)
. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (Colorado)
. Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Agency
(Utah)
None of the tribes elected to reply, and therefore
no tribal governments participated in the project
under the auspices of ttre NHPA' As a result of
these actions, FHWA has fulfilled its legal obliga-
tions for tribal consultation under federal law'
3.9 Hazardous Substances
Hazardous material may be encountered during
the construction of a transportation project'
Therefore, it is important to identiff properties
that may contain contamination prior to rigtrt-of-
way acquisition and construction' Hazardous
material is defined as arry waste product that is
characteristically flammable, corrosive' reactive'
or toxic or is listed by EPA regulations as ahaz-
3-28 Environmental Assessment 12109
Affected Enuironment, lmqacts, and Mitigation
ardous material. Hazardous material can be found
in various forms and can originate from a variety
of sources. Examples of potential sites that may
contain hazardous material include landfills' ser-
vice stations, industrial areas, railroad corridors'
and mine sites. When developing a transportation
project, it is important to be awa-re of known haz-
ardous material sites so they can be avoided or
their imPacts minimized'
Previous assessments have not been conducted for
this study area. This section is based on informa-
tion obtained from a review of environmental regu-
latory records, historical aerial photos and
topographic maps, and an on-site inspection'
3.9.1 Existing Conditions
As discussed in Section 3'1, land use within the
study area consists of vacant land' highway right-
of-way, and natural gas infrastructure' There are
"ppro*i-"t"1y
five oil and gas wells located within
the study area. According to the Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC)' these
wells are active-
Historical aerial photos and topographic maps
were reviewed for the years 1962 ' 1979' l98l'
1989, and 1999. The study area historically has
consisted of undeveloped land' The railroad was
constructed during the 1890s, and the existing US
6 flyover was constructed in 1984'
Environmental Data Resources, Inc' (EDR) main-
tains federal, state, and local regulatory databases
for registered. sites. A report was generated to
locate hazardous material sites within one mile of
the proposed' interchalge site' The report revealed
one site within the area search:
. Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) (EPA ID # COD983771395 and
110015770940) - This facility is located at
7833 US 6ll-7o at milepost 73'00 (see
Figure 3-8). This site is listed as having a
small quantity generator (SQG)' an Under-
ground Storage Tank (UST), and an Above
ground Storage Tank (AST)' The SQG is
exempt from the registered site list since it
generates less than 220 pounds ofhazardous
*aste per month. There are a total of three
USTs listed as closed at this facility: two
6,Ooo-gallon diesel tanks and one 1'OOo-gallon
gasoline tanl<. There was a Leaking Under-
louna Storage Tank (LUST) reported in 1995'
There is also one 3,O0o-ga11on diesel AST listed
as in service and one 780-ga11on material oil
AST listed as closed at this facility'
i.9.2 lnPacts
No Action Nternatlve
The No Action Alternative would have no impact
on hazat dous material sites'
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would have impacts to
hazardous material sites' The CDOT facility had a
reported LUST located within the study area' In
this area, the groundwater flows south to south-
east, away from the study area' Also' the soil
within t1e study area is listed as Arvada' which
has a loam clay texture and a slow infiltration
rate. Therefore, if contamination exists on the
CDOT site, the soil would potentially trap the
plume prior to discharging off-site' However' fur-
th., ""*.""*ent is recommended during frnal
design to evaluate the possible presence of con-
tamination at the site' CDOT owns this facility so
no acquisition would be required'
The oil and gas wells are located outside of the
construction limits and are not anticipated to be
impacted as a result of the Preferred Alternative'
Lead-based paint surveys would be conducted if
construction activities require removal' cutting' or
grinding of metal components on the existing
U.iag" structure. The only anticipated impacts to
the structure would includ'e probable removal and
modification of the existing guardrails and upgrad-
ing the existing bridge railing' An asbestos inspec-
tion should be done on the bridge prior to any
work.
3-2S
1210s Environmental Assessment
The removal or relocation of overhead powerlines'
ground utilities, and/or gas lines may be required'
iransite asbestos pipe or conduit was originally
usedforelectriclines,telephonelines'waterlines'
and more recently for fiber-optic cable' Contrac-
torsshouldbetrainedtoidentifftransiteasbestos
piping prior to construction' An initial site assess-
ment form was completed for ttre project (see
Appendix C).
3.9.3 Mitigation
Parachute carefully considers ttre potential risks
associated with hazardous material on construc-
tion projects and will require construction person-
nel to comply with Section 250 'Environmental
Health and Safety Management" of the Standard
Specifrcations for Road and Bridge ConstrucLion
1ioOr,2oO5). Section 250 of the CDOT Standard
Specifications provides for ttre protection of the
environment, persons, and property from contami-
nants and includes special requirements for
addressing hazardous materiaf if encountered'
12t09
"?)r'[a4nnd
l-l $laYAm
+ tlicr?*ifr8*rC
@.d ll.,
""r.,, Srmmdlllchrs
l--l Cca*naimroaPitt
i- p6a6163'666
I - Poralid Cml.r*ilkn $t"
0{ roa gr! w.{r
Patroh*r 0snloP*nl CalP
r Il'f,irmProdrttkm8ilTCoonrnY
Igm: Cffi tt ad G.t Cm*n'ttut CrN*s*L
W fu,*a"ead aata aesr*sfu
3-30
Environmental Assessment
lmpacts, and Mitigation
Construction on the proposed project is expected
to include pavement removal, re-paving' and
minor utility relocation' As a result' encountering
hazardous material in soils and groundwater is
not anticipated. However, there is a documented
LUST ald other recognized environmental condi-
tions within the study area' Precautions will be
taken by construction personnel to monitor exca-
ratio.r"lo, the possible presence of volatile organic
compounds during any excavation that extends
below the base of pavement in areas adjacent to
thelistedLUSTsite.Constructionpersonnelwill
also be trained to look for and tecogntze asbestos
containing materials in soil'
Lead-based paint and asbestos surveys will be
conducted as needed'
Construction debris or asbestos utility lines will be
inspected by appropriate professionals and han-
dled in accordance with CDPHE regulations per-
taining to asbestos waste management (6 CCR
LOOT-2, Part 1, Section 5)'
3.1 0 Visual ResourceslAesthetics
Visual resources are those physicat features that
make up the visible landscape' including land'
water, vegetation, and human-made elements'
Environmental regulations identiff ae sthetics as
one of the elements in the human environment
that must be considered in determining the
imPacts of a Project'
A visual assessment of the study area was com-
pleted in Fall 2OO7 ' This analysis was completed
i., .""ord.nce with CDOT's NEPA Manual and
FHWA guidance for the assessment of visual qual-
ily (Aesthetics and Visual Qualitg Guidance Infor-
mation Memorandum, August 1986)'
The following characteristics help describe the
existing conditions and visual character of the
area.
. Landscape Character- Landscape character
can be broken down into landscape units con-
taining similar landscape elements that differ
from other distinct areas' These physical ele-
ments include laldform and vegetation' water
and wildlife features, and other human-made
modifications, such as residential and com-
mercial develoPment'
. ViewinS! Distances - Viewing distances are
based on the level of visibility of proposed
improvements within the landscape from
major viewing routes and observation points'
Analysis of the visual features within these dis-
talces allows for the consideration of the prox-
imity of the observer to the project features'
Viewing distances fall into one of three catego-
ries:
- Foreground Views - O'0 to O'5 mile; the
laldscape immediately visible from the
roadway that defines the local character of
the area.
- Middleground Views: - O'5 to 4'O miles;
the landscape between the roadway and
the horizon'
- Background Views - 4'0 (or more) miles;
the landscape that makes up the h'orizorr'
Visual resources and aesthetics are important
because of their uniqueness and the strong emo-
tion they inspire in human viewers' Such special
places often provide a sense of community to tJre
inhabitants of an area and may attract tourism
and drive its economY'
A high-quality view can be defined as a one in
*ri& a composite landscape character is attrac-
tivetotheviewer.Alandscapewit}rveryminimal
human-caused visual disruption is considered to
have high scenic integnty {Landscnpe Aesthetia -
AHandbookfor Scenery Management' 2OOO)' This
section attempts to identi$r high-quality views'
both looking out from the study area and looking
towards the study area from surrounding loca-
tions.
3-31
1210s
Environmental Assessment
i. t 0. t Existing Conditions
Visual qualities of tJle I-7O Parachute West Inter-
chalge project are defined by the land uses and
land characteristics around the interchange'
Rural, undeveloped land, and existing US 6 and I-
7O comprise most of the study area' As discussed
in Section 3.6, most of the study area has been
disturbed, and only scattered, salt-tolerant desert
vegetation remains'
There are no visually sensitive resources within or
adjacent to the study area and no common scenic
viewpoints or travel routes that have important
views of the study area' However' the area sur-
rounding the study area provides a number of
high-quality viewsheds' A viewshed is defined as
* *." that can be seen from various viewpoints
within a study area (CDOT NEPA Manual' July
2OO7). For example, the viewshed looking north
from the study area contains several high' shrub-
covered plateaus, which provide a scenic view of
high value (see Photo 1)' The mesas in the fore-
and middle-grounds block any background views'
South of the study area, the Colorado River domi-
nates the foreground view' Shrubs' trees' and
lush, green riparian habitat border the river' Mid-
ate- and background views consist of smaller roll-
ing hills and high mesas covered with shrubs'
Overall, the view south of the study area is a high
quality view (see Photo 2)'
I
When looking east or west, I-7O is visible in the
fore and middle-ground viewsheds' West of the
study area, the landscape depresses and the high-
*.y i" not visible in the background (see Photo 3)'
1210s
3-32
Environmental Assessment
Instead, the background consists of distant
mesas. When looking eastward, the background
viewshed reveals large plateaus that help comprise
a high qualitY view (see Photo 4)'
From surrounding locations, the view of the study
area is fragmented by I-70 and US 6' Views from
locations outside the study area (i'e', from rafters
on the Colorado River or from Batflement Mesa)
comprise I-7O and US 6 highways with a backdrop
of shrub-covered Plateaus'
3.l0.2lmPacts
l{o Action Nternative
No new roadway facilities would be constructed in
the study area under the No Action Alternative'
Therefore, views to and from the roadway would
remain unchanged.
Preferred Alternatlve
The Preferred Alternative would modify tl.e exist-
ing visual environment by adding new interchange
r"rrrp" and roundabouts to existing I-7O and US 6'
Also, retaining walls or embankrnents may be
required, which would introduce new visual ele-
ments.
New interchange ramps would convert the existing
land to paved road'way and would include common
highway elements, such as signing, guardrail' aLd
lighting. Existing vegetation would be removed to
construct new pavement; however' these areas
would be re-seeded with native grasses to prevent
erosion and reduce the visual impact'
Conversion of this open land' to highway or inter-
change use would cause a slight loss of visual buf-
fer. The features of the new interchange could
intermpt the motorist's immediate and foreground
views from vantage points along I-70'
The proposed interchange would be visible from
some residences in Battlement Mesa' However'
these residences are, at their closest point' almost
one mile away from the proposed interchange loca-
tion. At tJlis distance, tlre additiona-l highway ele-
ments required for the interchange that would be
added to the I-7O and US 6 flyover (e'g'' round-
abouts, ramps) would not gleatly alter scenic
views from Battlement Mesa'
While new roadway infrastructure would be con-
structed, the change from the existing US 6 high-
way structure to the new interchange structure
would not notably degrade the quality of views to
and from the studY area'
?.10.3 Mitigation
Lighting, signing, and all structures and guardrail
color and texture will be developed during design
and reviewed with Parachute' At that time' materi-
als and colors that blend with the surrounding
landscape and that would be least intrusive to
views in the area will be considered'
No other mitigation is deemed necessary'
3.11 Gonstruction
CDOT will review construction plans and play an
oversight role after development of the construc-
tion plans. In general, roadway construction could
involve the following types of activities: excavation
and grading, utility adjustments' and installation
of storm sewers and pavement' The earliest that
any construction activities could begin on the pro-
posed project would be in Spring2OO9'
3.33
1210s Environmental Assessment
I I
i.ll.l lnpacts
Ilo Actlon Nternative
The No Action Alternative would involve no addi-
tional construction over what is currently pro-
grammed, approved, and funded' Therefore' the
No Rction Alternative would not result in project-
related construction imPacts'
Preferred Nternative
The Preferred Alternative would require construc-
tion phasing, staging areas, and detours' as well
as temporar5r intermption of traffic along I-70' US
6, and frontage roads. Construction delays are
expected to create short-term impacts to local and
regional tralfic circulation and congestion' Delays
to the traveling public and emergency service vehi-
cles would occur. Reduced speed limits on I-70'
US 6, short-term travel on unpaved surfaces' and
temporary lane closures on I-70 and US 6 are to
be expected during construction activities' Tempo-
rary lane closures and delays may occur at various
times throughout the day and would place addi-
tional pressure on alternate routes and result in
short-term economic impacts' There would be the
potential for nighttime closures of US 6' in which
case detour routes would be necessar5r' Construc-
tion would cause temporary fugitive dust impacts'
Lane or shoulder closures on I-7O would be
required when construction activities for the
ramps occur close enough to the existing I-70
shoulder to warrant closure' These closures also
would occur when the contractor would be com-
pleting the actual tie-in of the new rarnps to the I-
7O existing Pavement.
The construction of the round'abouts associated
with the Preferred Alternative at the ramp termi-
nals would likely restrict tra-flic on US 6 to a slow
speed limit. Temporar5r detours, possibly including
temporary driving surfaces outside the existing
pavement, would likely be necessary' The realign-
ment of US 6 on both sides would likely require
one-lane operations for some periods of time'
3.r1.2 Mitigation
Mitigation for direct impacts includes implementa-
tion of the following measures during construc-
tion, as aPProPriate:
. Develop traffrc management plans'
. Keep as many lales open as possible during
peak travel times by temporarily shifting these
lanes within the existing framework of the
roadwaY.
. Coordinate detour routes to avoid overloading
local streets with detour traffic, where possi-
ble.
. Coordinate with emergency service providers to
minimize delays and ensure access to proper-
ties.
. Use signage, television, and radio arrnounce-
ments to announce and advertise timing of
road closures.
. Combine noisy operations to occur during the
same Period.
. Conduct high-noise activities during daytime
construction where Possible'
. Suppress dust through watering or dust pallia-
tive. Water would be derived from municipal
sources and would not result in depletions to
the Colorado River.
. Monitor idling times for construction equip-
ment to prevent excessive exhaust emissions'
. Require low-suIfur fuels for diesel construction
equiPment.
. Evaluate low emissions equipment and clean
engine technologies for diesel construction
equiPment Prior to construction'
. Implement temporary and permanent BMPs
for erosion control, sediment control' and
1210s
3-34 Environmental Assessment
drainageway protection, as required by local
and state permitting requirements'
CDOT will review construction plans and play an
oversight role after development of the construc-
tion plans. The contractor will apply for a permit
from CDOT for any lane or shoulder closure'
CDOT may require different construction staging
to avoid lane closures. Parachute will provide pub-
lic information services as needed'
3.12 Gumulative
Cumulative effects are defined as "the impact on
the environment which results from the incremen-
tat impact of the action when added to other past'
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal)
or person undertakes such other actions" (4O CFR
1s08.7).
The environmental resources addressed under
cumulative effects are those that have been identi-
fied as resources of particular concern in the study
area that would be potentially irnpacted by the
proposed project. The cumulative effects analysis
addresses the "incremental impacts" of the pro-
posed action related to those resources'
i.l2.l Methods
Cumulative impact analysis is resource specifrc
and generally performed for the environmental
resources directly impacted by a federal action
under study, such as a transportation project'
However, not all of the resources directly impacted
by a project will require a cumulative impact anal-
ysis. The resources subject to a cumulative impact
assessment should be determined on a case-by-
case basis early in the NEPA process, generally as
part of early coordination or scoping (Irtteim Guid-
ance: Questions and. Artswers Regarding Indirect
and Cumulatiue Impact Considerations inthe NEPA
Process, FHWA 2OO3).
To that end, the following local, state, and federal
agencies were contacted early to identify issues of
concerrr in relation to the I-7O Parachute West
Interchange Project:
. US Environmental Protection Agency
. US Departrnent of Enerry
. Bureau of Land Management
. US Army CorPs of Engineers
. US Fish and Wildlife Service
. Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment - Water Quality Control Division
. Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment - Hazatdous Materials and Waste
Management
. Colorado Division of Wildlife
. Colorado Historical SocietY
. Garfield CountY
. Grand Valley Historical SocietY
The project team held scoping meetings for the
project in early October 2OO7 ' At these meetings'
,."o,rr". agencies, the public, CDOT, and FHWA
were given the opportunity to identify issues of
concern for cumulative effects' Land use and
ongoing oil and gas development in the region botJr
were identified as issues of concern' Based on this
input, this analysis focuses on cumulative effects
to land use. Air quality effects from ongoing oil and
gas operations also are discussed'
This section describes ways the area has changed
over time, presenting past developments or events
tl.at have shaped current conditions' Current and
reasonably foreseeable projects are presented'
focusing on land use issues, such as resource
exploration and resid'ential development' Finally'
the project's contribution to this change is
addressed.
Data sources used in this section include the Gar'
field Courrtg Socio-Ecorrcmic Impact Study (2OO7l'
the CRS Report for Congress entitled Oil Shale:
History, Incentiues, and Poticg (2006)' the Final
Rulison Site Environmental Management End
State Vision (2005), TheTounof Parachute Master
Plan(2OO2l, and Colorado Oil and Gas Conserva-
tion Commission data (2007)'
t 210s Environmental Assessment 3-35
i.12.2 Past Conditions
Parachute is a small community of approximately
1,300 people located about halfway between
Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs on I-70'
north of the Colorado River'
In the late 1800s, the Santa Fe Railroad was built
to connect Parachute to the Ri{le Valley and Grand
Junction. At that time, sheep and cattle ranching
were tJle main industries in the valley' OiI develop-
ment began in the area in the early 19OOs' Since
that time, Parachute has experienced numerous
oil shale boom and bust periods' After each bust'
the individuals who survived the crisis would gen-
erally return to ranching' Key events associated
with oil d.evelopment in the a-rea are described
below.
. Early l9OOs - Approximately 65'OOO acres of
land, known as the Naval Oil Shate Reserve' is
set aside. In the 194Os, this site was developed
into an experimental project that produced oil
from shale for approximately 20 years'
. Late 195Os - Union Oil Company of Califor-
nia (Unocal) builds an oil shale plant north of
Parachute testing a new retort process (a pro-
cess to distill or decompose the oil shale)'
Though producing 8OO barrels per day' Unocal
shut down after 18 months due to financial
difliculties.
. Mid 196Os -ln l964,The Oil Shale Company
(Tosco), Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio)' and
Cleveland Cliffs Mining formed a consortium to
operate the Colony Oil Shale mine' which is
located 17 miles north of Parachute' Despite
having produced 27O,OOO barrels of shale oil'
Tosco shut down production in' 1'972 because
the price of production exceeded the cost of
imPorted crude oil'
. Early 198Os - Almost all of the major oil com-
panies had established oil shale pilot projects'
E:oron planned to invest up to $5 billion in a
new project (called the Colony II project) near
Parachute, a planned 47,OOO barrel per day
plant. Similarly, Unocal planned for a large
op".u'tion near Parachute' E>oron constructed
acompany town, Battlement Mesa' just south
of the Colorado River, west of Parachute' to
provide housing, schools, stores' and recre-
ation facilities for 25,000 oil and gas workers'
Oil prices began to fall dramatically' After
spending more than $1 billion, E>oron
announced on May 2, 1982, "Black Sunday'"
that it was closing the Colony II project and
laying otr 2,2OO workers'
. Mid 198Os - From the mid-198Os into the
1990s, the US government abolished an oil
shale-supportive program and sold some oil
shale lalds. E>o<on sold Battlement Mesa as a
retirement community, and the US Depart-
ment of Energz gave control of most Colorado
oil shale lands to the BLM'
As Parachute grew to support oil and gas develop-
ment described above, land was converted to resi-
dential and commercial uses' However' after
E:oron shut down the Colony II project' many
unemployed enerry workers had to move from the
town to find other employment opportunities'
Garlield Count5r's population and economy have
more than tripled in size over the past 35 years
(Garfield Countg Socio-Eanomic Impad Studg'
ZOOi). Garfield County has experienced steady
and consistent growth in both emplo5rment and
residents since 1970. The exceptions to this steady
growth pattern were the oil shale "boom" period
irorn 1979 through 1982 and the following "bust'"
which lasted until the late 1980s' Parachute has
been experiencing small, but steady growth since
the mid-199os. According to the Toutn of Para-
chute Mqster Plqn (2OO2l, such growtJr in the
future can be accommodated by large planned
subdivision developments that have remained
mostlY vacant.
12109
3-36 Environmental Assessment
Affected Enuironment, lmpagts, and Mitigation
3. I 2.i Existing Conditions
Today the Parachute area provides regional
employment opportunities, as well as commercial
and industrial services for populations between
Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction' As dis-
cussed in the previous section, after the oil shale
recovery project was abandoned in 1982' Ercron
sustained Battlement Mesa as a retirement com-
munity (until Ercron sold the settlement)' Today it
exists with an 18-hole golf course, indoor swim-
ming pool, tennis courts, and hiking trails' The
e*i"iing communit5r is advertised to attract retir-
ees. More recently, it has attracted oil and gas
employees and is beginning to attract commuter
workers from ski resort areas'
In mid-2006, approximately 7O drilling rigs were
actively working in Garfield County on behalf of a
number of exploration and production compalies
(Garfield. Countg Socio-Bconomic Impad Studg'
2OO7l. According to CDPHE, as of September
2OOT,there were 4,133 active oil and gas wells
operating in Garfreld County, witll well develop-
ment continuing at a pace of about 1'OO0 new
wells per year' Figure 3-9 shows oil and gas wells
located near the studY area'
Oil and gas facilities emit different pollutants that
affect air quality, the most notable being VOCs' In
2006, amendments were made to the Regulation
7, Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds'
requiring oil and gas operators to reduce the
amount of VOC emissions during the ozone season
(May to September) (see Table 3-9)' All tanks with
Environmental Assessment 3-37
t 2l0s
Table3.gvocEmissionBeductionsfromOil&Gasoperations
May 1- SePtember 30 2005
May 1- SePtember 30 2006
May 1 - September 30 2OO7 through 2011
May L - September 3O starting with 2012
Source: CDPHE - Regulation 7
a condensate production greater than or equal to
73O barrels per year must obtain an air permit by
submitting an Air Pollutant Emission Notice'
These more stringent regulations a-re expected to
decrease VOC emissions' Projected VOC emissions
for coming yea-rs are based on overall reduction of
emissions from all tanks associated wittr the oper-
ations.
3. t 2.4 Foreseeable Future Proiects
The prospect of new gas exploration activity on the
Roal Plateau, ald potential oil shale development
in Rio Blanco County in northwest Colorado' sug-
gests that Garlield County will likely develop fur-
th., ".o.to-ic relationships with Rio Blartco
County on its northern border' The closest towns
to most of the future wells will be Meeker' in Rio
Blanco CounQr, ald Rifle and Parachute in Gar-
field County. Given Meeker's smaller size (relative
to Rifle) and limited housing supply' about one-
ha.lf of the worldorce for Rio Blanco natural gas
development activity may commute from homes in
Garfi eld County (Garfield Countg Socio-Economic
Impact Studg,2OOT\'
Planned transportation and land development
projects in the vicinity of the study area include
the following:
. Parachute Park Boulevard - Parachute Park
Boulevard is part of the Parachute Park
37.5%
47.50/,
75.O%
78.Oa/o
Daily'basis
Daily basis
Weekly basis
Weekly basis
Planned Unit Development' The planned devel-
opment, located north of I-70 and on the west-
ern side of the town, was approved to be
constructed in the early 1980s and is currently
being reviewed. The precise alignment has
been established and right-of-way has been
acquired.
. E:rtension of Cardinal Way - South of l-7O'
Cardinal Way is a long-range capital improve-
ment. Cardinal Way right-of-way will be
acquired, and the road will be constructed as
develoPment occurs'
. Roan Plateau Proposed Resource Manage-
ment Plan Amendment and Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement FEIS| - This
project analyzes six alternatives for managing
appro*imately 73,6O2 acres of federal land
within the Planning Area in western Colorado
in Garlield and Rio Blanco Counties' According
to the FEIS, the Preferred Alternative empha-
sizes multiple resource use and' while it is not
ttre most environmentally protective alterna-
tive, the most important ecological values
would be protected' The FEIS was published in
September, 2006' In June 2OO7 a Record of
Decision was issued for the lands in the Roan
Plateau Planning Area not proposed for Area of
Critical Environmental Concern designation' A
second Record of Decision was issued in
March 2008 addressing the proposed desig-
nated areas'
1210s
3-38 Environmental Assessment
Duration o{ Emission Beductions
. Natural Gas Drilling near Project Rulison -
Presently, the Noble Enerry Production Inc'
company is seeking to drill for natural gas
within the buffer zorre of the Project Rulison
nuclear test site just south of Parachute' In
1969, the US Department of Enerry attempted
to determine if natural gas could be easily lib-
erated from underground regions using
nuclear explosions' After the test in Rulison
field, the natural gas that was extracted was
determined to be too radioactive to be sold
commercially. As of June 2005, Presco (a natu-
ral gas company) was aiming to put in as many
as four natural gas wells near the site; Noble
Ener5, Production, who bought Presco in
2OO7, is continuing that effort'
Oil and gas development will continue to occur in
areas around Parachute' On BLM lands' several
master plans address this development' These
plans can be accessed at
As the population of Garlield County continues to
grow, increased residential development is
expected for the western part of the county' By
2}ls,both Glenwood Springs and Carbondale are
projected to be approaching their estimated build-
Lut capacities, and housing in those cities is
expected to become more expensive (Garfield
County Socio-Eanomic Imp act Studg, 2OO7 I' These
pressures would cause population growth to shift
increasingly toward the New Castle, Silt' Rifle' and
Parachute areas.
According to the Parachute TownPlanner' plans to
annex land just north of the town are currently
under review. The Toran of Parachute Master Plqn
(2OO2) proposes to convert this area to industrial
uses. The annexation plan will be voted on by the
Parachute Board of Trustees'
i.12.5 AnalYsis
Oil and gas development has helped transform the
Parachute area. This oi1 and gas activity, as well as
other past, present, and future developments'
have and will continue to convert undeveloped
land from a natural state to a developed state'
Growth in Parachute and Battlement Mesa will
continue, increasing the amount of land devel-
oped. Fresumably, this growth would occur in
Parachute and to the west, south, and north of
Parachute, consistent with land use planning and
annexation plans. The population increases dis-
cussed in Section 3.2.1 occurring in the Parachute
area are exPected to continue'
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would
,rot di"".rrribly affect these trends' The Preferred
Alternative is essentially part of this larger plan to
promote orderly growth ald improve circulation in
the area. Constraints to development' discussed in
Section 3.1.2, would greatly limit any growth
induced by the Preferred Alternative'
The incremental impacts of the improved access
would have a relatively minor effect to land use
and other resources, in relation to the total devel-
opment expected for the area' Therefore' the Pre-
ferred Alternative would not result in effects that
would cause an unacceptable level of change to
environmental resources'
3.t2.6 Glohal Clinate Change
The issue of global climate change is an important
national and global concern that is being
addressed in several ways by the Federal govern-
ment. The transportation sector is the second larg-
est source of total greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the
U.S., and the greatest source of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions - the predominant GHG'In2OO4'
the i.arrsportation sector was responsible for 31
percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions' The principal
anthropogenic (human-made) source of carbon
emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels' which
account for approximately 8O percent of anthropo-
genic emissions of carbon worldwide' Almost all
[98 percent) of transportation-sector emissions
result from the consumption of petroleum prod-
ucts such as gasoline, diesel fuel' ald aviation
fuel.
1210s Environmental Assessment 3-3S
Recognizing this concern, FHWA is working
nationally with other modal administrations
through the DOT Center for Climate Change and
Environmental Forecasting to develop strategies to
reduce transportation' s contribution to green-
house gases - particularly CO2 emissions - and to
assess the risks to transportation systems and
services from climate changes'
At the state level, there are also several programs
underway in Colorado to address transportation
GHGs. The Governor's Climate Action Plan'
adopted in Novembet 2OO7, includes measures to
adopt vehicle CO2 emissions standards and to
reduce vehicle travel through transit' flex time'
telecommu ting, ride sharing, and broadband com-
munications. CDOT worked with a number of
agencies to establish a collaborative' working rela-
tionship among the CDPHE, EPA, FHWA' the Fed-
era-l Transit Administration (FTA), the Denver
Regional Transportation District (RTD)' the Denver
Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC)' and CDOT to
ad,dress unregulated MSAT GHGs produced from
Colorado's state highways, interstates' and con-
struction activities. CDOT is preparing a Policy
Directive regarding GHG's which will include the
following commitments:
1. Research truck routes/restrictions with the
goal of limiting truck traffrc in proximity to
facilities, including schools, with sensitive
receptor PoPulations'
2. Continue researching asphalt and concrete
durability opportunities with goals to reduce
the frequency of resurfacing and/or recon-
struction projects and reduce overall emis-
sions from construction'
3. Develop air quality educational materials' spe-
cific to transportation issues, for citizens'
elected oflicials, and schools'
4. Offer outreach to communities to integrate
land use and transportation decisions to
reduce growth in VMT, such as smart growth
techniques, buffer zones, transit-oriented
development, walkable communities' access
management Plans, etc'
5. Expand Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) efforts statewide to better utilize the
existing transportation mobility network'
6. Continue to diversify the CDOT fleet' retrofit
diesel vehicles where appropriate' specify ttre
types of vehicles and equipment contractors
could use through bidding incentives' pur-
chasing low-emission vehicles, such as
hybrids, and purchasing cleaner burning fuels
where feasible.
7 . Explore congestion and'lor right-lane only
restrictions for motor carriers'
8. Fund truck parking electrification (note:
mostly via exploring external grant opportuni-
ties)
g. Research additional ways to improve freight
movement and efficiency statewide'
1O. Commit to incorporating ultra-low sulfur diesel
(ULSD) for non-road equipment statewide
before June 2O1O - likely using incentives dur-
ing bidding.
11. Develop a low-VOC emitting tree landscaping
sPeci{ication.
Because climate change is a global issue' and the
emissions changes due to project alternatives are
very small compared to global totals, the GHG
emissions associated with the alternatives were
not calculated. The relationship of current and
projected Colorado highway emissions to total
gtofA CO2 emissions is presented in Table 3-1O'
1210s
3-40 Environmental Assessment
Colorado highway emissions are expected to
increase by 4.7 percent between now and 2035'
The benefits of the fuel economy and renewable
fuels programs in the 2OO7 Enerry Bill are offset
by growth in VMT; the draft 2035 statewide trans-
portation plan predicts that Colorado VMT will
double between 2OOO and 2035' Table 3-1O also
illustrates the size of the project corridor relative
to total Colorado travel activity'
3.13 Permits Bequired
The following permits and coordination activities
may be required to support the construction of the
Preferred Alternative :
. Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS)
- The EPA issues stormwater regulations
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES). For Colorado, EPA's
authority to issue NPDES permits has been
delegated to a state regulatory agency, the
CDPHE. CDPHE implements and enforces the
NPDES prograrns through the CDPS program'
- A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
will be required to ensure that the water
quality of receiving waters is protected dur-
ing construction. Parachute will prepare a
SWMP that outlines in detail the specilic
27,700 29.9
" EIA, hxernational Energg Outlook 20O7'
"* Calculated bg FHWA Resourcp Center
BMPs in the project plan for implementa-
tion in the field. Included in the SWMP are
such aspects as BMP locations, monitoring
requirements, seed mix, concrete wash-out
provisions, and other relevant information
that is provided to the contractor'
Section 4O2 Permit - A Section 402 Permit
would be required for dewatering of construc-
tion areas, if necessar5r' The following activities
would require the acquisition of a 4O2 Pennit:
- Construction dewatering operations asso-
ciated with activities such as utility excava-
tion, bridge pier installation, foundation or
trench digging, or other subsurface activi-
ties.
- Ifdischarge is expected to occur from a
point source discharge from mechanical
wastewater treatment plants, vehicle wash-
ing, or industrial discharges'
Constnrction Access Permit - Construction
Access Permits would be required for tempo-
ra-ry access needs outside the project limits'
Other Local Permits - Other permits
required by Parachute or Garfield Count5r' as
needed, such as building, utility, or survey
permits needed to support project construction
requirements'
Tahle 3-10 Garhon Dioxide (G0rl
12'09 Environmental Assessment 3-41
0.108%
GlobalC02 Emissions,
2005 [million metric
tons (MMTll*
Projected Golorado
2035 Highwaf G02
Emissions, MMT**
Golorado HighwaY
C02 Emissions, % of
Global Total (2005)
Project Gorridor
Annual VMT, % of
Statewide Annual
vMT (2005)
3.l4SummarY of lmPacts
Table 3-11 provides a summary of the impacts
associated with the No Action Alternative and the
Preferred Alternative as evaluated in Chapter 3'
Land Use
Socioeconomic
Conditlons
Right-of-WaY/
Relocation
Land uses would likelY
remain unchanged
within the studY area.
Congestion and mobilitY
at the existing inter-
chalge and on local
streets would worsen
over time, increasing
travel times and reducing
accessibilitY to adjacent
land uses.
Would not notablY affect
population growth or
housing develoPment
near studY area. Worsen-
ing congestion at I-70
interchange at CR 215
and on I-7O would make
it increasinglY dilficult to
access businesses, resi-
dences, and communitY
facilities in Parachute
and Battlement Mesa.
Would not require anY
new right-of-waY, ProP-
erty acquisitions, or busi-
ness artd residential
relocations.
Wouldresultinconversionoflandtotransportationuse,
but would not require any residential or business reloca-
tions. Would improve I-70 connectivity' overall interstate
operations, and regional and local trallic mobility' Is not
anticipated to induce grow'th / development' Is consistent
with local area Planning.
Is not anticipated to affect population growth or housing
development near study area' Would not impact any oi1
ana ga" wells. Would improve connectivity' mobilitlr' and
access along the l-7O corridor' Would provide some con-
gestion relief to the existing interchange'
Would require approximately 4'2 acres of additional
right-of-way within the study area from separate parcels
ownea by one land owner based on preliminary right-of-
way research. No business or residential relocations
would occur.
1210s
Tahle 3-11 SummarY of lmPacts
3-42 Environmental Assessmenl
xm
Preferred Alternative
Air QualitY
Water
Resources and
fiIater QualitY
Vegetation
The intersection of CR
215 and US 6 (First
Street) currentlY exPeri-
ence significant vehicle
delays and the minor
approaches of US 6 oPer-
ate at a LOS F during
peak hours. As discussed
in Section 4.4.3, this
congestion is Projected to
increase under the No
Action Alternative. Inter-
sections that oPerate at a
LOS D or worse have
higher concentrations of
vehicle emissions result-
ing in air qualitY effects.
Therefore, adverse air
quality effects are
expected to worsen under
tlee No Action Alternative.
Would reduce traffic congestion at the CR 215 inter-
Would result in no No direct or indirect impacts to Parachute Creek or Colo-
impacts to water rado River are anticipated' would create an additiona-l
resources or water qual- 4.76 actes of impervious surface, which could increase
ity, including aquatic life runoff, sedimentation' and nonpoint source pollution'
and habitat. The Preferred Alternative would include a permanent
stormwaterdetentionbasinthatwouldprovidewater
quality alcl quamtity benefits, and prevent flooding
increases.
would not impact exist- would include the removal and loss of native salt desert
ing vegetation communi- vegetation and disturbed roadside communities' Impacts
ties. would be expected from fill placement during construc-
tion and dramage by construction equipment' Addition of
roundabouts and new pavement would increase impervi-
ous surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the
surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants'
change, thereby improving air quality in that area'
tmpacts under criteria pollutant air quality are not antic-
ip.t.a. It is expected ttrere would be reduced MSAT emis-
sions within the study area, relative to the No Action
Alternatrve, due to EPA's MSAT reduction progralns'
Table 3-11 SummarY 0f lmpacts (Gontinuedl
1210s Environmental Assessment 3-43
Noxious Weeds
Fish and
Wildlife
Historic
Properties
Would not contribute to
the spread of noxious
weeds. However, weeds
are prevalent in the area,
and nodous weeds would
continue to sPread in the
study area without
proper management.
Would not imPact exist-
ing general wildlife sPe-
cies,
Under the No Action
Alternative, there would
be no change to the cur-
rent existing conditions
due to this Project.
Therefore, this alterna-
tive would have no direct
or indirect imPacts to the
historic US 6 or ttre Hav-
ermeyer-Wilcox Canal.
Soildisturbancefromconstructionequipmentwouldcre-
ate favorable conditions for weedy species to establish'
Removal of low-lying shrubs and vegetation during con-
struction may potentially impact migvatory bird species
nesting and cover habitat' Loss ofvegetation could affect
reptiles, small mammal, and rodent species through loss
of habitat and foraging resources' Could increase the
already high number of wildlife/vehicular strikes since it
would increase tralfic volumes on US 6' There are no
anticipated depletions to the Colorado River'
The Preferred l\lternative would affect two segments of
historic US 6. 'fhe newly-recorded feature of Site
#5GF2935.1, and an approximate 4oO-foot portion of
Site #5GF2 g35.2 are located within the construction
footprint of the Preferred Alternative' and would be
directly impacted by construction of the project' Site
#5GF2935.1 has already been impacted by existing
development. lt will be destroyed as part of the current
undertaking.
The impacted 4oo-foot portion of Site #5GF2935'2 is a
part of the northern subsection of the segment' The
western portion of segment #5GF2935'2 will remain
intact but most of the eastern portion will be destroyed
during the project. The integrity and nature of these seg-
mentshavebeenevaluatedaSnon-Supportiveofthe
site's overall eligibilitY'
Would afl-ect segments of the historic Havermeyer-Wilcox
Cana,l. The eastern third of Site #5GF654'6 is within the
project footprint and will be destroyed as part of the cur-
rent undertaking. The western ha-lf of Site #5GF654'7
also will be destroyed as part of the current undertaking'
1210s
Tahle 3-t 1 Summary 0f lmpacts lGontinuedl
3-44 Environmental Assessment
Enuironment, lmflacts, and Mitigation
Historic
Properties
(continued)
Both of these segments lack integrity, and their destruc-
tion will not affect the qualities of signihcance of the
overall canal system. FHWA ald CDOT have made a
determination, and the SHPO has concurred' that
irnpacts to the historic US 6 and Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canal segments associated with the Freferred Alternative
wouldresultinnoadverseeffectforpurposesofSection
106 of the NHPA. Also see ChaPter 6'
Ilazardous
Substances
Would have no imPact on
hazardous material sites'
Would have impacts to hazardous material sites' The
CDOT facility located within the study area had a
reported LUST. In that area, groundwater flows away
from the study area. If contamination exists on the site'
soil would potentially trap the plume prior to discharging
off-site. Further assessment to evaluate possible pres-
ence of contamination at the site is recommended' The
oil and gas wells are located outside of the construction
limits and are not anticipated to be impacted as a result
of the Preferred Alternative' Lead-based paint surveys
would be cr:nducted if construction activities require
removal, cutting, or grinding of metal components on the
existing bridge structure' An asbestos inspection should
be done on the bridge prior to any work'
Would intr,oduce new visual elements by adding new
interchange rarnps and roundabouts to existing I-70 and
US 6, ald retaining walls or embankments as required'
Would convert the existing land to paved roadway and
wouldincludeCommonhighwayelements,suchassign-
ing, guardrail, and lighting' Existing vegetation would
havetoberemovedtoconstructnewpavement;however'
theseareaswouldbere-seededwithnativegrassesto
prevent erosion and reduce the visual impact'Conversion
of this open land to highway or interchange use would
cause a slight loss of visua1 buffer' The features of the
new interchange could intermpt the motorist's immedi-
ate ald foreground views from vantage points along I-70'
The proposed interchange would be visible from some
residences in Battlement Mesa almost one or more miles
away. At this distance, the additional highway elements
(e.g., roundabouts, ramps) would not greatly alter scenic
views from Battlement Mesa'
The chanSle from the existing US 6 highway structure to
the new interchange structure would not notably
degrade the quality of views to and from the study area'
Visual
Resources/
Aesthetics
Would have no imPacts
to current views.
Table 3-11 Summary 0f lmpacts (Gontinued)
12109 Environmental Assessment 3-45
Constrrction
Cumulative Would have no imPacts.
Would require construction phasing, staging areas, and
detours, as well as tempora-r5r intermption of traffic along
I-70, US 6 and frontage roads' Construction delays are
expected to create short-term impacts to local and
regional traf{ic circulation and congestion' Delays to the
traveling public and emergency service vehicles would
occur. Reduced speed limits on I-7O, US 6, short-term
travel on unpaved surfaces, and temporary lale closures
on I-7O and US 6 are to be e;pected during construction
activities. Temporary lane closures and delays may occur
at various times throughout the day and would place
additional pressure on alternate routes and result in
short-term economic impacts. There would be the poten-
tial for nighttirne closures of US 6, in which case detour
routes would be necessarJr. Construction would cause
temporary fugitive dust imPacts.
Oil and gas development, as well as other past, present'
ald future developments, have and will continue to con-
vert undevelope<l land from a natural state to a devel-
oped state. Growth in Parachute and Battlement Mesa
will continue, increasing the amount of land developed'
Presumably, this growth would occur in Parachute and
to the west, south, and north of Parachute, consistent
with land use planning arrd annexation plans' The popu-
lation increasr:s occurring in the Parachute area are
expected to continue.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not
discernibly aftect these trends. The incremental impacts
of the improved access would have a relatively minor
effect to land use and other resources, in relation to the
total development expected for the area' Therefore, the
Preferred Alternative would not result in effects that
would cause an unacceptable level of change to environ-
mental resources.
Would not result in Proj-
ect-related construction
impacts.
Tahle 3-11 SummarY of lmpacts (Gontinuedl
3-46 Environmenta! Assessment 12'0S
Preferred Alternative
3.15 Summary of Mitigation Measures
Table 3-12 provides a summary of mitigation
measures for the Preferred Alternative as dis-
cussed in Chapter 3.
Tahle 3-12 Summary 0f Mitigation Measures
Socioeconomic
Conditions
Land Use
Right-of-trIay/
Relocation
Air Quality
Because the Preferred Alternative would not result in adverse effects on land use,
mitigation would not be necessary. Mitigation for right-of-way impacts is discussed in
Section 3.3.3.
No mitigation measures a-re necessary because the Preferred Alternative would not
result in adverse socioeconomic impacts. Good communication with emergency ser-
vice providers, the communit5r, and residents in Parachute and Battlement Mesa. with
regard to road delays, access, and special construction activities will be conducted
during the construction phase.
See Section 3.17.2 for mitigation measures associated with construction activities.
For any person(s) whose real property interests may be impacted by this project, the
acquisition of those property interests will comply fully with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Rectl Propertg Acquisitiort Policies Act of 197O, as amended, (Untforrn
Act).The Uniform Act is a federally manrdated program that applies to all acquisitions
of reat property or displacements of persons resulting from Federal or federally
assisted progralns or projects. It was created to provide for and ensure the fair and
equitable treatment of all such persons. To further ensure that the provisions con-
tained within this act are applied "uniformly," CDOT requires Uniform Act compli-
ance on any project for which it has oversight responsibility regardless of the funding
source. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides
that private property may not be taken Ibr a public use witlrout payment of 'Just com-
pensation." Al1 impacted owners will be provided notification of the acquiring agency's
intent to acquire an interest in their properfy including a written offer letter of just
compensation specifically describing those property interests. A Right-of-Way Spe-
cialist will be assigned to each property owner to assist them with this process.
The project will tre subject to the fugitive dust permitting and control requirements of
the CAQCC Regulation 1 (Emission Control Regulation for Particulate Matter, Smoke,
Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Oxides for the state of Colorado, effective March 2,
2AO2) and Regulation 3 (Air Contaminant Emissions Notices, effective January 1,
2OOO). A Land Development Permit Application ald Fugitive Dust Control Plan will
need to be prepared and. submitted to CDPHE, APCD. See Section 3.11.2 for BMPs to
be used during construction.
12'0S Environmental Assessment 3-47
Hesource Mitigation
Tahle 3-12 Summary of Mitigation Measures lGontinuedl
Water
Resources and
Slater
Quality
Although there are no direct connections between the Preferred Alternative and the
colorado River (the only water resource potentially affected by the Preferred Alterna-
tive), construction activities will include proper precautionary planning and imple-
mentation of BMPs to minimize soil erosion and contain construction-related
contaminants to within the construction area. The use of standard erosion and sedi-
ment control BMPs in accordance with the Erosion Control and Storm Water Qualitg
Guide(cDoT, 2o}2)will be included in the {inal design plans. All work on the project
will be in conformity with Section 1o7.25 (Water Qualiry control) and Section 208
(Erosion control) of the cDoT standard specifications for Road and Bidge Construc-
tion.
The foltowing specilic BMPs will be applied as appropriate during construction:
. A permanent stormwater detention basin will be constructed within cDoT right-
of-way in the southwest quadrant'
. All disturbed areas will be revegetated with native grass al1d forb species' Seed
mulchtackifierwillbeappliedinphasesthroughoutconstruction.
. where permanent seed.ing operations are not feasible due to seasonal constraints
(e.g., summer and' winter montlrs), disturbed areas will have mulch and mulch
tackifier applied to prevent erosion'
. Erosion control blankets will be used on steep, newly seeded slopes to control ero-
sion and to promote the establishment of vegetation. Slopes should be roughened
at all times and concrete washout contained'
. Temporar5r erosion control blankets will have flexible natural frbers'
. Erosion bales, erosion 10gs, silt fence, or other sediment control device will be
used as sediment barriers and filters adjacent to wetland and surface waterways
and at inlets where aPProPriate'
. Where appropriate, slope drains will be used to convey concentrated runoff from
top to bottom of the disturbed slopes. Slope and cross-drain outlets will be con-
structed to traP sediment.
. Storm drain inlet protection will be used where appropriate to trap sediment
before it enters the cross-drain.
. Check dams will be used where appropriate to slow the velocitSr of water ttrrough
roadside ditches and in swales'
. Work areas will be limited as much as possible to minimize construction impacts
to vegetation.
. Temporary detention ponds will be used to a110w sediment to settle out of runoff
before it leaves the construction area'
3.48 Environmental Assessment 12109
Enuironment, lmPacts, and Mitigation
Tahle 3-t 2 Summary of Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Water
Resources and
Water
Quality
(continued)
Vegetation
. Non-structural BMPs may include litter and debris control, and landscaping and
vegetative practices will be implemented.
. Settling ponds for effluent from dewatering operations will be established if
needed.
Water used for construction and/or irrigation will be derived through municipal
soufces. Therefore, allocations will not exceed the upper Colorado River Basin thresh-
old.
If contaminated groundwater is encountered during the dew'atering plocess, mecha-
nisms will be in place to analyze groundwater for contaminants and effectively treat
this groundwater pumped discharge as necessaly per the Section 402 Permit require-
ments (see Section 3.13).
CDOT revegetation BMPs and guidelines will be followed to ensure adequate revegeta-
tion of the study area. A11 disturbed areas will be replanted with drought-tolerant,
native vegetation as soon as possible following construction' Parachute would
assume responsibilrty for adhering to the mitigation measures outlined below' This
responsibility will be documented in an IGA tretween Parachute and CDOT' Specific
mitigation measures will be determined during final design in consultation with the
CDOT landscape architect, and will include, as necessary:
. Minimize the amount of disturbalce and limit the amount of time that disturtred
areas are allowed to be non-vegetated.
. Appropriately revegetate all disturbed areas with native vegetation, or protect
from erosion by the placement of riprap per standard engineering specifications'
. Apply mulch and mulch tackifier to protect soils from erosion where temporarjr or
permanent seeding operations are not feasible due to seasonal constraints (e-9.,
summer and winter months).
. Use erosion control blankets on steep (3:1 or gfeater) and newly seeded slopes to
control erosion and to promote the establishment of vegetation.
. prevent trapping of hirds and animals by using, only erosion control fabric with a
mesh of flexible natural fibers.
. Limit work areas as much as possible to minimize construction impacts to vegeta-
tion.
. Locate equipment refueling and staging areas at least 1OO feet from weflands or
waterways.
12'0S Environmental Assessment 3.4S
Resource
Tahle 3-12 Summary of Mitigation Measures (Gontinuedl
Noxious Sleeds Since soil disturbance associated with highway construction activities can create
favorable conditions for the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, a m€rnage-
ment plan for nodous weeds will be incorporated into the project design and con-
struction process by the project contractor under the direction of Parachute'
Parachute would assume responsibility for adhering to the mitigation measures out-
lined below. This responsibility will be documented in an IGA between Parachute and
CDOT. Specilic BMPs would be required during construction to reduce the potential
for the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and include:
. Detailed weed mapping of the study area will be conducted by a weed specialist
during the design phase. Mapping will be included in the construction documents
along with appropriate control methods and an implementation plan for noxious
species.
. Idenffication of all existing noxious weed. infestations with the roadway right-of-
way will occur during the design phase. Roadway right-of-way areas will periodi-
cally be inspected by Parachute or its consultants during construction and during
post-construction weed monitoring for invasion of noxious weeds.
. An Integrated Weed Management Plan will be prepared that details weed manage-
ment measures to include removal or burial of heavily infested topsoil, chemical
treatment of lightly infested topsoil, limiting disturbance areas, phased seeding
with native species throughout the project, monitoring during and after construc-
tion, and other chemical and/or mechanical treatments'
. Weed management efforts will be coordinated with locat agencies and adjacent
property owrrers to the extent possible.
. Hay and agricultural materials used for the project will be inspected and treated
according to the standards set forth in the Weed Free Forage Crop Certi{ication
Act (Title 35, Article 27.5, CRS).
. Herbicide use will include selection of appropriate herbicides and timing of herbi-
cide spraying, and use ofa backpack sprayer in and adjacent to sensitive areas,
such as wetlands, by a certified pesticide applicator'
. Certified weed-free lnay and.lor mulch will be used in all revegetated areas.
. Ferlilizers will not be used on the project site.
supplemental weed control measures may be added during design and construction
planning.
3.50 Environmental Assessment t 2l0s
Affected Enuironment, lnipacts, and Mitigation
Tahle 3-12 Summary of Mitigation Measures (Gontinued)
Mitigation for anticipated impacts to general wildlife willFish and
Illildlife
Historic
Properties
Ilazardorrs
Substances
Lgation for anticipated impacts to general wildlife will include, as necessary:
CDOT BMPs and revegetation guidelines will be employed to minim2e impacts
associated with vegetation removal.
An active nesting survey will be conducted within the study area by a quali{ied
biologist prior to the start of any construction activities to ensure compliance with
MBTA and the BGEPA. Should an active nest location be identified during this
survey, appropriate avoidance measures will be taken for the area around the
nest during construction.
Installation of big game fencing along I-7O andlor US 6 will be considered during
the final design stage to help reduce the amount of wildlife/vehicular strikes
while still providing them with access to a water source.
' WildliG-friendly erosion blankets will be used to reduce impacts to reptiles.
' Installation of warming/shade rocks for reptiles will be used as necessary.
Because it has been determined that the Preferred Alternative would have no adverse
effect to historic US 6 and the Haverms.rsr-Wilcox Canal, no mitigation is necessary.
Please see Chapter 6, for a complete discussion of Section a(f , the de minimis find-
ings, and measures to minimize harm to historic US 6 and the Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canal.
Parachute carefully considers tJle potential risks associated w'ith hazardous material
on construction projects and will require construction personnel to comply with Sec-
tion 250 "Environmental Health ald Safety Management" of the Standard Specifica-
tions for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005). Section 250 of the CDOT
Standard Speci{ications, provides for the protection of the environment, persons, and
propert5r from contaminants and includes special requirements for addressing haz-
ardous material, if encountered. Construction on the proposed project is expected to
include pavement removal, re-paving, and minor utility relocation. As a result,
encountering hazardous material in soils and groundwater is not anticipated. How-
ever, there is a documented LUST and other recognized environmental conditions
within the study area. Precautions will be taken by construction personnel to monitor
excavations for the possible presence of volatile organic compounds during arly exca-
vation that extends below the base of pavement in areas adjacent to the listed LUST
site. Construction personnel will also be trained to look for and recogrize asbestos
containing materials in soil.
Iead-based paint and asbestos surveys will be conducted as needed.
Construction debris or asbestos utility lines will be inspected by appropriate profes-
sionals and handled in accordance w'ith CDPHE regulations pertaining to asbestos
waste management (6 CCR |OOT-2, Part 1, Section 5).
Environmental Assessment 3-511210s
Besource
I
Visual
Resources/
Aesthetics
Lighting, signing, all structures and guardrail color and texture will be developed
during design and reviewed with Parachute. At that time, materials ald colors that
blend with the surrounding landscape and that would be least intrusive to views in
the area will be considered.
No other mitigation is deemed necessary.
Constnrction Mitigation for direct impacts includes implementation of the following measures dur-
ing construction, as aPProPriate:
. Develop traffic management plans.
. Keep as many lanes open as possible during peak travel times by temporarily
shifting these lanes within the existing framework of the roadway.
. Coordinate detour routes to avoid overloading local streets with detour traflic,
where possible.
. Coordinate with emergency service providers to minimize delays a-nd ensure
access to ProPerties.
. Use signage, television, and radio announcements to a'nnounce and advertise
timing of road closures.
. combine noisy operations to occur during the same period.
. Conduct high-noise activities during daytime construction where possible.
. Suppress d.ust through watering or d.ust palliative. Water would be derived from
municipal sources and would not result in depletions to t]re Colorado River'
. Monitor idling times for construction equipment to prevent excessive exhaust
emissions.
. Require low-sulfur fuels for diesel construction equipment.
. Evaluate low emissions equipment and clean engine technologies for diesel con-
struction equipment prior to construction'
. Implement temporary and permanent BMPs for erosion control, sediment control,
and drainageway protection, as required by local and state permitting require-
ments.
CDOT will review construction plans and play an oversight role after development of
the construction plans. The contractor will apply for a permit from cDoT for any lane
or shoulder closure. cDoT may require d.ifferent construction staging to avoid lane
closures. Parachute will provide public information selvices as needed.
Tahle 3-12 Summary 0f Mitigation Measures (Gontinued)
3-52 Environmental Assessment 12'0S
Affected Enuironment, lmpacts, and Mitigation
Hesource Mitightion
4.1 lntroduction
This chapter describes the existing and future
transportation conditions for the I-7O Parachute
West Interchange project and presents tralsporta-
tion impacts for ttre No Action Alternative and Pre-
ferred Alternative. It also discusses transportation
plals reviewed, the methodolory used to forecast
future traffic demand, traffic safet5r, and pedes-
trian and bicycle facilities.
As described in Chapter 1, the primary needs for
tJ:re proposed I-70 Parachute West Interchange
project are to improve connectivity with I-70 in the
Parachute area, relieve congestion at the existing
Parachute interchange and improve overall opera-
tions along I-70, and remove regional tra{Iic from
local Parachute streets. The Preferred Alternative
was developed to meet these needs.
In addition to tl-is EA, Parachute is preparing a
System Level Study and Interstate Access Request
on behalf of CDOT to address CDOT and FHWA
interstate access request requirements. This
study, which is included on the compact disc at
the back of this document, provides greater detail
on the transportation analysis performed for the
project. CDOT will submit the study to FHWA to
request approval for the Interstate Access Request.
4.2 Gompatibility with Transportation Plans
Since the opening of l-7O through the Town of
Parachute (Parachute), the project location has
been identified as a site for a potential inter-
change. The interchange is idenffied in the Stote-
uide Transportation Improuement Program (STIP)
and the 2O3O Intermountain Regional Transporta-
tionProgram (RTP). The Tou,tnof Paraclrute Master
Plan Centennial Edition, 2OO8 (Town Master Plan)
promotes the connection to the proposedl-7O
Parachute West Interchange by planning an exten-
sion of Cardinal Way on the south side of Para-
chute and building Parachute Park Boulevard on
the north side of Parachute. Also, the proposed
interchange would be consistent with Garfield
County planning processes to provide a second
access to Battlement Mesa, by others separate
from this project, thereby improving mobility and
connectivity for areas south of I-70.
4.3 Existing Gonditions
The study area is located on the western edge of
Parachute, Colorado, about 2.3 miles west of the
existing Parachute / Batfl ement Me sa interchange
at exit number 75. Key roadways within or near
the study area include:
Interstate 70 (I-7O) - I-7O is a freeway with two
lanes in each direction separated by a median,
with a 75 miles per hour (mph) speed limit.
United States Highway 6 (US 6) - US 6 runs
east-west through Parachute, parallel to I-7O.
About 2.3 miles west of County Road (CR) 215 in
Parachute, US 6 crosses south over I-7O and con-
tinues westward towards De Beque' At this cross-
ing, US 6 consists of a two-lane bridge about 36
feet wide. US 6 is lctown as 1st Street within Para-
chute, a two-lane local street with a 25 mph speed
limit that serves as Parachute's main street, serv-
ing residential, industrial, and commercial uses.
Outside of Parachute, US 6 is classified as a rural
regional highway by Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) with a 55 mph speed limit.
CR 215/CR 3OO - The existing Parachute inter-
change at CR 215 (l-7O Spur Road) seryes as the
main access point to I-70 for Parachute and Bat-
flement Mesa. At the interchalge and to the north,
this roadway is CR 215, and south of the inter-
change it is CR 3OO. CR 215 serves as the major
route accessing the Roan Plateau and Piceance
Basin and areas north of Parachute, while CR 3OO
provides the only Colorado River crossing to Bat-
tlement Mesa in the immediate vicinity. At the
r 2l0s Environmental Assessment 4.1
Ghapter 4.0
Transportation lmpacts
interchange, CR 2 15 consists of a narrow two-lane
bridge, which is part of tJ:e I-7O interchange
owned and maintained by CDOT. The interchange
has single-lane ramp approaches from I-70, termi-
nating at CR 215 attwo-way stop-controlled inter-
sections.
Parachute-Una Road (CR 3OO) - About 2.6 miles
west of the study area (about 5 miles west of the
existing Parachute interchange), Parachute-Una
Road provides the next opportunity to cross the
Colorado River to Battlement Mesa. This roadway
also serves industrial uses, primarily oil, gas, and
gravel mining. Parachute-Una Road is narrow in
areas with sharp curyes, limited sight distances,
and moderate to steep grades' This two-lane
county road intersects US 6 at a two-way stop-
controlled intersection.
4.i,1 Traffic Volames and Patterns
Traffic volumes were collected for key roadways
and intersections in the study area vicinit5r in
Summer and Fall 2OO7. Daily traffic volumes are
displayed in Figure 4-1. Vehicle classification
counts were also collected on I-70 and US 6 to
determine the percentage of heavy vehicles on
these key roadways. About 30 percent of daily traf-
fic on I-7O in Parachute are trucks (21 percent
semi-trailers longer than 41 feet and 9 percent
shorter trucks), while about 6O percent of daily
traffic on US 6 are trucks (30 percent semi-trailers
and 3O percent shorter trucks).
While the existing Parachute interchange experi-
ences severe congestion in the AM peak hour, and
at other times throughout the day, the PM peak
hour was determined to be the peak hour of travel
demand. in the area wit]l the worst conditions for
most movements. Therefore, tJre traffic analyses
for this study focus on the PM peak hour. PM peak
hour turning movement counts are provided in
Figure 4-2.
4.i.2 Existing Traffic 0perations
Evaluation of traffic operations, including opera-
tions at interchanges, is based on Level of Service
(LOS) calculations conducted in accordance with
t}lre Hightoag Capacitg Manual2000. LOS is a term
used to describe the operating performance of an
intersection or roadway. The operation is
described by a letter designation from "A" to 'F,'
with LOS A representing essentially unintermpted
flow with minimat delays, and LOS F representing
a breakd.own of traffic flow with excessive conges-
tion and delay. \pically operations at LOS D or
better for peak periods are considered to be oper-
ating acceptably, while intersections and roadways
operating at LOS F are in need of improvement' A
graphical representation ofeach LOS category is
presented in Figure 1-4'
Analyses of key intersections were conducted for
existing cond.itions using the Synchro version 6
software package, including SimTrafhc' The
results of these analyses are summarized in Table
4-1. In addition, interstate mainline and ramp
merge/diverge operations analyses were con-
ducted using the Highway Capacrty Software
package (HCS+ version 5-21ll. Results of these
interstate operations analyses are presented in
Figure 4-3.
Table 4-1 shows LOS at the existing interchange
prior to recent CDOT improvements' The ramp ter-
minal intersections at the existing Parachute
interchange were very congested in the PM peak
hour, operating at LOS F, with long PM peak hour
queue lengths. In rare instances, queue lengths
approaching the interstate mainline were
observed.
r 2,0sEnvironmental Assessment
Transportation lmPacts
CR 21 5 North
ol Parachute'
US 6 {1st Street)
West ol CR 21 5 '
uS 6 West ol
Parachute a
l-70tast ol Proposed
IJS 6 West of
Proposed lnterchange'
GR 300 (Parachute-Una
Rd) South ol IJS 6 3
\
Existing Trallic Sourees
1 CD0T Traflic 0ata
'zcarlield County lFeb 2007)
3 Una LIC (Sept 2007]
a All Traffic 0ata (Sept 2007)
5 Estimated Based on Sunounding Trallic
and Field 0bservations
t'
Not To Scale
I.EGEttlD
X,XXX Exisling Average Daily Tralfic IADTI
Environmental Assessment 4.3
Figure 4-1 Auerage Existing Daily Traffic
BiAIILtMEtI'MESA
Parachute
Park Blvd
ru-*
B1
@
,tw_,
/,A/^
-'s""
'f+ -l'7
+*
8..,*
, '-(,,
.o'J r 'o
ts
o
Not To Scale
I.EGEItID
XX PM PBak HouI Counls
XX I XX AM I PM Peak Hour Counts
Note: All counls are PM peak hour, ercepl at the eristing Parachute
inlerchange whete hoth AM and PM were collecled.
Sturce: All naffic uata (Sept. 2007)
12t0s4.4 Environmental Assessment
Figure 4-2 Existing PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
Table 4-l Existing lntersection [0S, Delay, and Oueues
CR 215 and Westbound I-70 RamPs
we stbound off-ramP ooo- "i,:lr;#:;f #*I
ffi
Eastbound off-ramp APProach ( 1 ,o!:;ffl?l
ffi
,?::li:xtltiil:::l
i,"#Hi:xt: tiiil::lffiSouthbound APProach
Northbound APProach
*'"'0":il$.lxll'trx
Eastbound off-ramP APProach
Southbound L,€ft
In addition to the ramp terminal intersections, the
intersection of CR 215 and US 6 (1st Street) expe-
riences significant vehicle delays and both minor
approaches of US 6 operate at LOS F in the PM
peak hour. Heavy north-south through tralfic at
this intersection prevents turning movements from
US 6 onto CR 215, causing considerable delay and
queuing, especially on the US 6 eastbound
approach from the Town center.
As shown in Figure 4-3,I-7O and the merge/
diverge ramp areas of both the existing Parachute
interchange and the existing De Beque inter-
change currently operate at acceptable LOS in the
PM peak hour.
4.3.i lnplications of lmprovements at Cfr'215
& l-70 (Existing Parachute lnterchange)
During the course of this study, CDOT has made
irnprovements to the existing interchange at CR
215 & I-70 to address lcrown traffic congestion
and geometric issues. CDOT installed span-wire
traffic signals (with simple two-phase operations)
at each intersection at the interchange, con-
structed left-turn lanes on the off ramps and built
a right-turn lane on southbound CR 215
approaching the westbound ramp. These improve-
ments were planned by CDOT before the traffic
analysis for this I-70 Parachute West Interchange
project was conducted and were included in the
2011 and 2035 No Action alternatives. An abbrevi-
ated analysis of the improvements was conducted
for this study to determine if there are €rny impli-
cations to the findings of tl:is EA and if any addi-
tional existing conditions traffic analysis is
justified. This aralysis shows that with the
improvements, each intersection at the inter-
chalge operates at a much improved LOS A or B
in the AM and PM peak hours. In addition' queue
lengths have been reduced on botJ: ramps, down
to approximately 25O feet for the westbound ramp
and approximately 175 for the eastbound ramp. In
all, the improvements address recently congested
F
A
F
A
>50.0
2.6
>50.0
3.4
>50.0
>50.0
0.8
8.3
10.0
9.9
9.8
o.4
ro.4
4.1
725
25
200
25
25
25
400
225
25
50
F
F
A
A
25
0
25
25
B
A
A
A
B
A
r 2,09 Environmental Assessment 4.5
Leverorservice flffii:J#:s
Proposed Parachute---i
F Ti I I. I M E fl I, MESA
tr
Not To Scale
tEGEItID
gE Ramp Approach L0S/Lett Trm LOS
E Ramp Mergel0iverge LOS
€ lnterslaleLos
Srurce: Jacobs Carter Burges
conditions at the existing interchange and elimi-
nate backups onto I-7O. However, these improve-
ments are already included in both the 2O11
opening day scenario and the 2035 No-Action
alternative so there are no future conditions that
change the conclusions or findings of this EA. Fur-
ther, the need for the Parachute West Interchange
project is not tied to existing trafiic congestion at
the CR 215 & I-70 interchange. Therefore, recent
improvements to the existing interchange do not
4.6 Environmental Assessment 12t0s
Tra nsportation lmPacts
Figure 4-3 Existing lnterstate 0perations
i\
PAhAcH
change tJle conclusions documented in this EA
and do not require any further existing conditions
trallic analysis.
4.4 Future Gonditions
A planning honzon year of 2035 was used for
future analyses. The year 2011 was used as a pro-
jected opening day, assuming implementation of
the Preferred Alternative.
4.4.1 Traffic Forecasts
The State Demographer's forecasts for population
growth in Garfreld County were used as a basis for
projecting growth in general traffic, and Garfield
Count5r oil and gas emplo5rment projections were
used to project future oil and gas traffic. Annual
growth rates for each t5pe of traffic were applied to
key roadways based on the observed trallic compo-
sition. The National Cooperative Highway
Research Program 255 iterative method was used
to project future volumes at key intersections.
The Parachute and Battlement Mesa area is
orpected to experience substantial growth over the
next 3O years - an annual population increase of
about 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, oil and gas develop-
ment is projected to continue through 2017, but is
expected to peak around that time, resulting in
fewer overall oil and gas jobs in 2035 than exist
today.
The resulting mix of traIlic still projects to be sig-
nificantly higher than current levels. Figure 4-4
displays the 2011 and 2035 No Action Alternative
daily traffic forecasts for the key roadways. Figure
4-5 and Figure 4-6 display the 2Ol1 and 2O35 PM
peak hour forecasts at key intersections for the No
Action Alternative, respectively.
The Preferred Alternative would shift travel pat-
terns in and around Parachute. Regional traffic
between points west on I-70 ald northern Para-
chute would be likely to use the new interchange.
Additionally, regional tra-fIic between points east
on I-70 and land uses west of Parachute on US 6
would be likely to use the new interchange. Analy-
ses of existing and projected travel patterns result
in the allocation of trips to the road network and
proposed interchange shown in Figure 4-7 (20ll
and 2035 Preferred Alternative daily traffic). F.ig-
ure 4-8 ald Figure 4-9 show the Preferred Alter-
native PM peak hour traffic for 2Ol1 and 2O35,
respectively.
12'0S Environmental Assessment 4.7
121094.8 Environmenlal Assessment
Wes
Interclri
.ffi
t
fse.-r
trilo,'W-*
Transportation lmpacts
o
Not To Scale
tEGEtIID
X,XXX 2011 No.Action A0T
X.XXX 2035 No-Action ADT
Sourrc: Jacohs Carter Burges
,4- tri
""iJ" +#
".*pr$-
;tgn .i -. ?tw lcl i@l<_q--
t
Nol To Scale
tEGEtTD
XX PM Peak Hour Projections
XX i XX AM / PM Peak Hour Projeclions
Note: All proiections are PM peak hour, except at the erisling
Parachute inlerchange where hoth AM and pM were provided
Soarce: Jacobs Cartet Eurgess
,4 r)""
i,,,
@
#.,,-
,\^
^.o1/^
\#
,9
@
;
@
,lw_
*?^ -\ig*
,{c\s\-3j '<99\- s-
.6(o'
Environmental Assessment
o
Figure 4-5 2011 llo Action peak Hour Turning Movement volumes
r=_-
tQ.)
,
I
{-*fry
*g"#
%€t,.*" .
,"..$
^r'rrt rrf
t\rrlrcr
lr
@
,;W-,
_*t
-$;"'',,r
*t
I
I
I
II
,#,;
s"Jrs&(
,tr7
,j/,':
-uL?'*
t'
Not To Scale
I.EGEIIID
XX PM Peak Hour Proiections
XX, XX AM I PM Peak Hour Proiections
N0te: All pr0jeclions are PM peak hour, ercepl at the eristi.g
Parachute interchange where both AM and PM were provided.
Source: Jacobs Carter
4-10 Environmental Assessment 1210s
Transportation Impacts
I
,/,.,/ //
,,t *///ffi"r@)/ i
d ,'./)9( .*P/ >+
' i EArIr, irtt
@
(
$rrr ,//r'\Wi@//!
/i
PeakNo
lcn 300)
PAi AClt
EATTtTMIiI' iltsA
tProprr"g
-/l
Parachute
Park Blvd
rt 2f
/@/
tt tt 77'
o
Nol To Scale
tEGEtIID
X,XXX 2011 tull.lnterchange Build A0T
X,XXX 2035 Full-lnlerchange Build ADT
$ouru: Jaeobs Caner Eurgess
300 South of l-70
CB 21 5 North of l-70
6 llst Slreet) West ol CR 215
IJS 6 Wesl of
Proposed lnterchange
12'09 Environmental Assessment 4-11
Figure 4-7 2011 and 2035 Preferred Average Daily Traffic
//,i
CB 300 lBattlement
Parkway) East ol
Colorado River
r
.Ae.f.
@
!rrf,r?
.6b
f""..
a,lw
Idd4..
,,
oo-
7;,..'*
7,
FeL
i.+,(
.).r,
300)
r:r
,/2
7g:Rlilcn-ta
?{;
'r-rr/l
\t ,/'1tt4./Prcposed/ //S/
Parachue //€/
BATTTtMTfl]
fittsA
Park Blvd
t
Not To Scale
@
,"?rr#ra
-p -*w
@
,$u,i+ '1
"),,,
@
\s,i: 'tf
ti,,
#.-.*
I\^
^r7o/ "
rrfa
,{p
,r@i..,,
*b*
TEGEITD
XX PM Peak Hour Projeclions
XX I XX AM I PM Peak Hour Proleclions
N0te: All pr0,eclions are PM peak hour, except at the eristing
Parachute interchange where holh AM and PM were
Soarrc: Jaeobs Cafier Buryxs
4.12 Environmental Assessment 12'0S
Transportation lmpacts
Figure 4-8 2011 Preferred Alternative Peak Hour Traffic
I
/
(
\
I
1
)
{
4-13
dr'f
*g"#
"""ti,x
r.- o2r,rw
o
ITfMIIT
ilrsA
g'rr,r,,
.ss
,;r,; ""f
'-a7'
;tW\./:s\
c \.,
b,/\'sst$
,s\
,t:?_
)
.&s
9")
_$o
r=-*t(3)
l,&.
I
I
L"'
-ulr tje
I
I
I
L
^(.Jvlxp,1
ti,,
/,.
f -::- -"-* -
I f6)
I
I*r
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
t'
Nol To Scale
tEGElr0
XX PM Peak Hour Projections
XX / XX AM / PM Peak Hour Proiecrions
Nole: All projections are PM peak hour, except at the erisiing
Parachute inlerchange where bolh AM and pM were
Source: Jacohs Canet Eargess
Environmental Assessment12t0s
Figure 4.g 2035 Preferred Tqrning Movement Volumes
o
DE 8[{lilr
4.4.2 201I 0pening Day llo Action Uolumes
and Operations
An analysis of traffic operations at the proposed
opening day year 2011 was conducted for the No
Action Alternative.
Overall
Westbound off-ramp Approach (1, 1OO' ramp)
Northbound
CR 215 and Eastbound I-70 Ramps
Overall
Eastbound off-ramp Approach (1,600' ramp)
Southbound
CR 215 and US 6 (1st Street)
Eastbound Approach
Westbor-rnd Approach
Southbound Approach
Northbound Approach
US 6 and Parachute-Una Road
Southbound Approach
Northbound Approach
Rd and Westbound I-70 Ramps
Table 4-2 (intersections) and Figure 4-1O (inter-
state operations) present the results of the 201 1
No Action traffic analyses.
E
E
D
E
D
F
72.6
62.2
46.O
74.O
47.2
90.7
> 100.0
> 100.0
0.8
8.2
10.4
to.2
ro.2
o.4
10.9
4.3
5;;
550
B
B
F
F
A
A
25
0
25
25
B
A
B
A
tis
1 700*
725*
> 1,O0O*
25
50
25
25
Westbound Approach
Northbound Left
Roan Creek Rd and Eastbound I-7O Ramps
Eastbound off-ramp Approach
Southbound Left
* Indicates queue lengths that back up into tLrc adjacent intersection or onto the freeutag.
Tahle 4-Z 2011 lllo Action lntersection LOS, Delay, and 0ueues
4.14 Environmenta! Assessment 12,09
Transportation
12t09
4-15Environmental Assessment
Figure 4-10 2011 No Action pM Hour levels of Service
o
Not To Scale
TEGEIID
oqb
EF
lnterseclion L0S
Ramp Approach L0Sllell Turn [0S
Bamp Merge/Diverge L0S
lnterstate L0S
4.4.i 20i5 tlo Action Alternative Traffic
Volume and 0perations
Traffic operations for key intersections and road_
ways were analyzed using the same methodologz
used for the existing analyses. The installation of
traIlic signals and right-turn lanes (on the ramps)
at the existing interchange were included in the No
Action Alternative. Results of the No Action traJlic
analyses are presented in Table 4_3 (intersections)
and Figure 4-11 (interstate operations). Despite
planned improvements, traffic operations at the
ramp terminal intersections at the existing para_
chute interchange are projected to worsen as traf_
fic increases. The signal timings used in the
analysis are optimized. Without widening the
bridge, left turn lanes for the northbound and
southbound movements are not possible, meaning
that split-phase signals are needed. With split_
phase signals, traJlic cannot be accommodated at
CR 215 and Westbound i-70 Ramps
Overall FWestbound off-ramp Approach (1,10O,ramp) FNorthbound F
CR 2i5 and Eastbound I-7O Ramps
Overall FEastbound off-ramp Approach (1,600, ramp) ESouthbound F
CR 215 and US 6 (lst Street)
Eastbound Approach F
Westbound Approach F
Southbound Approach A
Northbound Approach B
US 6 and Parachute-Una Road
Southbound Approach B
Northbound Approach C
these intersections (multiple phasings were tested,
with similar results). Without additional improve_
ments, the interchange will suffer severe delay,
regardless of the timings. Still operating at LOS F,
the westbound off-ramp experiences long queue
lengths, nearing the capacity of the ramp. Also,
conditions at the eastbound ramp terminal would
worsen. CR 215 is also projected to experience
severe congestion in the No Action Alternative,
with queue lengths blocking each of the three key
intersections in the area, creating a potential
"gridlock" situation.
Meanwhile, I-7O would not experience excessive
demand and would not be in need of improve_
ments based on the projected d.emand. However,
as conditions at the ramp terminals at the existing
interchalge worsen, the potential for back_ups
onto the mainline would create a serious safety
bazard.
Table 4-3 2035 lllo Action lntersection [0s, Delay, and 0ueues
> 100.0
> 100.0
> 100.0
> 100.0
56.1
> 100.0
>50.o
>50.0
1.9
14.5
74.t
15.4
-nrt
>450*
350
>450*
>1,OOO*
> 1,OO0
25
125
25
50
4-16 Environmental Assessment 12t09
Transportation lmpacts
lntersection I Movement level of Seryice Average Vehicte gE% Oueue
16.8
o.8
22.9
3.7
Table +3 2035 ilro Action rntersection [0s, Detay, and 0ueues (Gontinuedl
50
25
100
25
Westbound Approach
Northbound Ireft
Eastbound off-ramp Approach
Southbound Left A
* Indicates qteue tengttrs fint bockup into the ad.jacent intersection or onto the freeway.
Environmental Assessment
-
:t Creek Rd and Westbound I_7O Ramps
Figure 4'I1 z0rg luo Aetion Atternatiue rnterJtate 0perations
roiorn'
l./FAIItEMtil]
TUESA
,/
0€ 8r0ur
o
Not To Scale
I.EGEIUD
O lnterseclion LOS
@S namp Approach t0S/teft Turn [0S
E Bamp Mage/Diverge tOS
€ lnrerstatetos
Soorce: Jacobs Carlet Bu?ess
4.4.4 2011 0pening Day Preferred Afternative
Volumes and Operations
Table 4-4 (intersections) and Figure 4-12 (inter-
state operations) present the results of the 2011
CR 215 and Westbound I-7O Ramps (Signal)
Overa,ll
Westbound off-ramp Approach (1,100' ramp)
Northbound
CR 215 and trastbound I-7O Ramps
Overall
Eastltound off-ramp Approach (1,600' ramp)
Southbound
CR 215 and US 6 (1st Street)
Eastbound Approach
Westbound Approach
Southbound Approach
Northbound Approach
US 6 and Parachute-Una Road
Southbound Approach
Northbound Approach
Roan Creek Rd and Westbound I-70 Ramps
Westbound Approach
Northbound l,eft
Roan Creek Rd and Eastbound I-7O Ramps
Eastbound off-ramp Approach
Southbound Left
US 6 and Westbound I-7O Ramps
Westbound off-ramp Approach
Northbound Approach
Southbound Approach
Preferred Alternative trallic analyses. The RODEL
software package was used to analyze operations
at ttre proposed roundabout ramp terminals.
D
E
D
E
D
F
25
25
B
B
B
A
B
A
o
0
0
B
B
B
51.2
63.9
44.O
70.3
45.1
83.6
> 100.0
> 100.o
0.8
6.9
11.0
10.0
ro.2
o.4
i0.9
4.3
7.2
6.6
6.0
52;
>450*
10;
>450*
F
F
A
A
325
200
25
25
25
o
25
25
Tahle 4'4 2011 Preferred Alternatiue lntersection [0s, Delay, and 0ueues
4-18 Environmental Assessment 12'09
I
=l
Table 4-4 2011 Preferred Alternative lntersection [0S, Delay, and 0ueues (Gontinuedl
Eastbound off-ramp Approach B
Southbound Approach B
Northbound Approach A
* Indicates qteue lengttts tLnt back up into the adjocent intersection or onto the freeuag.
6.6
6.6
6.O
0
o
o
e
l
II -.r
Proposed Parachute--1
Park Blvd
t'
Not To Scale
LEGEilD
o
@D
E€
lnterseclion [0S
Ramp Approach [0S/left Turn [0S
Ramp Merge/Diverge LOS
lnterstate [0S
Note: 0pening day projections indicale that lhe
proposed interchange would operate acceptable
and would provide some congestion relief at the
existing parachute interchange.
Srutee: Jacobs tarler Bwgess
Environmental Assessment
Figure 4.12
4.4.5 20i5 Preferred Alternative Traffic
Volume and 0perations
The Preferred Alternative would cause a shift in
travel demand in the Parachute area. Results of
Tahle 4-5 2035 Preferred Alternative
the Preferred Alternative traffrc analyses are pre-
sented in Table 4-5 (intersections) and Figure 4-
13 (interstate operations). The RODEL software
package was used to anaTyze operations at the
proposed roundabout ramp terminals.
lntersection [0S, Delay, and 0ueues
CR 215 and Westbound I-70 Ramps
Overall
Westbound off-ramp Approach (i,100' ramp)
Northbound
CR 215 and Eastbound I-70 Ramps
Overa-ll
Eastbound off-ramp Approach (1,600' ramp)
Southbound
CR 215 and US 6 (lst Street)
Eastbound Approach
Westbound Approach
Southbound Approach
Northbound Approach
US 6 and Parachute-Una Road
Southbound Approach
Northbound Approach
Roan Creek Rd and Westbound I-70 Ramps
Westbound Approach
Northbound Left
Roan Creek Rd and Eastbound I-7O Rarnps
Eastbound off-ramp Approach
Southbound Left
US 6 and Westbound I-7O Ramps
Westbound off-ramp Approach
Northbound Approach
Southbound Approach
F
F
F
F
D
F
> 100.0
86.5
> 100.o
> 100.o
46.5
> 100.0
>50.0
>50.0
1.7
9.5
17.1
17.3
16.6
0.8
20.8
J-/
5.4
7.8
6.O
-iro
45()*
i50
>450*
>1,OOO*
> 1,000
25
75
100
25
P
F
A
A
25
75
50
25
C
C
C
A
C
A
B
B
B
o
25
0
4.20 Environmental Assessment 12'09
lilrlo
Wes
Interctr
rfi'7'Vtt'.!i
nge
W.t
Transportation lmpacts
Average Uehicle
Delay (seconds)
I
Tahle 4-5 2035 Preferred Alternative lntersection [0S, Delay, and 0ueues
Eastbound off-ramp Approach B
Southbound Approach B
Northbound Approach A
" Indicates queue lenglhs that back up into the a-djaccnt irfiersection or onto tte freeuag.
6.O
5.4
4.8
o
o
25
4-211210s
i\PA$ACH
Proposed Parachute ------i
Park Blvd
t
Not To Scale
tEGEtTD
O lnrersection L(IS
('A Ramp Approach LoS[eft Tum LoS
E Ramp Mergei0iverge LOS
€ lnterstarelos
Sowce: Jacobs Canet
Enuironmental Assessment
US 6 and Eastbound I-7O Ramps
Figure 4-13 2035 Preferred Alternative lnterstate 0perations
The proposed interchange would positively affect
traffic operations at ttre existing interchange.
Queues on the westbound ramp would be
reduced. In general, while the Preferred Alternative
does not eliminate the need for irnprovements at
the existing interchange (beyond those improve-
ments already included in the No Action alterna-
tive), it would provide some transportation benefit
at that location. Additional potential improve-
ments to the existing Parachute interchange are
being considered by others, and are not part of
this project. As such, the Preferred Alternative
would not be expected to solve traffic operation
problems at the existing interchange, but would
provide congestion relief.
The proposed interchange would operate at
acceptable LOS in the peak hour. The ramp termi-
nals, which would be roundabout intersections,
would operate at LOS B or better with average
vehicle delays under 1O seconds.
Note that this analysis does not consider the pos-
sible extension of Cardinal Way on the south side
of l-7O from its current terminus at the Parachute
High School to tJ:e proposed interchange location,
nor does this analysis consider the possible sec-
ond Colorado River crossing at the US 6 bridge
location. If one or both of these local roadway net-
work enhancements were in place, additional retef
to the existing Parachute interchange would be
realized with the construction of the Preferred
Alternative. The proposed roundabout configura-
tion also would not preclude these future projects.
Operations onl-7O would be improved by the addi-
tion of the proposed interchange. The westbound
merge at CR 215 would improve from LOS C to
LOS B compared to the No Action Alternative
because entering ramp volumes would be lower.
Queue lengths and tJ:e number of blockages on I-
70 would be reduced in most locations.
4.5 Traffic Safety Analysis
CDOT performed a safety assessment of the I-70,
US 6, and the existing Parachute interchange,
which is included on the compact disc attached to
tJ e back of this EA. This section provides a brief
summary of tJle assessment.
4.5., Erash llistory
CDOT crash data from 2OOO through 2004 were
analyzed. A total of 141 crashes occurred on I-70
from milepost (MP) 71.O0 to MP 76.00 during tJlis
tirne,22 of which occurred on the ramps of the CR
215 interchange.
I-70 had an average crash rate of 1.20 crashes per
million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). This is
higher than the statewide average for a rural inter-
state of 0.98 crashes per MVMT. However, the
average Weighted Hazard Index [WHI) for the seg-
ment is -0.69, indicating that the roadway per-
formed better than similar facilities, due to its
lower injury and fatality rates. The most common
tSrpes of crashes on the study segment are Wild
Animat (33 percent of total) and Fixed Object (23
percent). Generally, this segment of I-70 performs
slightly worse than similar roadways for total
crashes, but better tJlan similar roadways for
injury and fatality crashes. The number of crashes
are within the expected limits (lower than the
statewide average) for similar flacilities.
During the five-year study period, 17 crashes were
reported on US 6 in tJ e study area between MP
71.77 and MP 75.42. N7 17 crashes occurred
within Parachute, where US 6 has nine intersec-
tions. Of those 17 crashes, seven occurred at
intersections, and there was only one injury crash
and no fatalities. In general, the number of
crashes observed in the study area are within the
e4pected limits for similar facilities.
4-22 Environmenta! Assessment 12'09
I-TOParafhutc
w"ct
Interchinge
;{fl'W'Vtxi;*'\\)
At the existing interchange, 24 craslnes occurred
during the five-year study period from 2000
tlrrough 2OO4, none of which resulted in injuries
or fatalities. At the eastbound ramps, the most
common crash t5rpes are Rear-End (46 percent)
and Broadside (27 percent). At tlle westbound
rarnps, the most common crash type is Broadside
(66 percent)with Rear-End and Sideswipe each
accounting for 17 percent. Again, the number of
crashes at the existing interchange are within tle
expected limits for sirnilar facilities.
4.5.2 Crash Projections
Assessing the magnitude of safety problems on
highway segments has been refined using Safety
Performance Functions (SpF). The SpF reflects the
complex relationship between traIlic exposure
measured in Average Daily Traffic (ADT), and
crash count for a unit of road section measured in
crashes per mile per year. The SpF models provide
an estimate of the normal or expected crash fre_
quency and severity for a range of ADT among
similar facilities. Two kinds of Safety performance
Functions were calibrated. The first one addresses
the total number of crashes, and the second one
looks only at crashes involving an injury or fatal_
ity. This allows assessing the magnitude of the
safety problem from the frequency and severiel
standpoint.
Development of the SPF lends itself well to the
conceptual formulation of the Level of Service of
Safety (LOSS). The concept of level of seryice uses
qualitative measures that characterize safety of a
roadway segment in reference to its expected per_
formance and severit5r. If the level of safety pre_
dicted by the SPF will represent a normal or
expected number of crashes at a specific level of
ADT, then the degree of deviation from the norm
can be stratified to represent specific levels of
safety as follows:
. LOSS-I - Indicates low potential for crash
reduction
. LOSS il - Indicates better-than-expected safety
performance
. LOSS ilI - Indicates less-than-expected safety
performance
. LOSS fV - Indicates high potential for crash
reduction
The 2030 Intermountain Region Transportation
Plan did not include aly specific improvements for
mainline I-70. With the anticipated additional pop_
ulation growth and the addition of the West para-
chute Interchange,l-7O will remain a four-lane
interstate throughout this study section. The high
growth rate and increase in traffic volume that is
expected by 2035 wiil still place this I-70 study
section within the scope of what a rural interstate
SPF model can properly assess.
The SPF analysis for the estimated total crashes
for 2035, shown in Figure 4-14, irrdicates that the
safety performance for each section of I-ZO would
perform better than average when compared,
statewide, to other rural interstates.
The SPF analysis for the estimated injury and fatal
crashes for 2O35 indicates that the crash fre-
quency for each section of l-ZO would perform
slighfly better than average when compared, state_
wide, to other rural interstates, as shown in Fig-
ure 4-15.
The projected number of crashes at the existing
interchange is summarized below, for both the No
Action and Preferred Alternative scenarios. Note
that in addition to crashes at the ramp terminals,
crashes were searched for at the ramp merge/
diverge points, and no crashes were reported at
these locations after 1994. Since there were no
crashes at these points in the past 15 years, it was
assumed there would be no crashes at these loca_
tions in the 2035 projections.
. At the US 6 and CR 215 intersection, three
crashes are projected in 2O35 in both the No
Action and Preferred Alternative scenarios.
. At the I-7O westbound Ramps and CR 21S/CR
3OO intersection, seven crashes are projected
in the No-Action scenario, and five with the
Preferred Alternative.
t 2l0s Environmental Assessment 4.23
20
18
't6
l4
12
10
I
6
4
AADT
l-70, MP 71.00 to MP 74.38:9.02 Accidents,f,ilelyear (l{o Action)
l-70, MP 72.38 t0 MP 74.38: 7.25 Accidents,trilelyea (Adding Parachute West lnterchange)
7
6
qC
=4
4
3
2
1
0 10,000 20.000 30,000 40.000
AADT
1.70, MP 71.00 to MP 74.38: 2.1 3 Accidentslmilelyear {No Action)
1.70, MP 72.38 to MP 74.38: 2.29 Accidentslmilelyear (Adding Parachute West lnterchange)
4-24 Environmental Assessment 12'0S
I,TOParai:hutewoi
tnterchirge
WffU,}
4-14 2035 Performance Projection - All Grashes
,Figure 4-15 2035 Performance Projection - lnjurylFatal Grashes
At the I-70 eastbound Ramps and CR 215lCR
30O intersection, 12 crashes are projected in
the No-Action scenario, and 1O with the pre-
ferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative will include two round-
about intersections: US 6 and the eastbound
ramps, and US 6 and the westbound ramps. The
projected number of intersection-related crashes
at these intersections was based on a comparison
with the CR 215/CR 30O projected number of
intersection-related crashes. It was estimated that
there would be 64 percent fewer crashes at these
intersections than the same-direction intersec-
tions at CR 21s/CR 300, based strictly on traffic
volumes. Therefore, two crashes are projected at
the westbound ramp intersection ald four crashes
are projected at the eastbound ramp intersection.
Further, roundabouts are estimated to reduce the
potential for crashes when compared to signal-
controlled intersections, which could result in
even fewer crashes.
4.5.3 Erash Analysis Summary
While the number of crashes in the study area is
currently within expectations, the potential for
crashes will increase as traffic increases. However,
it is projected that the study area will have crash
rates witJ:in expected limits in the future and the
types and patterns of crashes fatl within expected
nonns; therefore the Preferred Alternative does not
propose any direct countermeasures for safety
improvements on I-7O or US 6. While the percent-
age of broadside crashes at the existing inter-
change is high, the actual number of broadsides is
still very low - equating to only three broadsides in
five years at the eastbound ramps and only four
broadsides in five years at the westbound ramps.
Still, providing safer traffic operations is a goal of
the Preferred Alternative. In 2035, the preferred.
Alternative would improve safety at the existing
interchange by providing an alternate access ald
egress point to and from I-70, reducing the poten-
tial for rear-end crashes at the existing inter-
change caused by long queues at the ramp
terminals tJlat could potentially backup onto the
I-7O mainline. However, CDOT Region 3 TraJfic
commits to monitor the queuing situation onto I-
70 through visual spots checks, and to install
queue-clearing devices within the ramp signats if
needed to mitigate the queuing. While it is diflicult
to predict with certainty that a queue detection
device could be made to work properly at this loca-
tion, this option will be evaluated for effectiveness
at such time as queuing onto I-70 starts occur-
ring. If found to be effective, CDOT will instatl the
device. CDOT will also evaluate other mitigations,
such as ramp storage lengthening and further
ramp widening. However, more costly options such
as substantial widening or bridge work will need to
be evaluated and funded at a higher level.
While the Preferred Alternative would create four
new merge/diverge points onI-7O, each ramp
would be designed to meet CDOT design standards
for acceleration and deceleration lengths, provid-
ing safer operations. Furthermore, traffic would be
traveling through roundabouts at rarnp terminals
instead of stop-controlled or signal-controlled
intersections. Roundabouts are estimated to
reduce the potential for crashes when compared to
signal-controlled intersections, which could result
in even fewer crashes. Traffic volumes, especially
truck trajfic, would be lowered in the urban core of
Parachute, reducing conflicts for all users.
4.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Preferred Alternative would not preclude
improvements called for in the Town Master plan,
which include providing a sidewalk across the
bridge and connecting pede strian / bicycle facilities
on both sides. A sidewalk would require bridge
widening, which could be done later consistent
with extension of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
to the study area.The No Action Alternative would
not provide any pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
4.1 Transit
There is no existing or planned transit service in
the area.
1210s Environmental Assessment 4.25
4.8 Summary of Transportation lmpacts
This section provides a summary of transportation
impacts related to the No Action and Preferred
Alternatives. In general, the Preferred Alternative
provides improved traffrc operations in the study
area vicinity, while the No Action Alternative would
not. Table 4-6 summarizes the traffic operations
impacts. Highlighted values indicate al improve-
ment in traffic operations with the Preferred Alter-
native. In general, the Preferred Alternative
reduces the amount of traffic at the existing inter-
change. However projected demand is high enough
that this interchange would still operate at LOS F.
Westbound off-ramp
Approach (1,1OO'ramp)
Northbound
I-70 Diverge
I-70 Mergeffi,
Eastbound off-ramp
Approach (1,600'ramp)
Southbound
I-70 Diverge
I-70 Mergeffi
Eastbound Approach
Westbound Approach
Southbound Approach
Northbound Approach
4-26
The Preferred Alternative would improve safet5r on
I-70 compared to the No Action Alternative by pro-
viding additional access and egress points on I-70
for traffrc, allowing for alternate route choices dur-
ing congested periods, thereby reducing the likeli-
hood oflong queues and any crashes as a result of
those queues. Further, trafiic would be traveling
through roundabouts at ramp terminals instead of
stop-controlled intersections, which is safer and
can accommodate large trucks; and tralfic vol-
umes, especially truck tra{Iic, would be lowered in
the urbal core of the Town, reducing conflicts for
all users.
US 6 would see increases in traffic west of town,
but would not be near its capacitY.
F
C
C
Ramps
E
F
B
B
F
F
A
B
F > 100.0
F > 100.0
C
B
D 56.1
F > 100.0
B
B
F >50.0
F >50.0
A 1.9
A i4.5
Environmental Assessment
86.5
> 100.0
46.5
> 100.o
>50.0
>50.0
1.7
9.5
925
>450
350
>450
> 1,00O
> 1,000
25
t25
750
>450
150
>450
> 1,0o0
> 1,000
25
75
1210s
Tahle 4-6 Summary of Transportation lmpacts
CR 215 and Westbound I-70 Ramps
I.TOPara(hute
Wesd
rntercn&se
i
- *-{ --.!
trfl ''ff'Vn-,'Ya'i;*$)
n lmpacts
I
I
Preferred i lllo Action Preferred lllo Action Preferred
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
lMovement
Tahle 4-6 Summary of Transportation lmpacts (Continuedl
US 6 and Parachute-Una Road
Southbound Approach B C
Northbound Approach C C
Roan Creek Rd and Westbound I-70 Ramps
Westbound Approach C C
Northbound Left A A
I-70 Diverge C C
I-70 Merge C C
Roan Creek Rd and Eastbound I-7O Ramps
trastbound off-ramp
App;;;.; c c
Northbound Left A A
I-70 Diverge B B
I-70 Merge B B
US 6 and Westbound I-7O Ramps
Westbound off-ramp
Approach B
Northbound Approach B
Southbound Approach B
I-70 Diverge C
l-7O Merge B
US 6 and Eastbound I-70 Ramps
Eastbound ol[-ramp
Approach B
Southbound Approach B
Northbound Approach A
I-70 Diverge B
I-70 Merge B
I-70 Mainiine West of CR-215
EastLround A A
Westbound B B
" light grey shctding denotes not applicable
14.I
t5.4
16.8
0.8
22.9
3.7
t7.r
17.3
t6.6
o.8
20.8
.f - /
5.4
7.8
6.0
6.0
5.4
4.8
25
50
50
25
25
75
50
25
100
25
0
25
0
o
o
25
100
25
**highlighled ualues indicate an improuement in trafi.c operations utith tlrc Preferred Altematiue.
1210s Environmenta! Assessment 4-27
-t
95% 0ueue length (feet)
Preferred ilo Action
Alternatiue Alternative
4.9 Mitigation
No mitigation is required because the Preferred
Alternative would not result in adverse transporta-
tion irnpacts.
12109Environmental Assessment
I,TOParar
West
Interclu trge
W:fi h
Tra n lmpacts
4.28
5.1 lntroduction
This chapter describes the integrated program of
agency and public coordination and involvement
activities conducted during the development of the
Environmental Assessment (EA). These activities
were specifically conducted to be open, inclusive,
and ongoing throughout tl.e preparation of this
EA. The objectives of the agency and public
involvement program were:
. To provide opportunities for timely public com-
ment ald input to project decision makers.
. To develop wide-ranging public support for the
project.
. To communicate information and ideas clearly,
in order to obtain knowledgeable comments.
. To be responsive to input and demonstrate
that ideas and opinions have been heard, con-
sidered, and incorporated when necessary.
Town ol Perachute
Wast lntcrchrege 0pen Sousc
Th! Towo ol Pt*hur.. lha Fldd.l HbhBey
Adminisrrflbn rrd Itra Cobrrdo Dlpon|Ml o,
T.slportalhn invlt yq lo s oPro hgw lo discus
rh! Envi Mmtd AqlMmt {EA) lor lho ptopo$d
P.r&hutr Wcll lntrichrnge proiel.
Thr gpGn hds wlll covq 6vdd lirw! itrhdirgi
. B&tSdnd inlmtin .btur th! p.opotcd prorif,t.
. Th6 ourpo$ rrd ilild ol the prcpolad ptoiafl.
. A.tisiprr.d iaes d th. proircr
. Hwtoominvolvld
Wedneday, Octob€r 9, 2OO7
Town of Parachutc - Town Hal!
222 Grand Vallay Way
Prrachutc, CO 8'1635
ErO0 PM to 7;30 Pil,l
PleasG atto$d at any tima durlng thca hours.
,dffi.dtu*r
ldn ol tu& - S16) 2!5 ,6303d, .r-lr.hr$W_rr!!Uslul!f t},m
To address these objectives, the activities of the
agency and public involvement program included
agency and public scoping meetings, public open
houses, newspaper advertisements, mailings,
press releases, a project Web site, and a formal
public hearing that will be scheduled during the
EA review period.
Note: The project Web site was changed from
www. parachutewestinterchan ge.com to
www. parachutewestinterchange.net. More about
tlre Web site can be found in Section 5.3.2.
5.2 Agency Goordination
Coordination with local, state, and federal agen-
cies occurred throughout the project to ensure
compliance with agency policies and procedures,
transportation planning requirements, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements,
and accurate resource identification and impact
evaluation. Agency coordination was conducted
through formal and informal means of communi-
cation.
For Native American consultation that occurred as
part of this project, please see Section 3.8-4-
5.2.1 Agency Scoping
As part of the NEPA process, project scoping meet-
ings were held with agencies early in the project.
The purpose of the scoping process is to identi$
agency concerns, define the important environ-
mental issues including the elimination of non-sig-
nificant issues, and identif any additional
requirements.
In September 2OO7, scoping letters announcing an
agency scoping meeting to be held on October 3,
2OO7, were sent to the ten agencies listed below'
These letters encouraged agencies to participate in
1'10 Environmental Assessment 5.1
LA,tD E t:mt??!
I
Intel
test
change
WIW and Goordination
Ghapte
the meeting in order to identi$z any concerns
related to the project.
The agencies contacted were:
. US Environmental Protection Agency
. US Army Corps of Engineers
. US Department of Enerry
. US Fish and Wildlife Service
. Bureau of Land Management
. Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment - Water Quality Control Division
atdHazardous Materials and Waste Manage-
ment
. Colorado Division of Wildlife
. Colorado Historical SocietY
. Grand Valley Historical Society
. Garlield County
The five agencies ttrat attended the meeting were
the U.S. Fish and Wildlile Service, the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment,
October 4,2OO7
Garfietd Count5r, the Grald Valley Historical Soci-
et5z, and the Bureau of Land Management' An
example of the scoping letter and the minutes from
the meeting are included in Appendix A.
In addition, a combined Environmental Programs
Branch (EPB) and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Scoping Meeting was held at Colorado
Department of Transportation (C DOT) Headquar-
ters in Denver on October \,2OO7, and a Scoping
meeting for CDOT Region 3 StaIf was held at the
Parachute Town Hall on October 18, 2OO7' Min-
utes from these meetings €rre included in Appen-
dix A.
5.2.2 Project Working GrouP
The project team formed a Project Working Group
(PWG) consisting of representatives from Para-
chute, CDOT Region 3, FHWA, and the project
team. Garheld County and Battlement Mesa were
invited to be part of the PWG but did not attend
any PWG meetings.
PWG meetings were convened at specific times
throughout the project to review the project's prog-
ress and to provide direction. The dates ofeach of
the PWG meetings are listed Table 5-1 along with
the issues discussed at each meeting'
a Update on environmental data collection
Summarization of comments received at t].e public scoping meeting
Discussion on PurPose and Need
Table 5-l Proiect Working Group Meetings
5-2 Environmental Assessment 1tl0
August ,2AA7
Tahle 5-l Project Working Group Meetings (Gontinuedl
November 6,2OO7
December 13,2OO7
a
Initial alternative s screening
Discussion of right-of-way research
Discussion of the 16O1/Interchange Access Request (IAR) process
Detailed alternatives evaluation and screening
Preferred alternative recommendation
. Preview of CDOT Region 3 comments on EA and IAR deliverablesMarch 6,2OO8
5.3 Puhlic lnvolvement Actiuities
Public involve-
ment was con-
ducted
throughout the
development of
this EA to ensure
widespread pub-
lic awareness of
the project and to
provide opportu-
nities for timely
public input to
project decision-
making. Participants included interested citizens,
property owners, business owners and operators,
and the general public.
P.ilrhulr lll6t lntcrchrnga Proicct:
09rn llou*
TE lo{^ ol F!&9, th. t#d rkgnwry M.rt* d
h Ce& fr?.Mt ol frryrtfi frrt. p b sry
tu r dss rh tNiffint6l Asaror tEAl ts &
EBdk.fu.Wd lddc&ry @d
,Mr.tbdrr,2OO7
Tfiotlttu-T06H,r2 6d v*y wryh&- CO atttS
B:00 tX m ,s r
tb'd dry*D.drltr *arw..
Iil Wn hq r{ GoYd trw, l!.e iM!!g,
. g*tfrd dotrth .M tB qoFd rwr.. th@xd.ddrhtoFdEoFa.. bricirarad a!* s P.a Foiet.. ftcj6 anffikr M h.hffit@ eaFR p@s. ka e f0 hvdd-
fdmadto@t$ffiad
lown ol Putchut. - l970l 2E6-rC3O}d; @[S!!rrQs.tigrSilr wil*.Pr&M*Wsiltuahry.a@
5.3.1 Puhlic Meetings
Two public open houses were conducted leading to
the release of this EA document. The open houses
provided information to the public and solicited
input at key project decision milestones: 1) scop-
ing/identification of project issues to be
addressed, and 2) identification of tlee alternatives
to be evaluated in this EA. The open house format
(where no formal presentation was given) allows
attendees to review all the information regardless
of the time they were able to attend ttre meeting.
Newspaper ads, postcard mailings, and display
boards were posted at public venues for viewing.
The information provided at ttre public meetings
was also posted on the project Web site after the
public meeting had occurred. The dates on which
public meetings were held are listed below along
with the issues presented:
1'10 Environmental Assessment 5-3
18,2007 . Review of transportation planning
. Review of environmental and transportation plalning
. Public meeting debrief
Januar5r
. Presentation of tralfic analysis results
October 15, 2009 Project ovenriew for new PWG members
Status update on trA and IAR reviewsII
Open House No. 1 - Wednesday, October 3,
20,07
This public scoping meeting was held to iden-
tiff specific issues of concern to be addressed
in this EA and in future development of project
alternatives.
Twenty-six members of ttre public signed in at
the open house. The meeting was also
attended by members of the project team,
including representatives from Parachute and
CDOT. The meeting began at 5:OO PM and
ended at 7:3O PM.
No formal presentation was given. Members of
the public were invited to ask questions and
discuss concerns wittr project representatives.
Eight comment sheets were received at the
meeting. Most comments expressed support
for the project and the associated reduction of
traltrc in Parachute. No comments expressed
opposition to the project.
Th. owrl 9{rpos ot ttrit prtiacl ii ig im9.ov€ htt*lal6
ooddbnt. mb,lity, and csMlivity wirh l.?O in th.
P.,etlxre e€n, and .cdu@ rcgiond tnllb il local tt.46
rdrhin tha Tq4o o{ Paaclrne, Thi prcigct riqdd tddos
id.ntitild rlDrForriion mtdr ltm balow|, sd bG
coNl.tst with rhc n69i@l TranEponttim Pbo. thc
Stllrwir! Trilt @lalion tmp.fftmtd Progrm, sd bael
ToBn 6f Prehxe rfld Grtio6 co{nty dm8.
Na.d ,s A.iiofi
tho lofowin, proiGt msdt td tho Pdtrtute Wd
lfiorchsgp sro bsscd on idsl ricd lnEporltlirn probhms:
. Mobilily and cemrivily lfi lhd Psrchotc ilea i!
liritld by 6ly @ acci.c pgnt to l'70, lhq rxiFthg
Perchut. intqch.ng6, Thb ii lbe sly lscitly wiih
csnffiiffi ro .ogimnl d6lin.tlont. Tlttu Smhed
c6retivity afttcts rebiliiy gt .9gi@l lrbr, mobilill
ol loal rripr, .nd }imirt motiliry o, oMgwy vchicbr
to c6d t.om tccati@r $md bY l.ro,
' Rlgionil r,lttk q l@el Town ot Pt*lbrt ttfllt
rlrstlt ir radsgd prdatlflil r.laly, drtriordlm ot
local lttrulawrw, lmrcesad conealtion, incroasad
@cc, irseEad d!it, qtrd loc.l l.i9 dchy.
. Cooedtu@ d ItB cxl$ing P.rilhorc intdchsgB
dogrrdsr l-70 l.rfiio Fd Gults h !&sivo dthy! lu
mdi3B This sngatior b c!@elrd lo gil m@
$6e ind td ailsnded psHE ol tlE tn tho futu'6.
Open House No. 2 - Slednesday' January
24,2OO7
This open house was held to update the public
on the project ald to solicit input for the
screening of the full range of reasonable alter-
natives.
Sixty-four members of the public signed in at
the open house. In addition, the project team,
including representatives from Parachute,
CDOT and FHWA, were in attendance. The
meeting began at 5:OO PM and ended at 7:OO
PM. Twenty-two comment sheets were com-
pleted and turned in at the meeting.
Most comments indicated support for the proj-
ect. A major concern was appropriate sizing for
the roundabouts in order to make them safe
for large truck travel. Many comments sug-
gested that a connection from the interchange
to Battlement Mesa should be added to the
project.
a
a
Get on projact mailing list (sign in tonight)
Fill in a commanr fotm (tonightl or Bend
comment to proiGct toam:
Mefl: Jay Brashet, P.E.
coosslrant Proi$l Managst
707 17th $r., ste. 2300
Denvor, CO 80202
Plam: l-877-82O-524Ox525d
E-msil; Parachutswastlntorchange@e'b.com
Fax; 1303,82O-24O2
Wobritc: www.Porochutcwostlnlcrchange.com
Look fo, newspapet inlotmstion
Vish the proioct websits:
http: /lwww.ParachuteWcsllntorchange.com
Attand futuro proiecr mactings
5-4 Environmental Assessment 1110
How Can You Get lnvolYed?
Appendix E contains copies of newspaper adver-
tisements, postcards, and public meeting summa-
ries.
5.i.2 Project Web Site
A project Web site (www.parachutewestinter
change.net) was created and made accessible to
the public (see Figure 5-1). In addition to general
project information, it included updated project
materials, public meeting materials, a summarSr of
comments received from tJle open houses, and
contact information for project representatives.
5.3.3 Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held during the 30-day
public review period of the EA. The purpose of the
hearing is to receive comments from the public on
this EA and the Preferred Alternative identified in
this EA.
Prior to the hearing, copies of this EA will be made
available for public review at four locations:
. Colorado Department of Transportation,
Glenwood Springs
2O2 Centennial Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Parachute Town Hall
222 Grand Valley Way
Parachute, CO 81635
Colorado Department of Transportation
Region 3 Headquarters
222 South Sixth Street, Room 317
Grand Junction, CO 8150l-2769
FHWA - Colorado Diwision
l23OO West Dakota Avenue, Suite 180
Lakewood, CO ao22a
Public Meetings
Th6 frbs lhked bclo{ .16 in pdffo.mat. Downlo.d the free
Atrob* Reeder bffi,
Public scoDlnc u.ctloo, odobct 3, 2oo7
) Meetino Sffirv fod)
) lodiriCs!-gruhiE
opan Hou* Publla Intom.tlon Mladng, Nou.hb.r
29,2007
) UeetbllumE{tipd)
)Al 6raohi6 PEsented (oclf) - gmb
) Individual Graohics
f-*rtr" *-l
I Orcrrrorc Ii lf..rrat'2 II ***r"*, II MeroMHd II D2 ftd hlby ffiY I
I s:oo b 7:0o p.m.
I
I *- .*no ., "* o* IL::::::_l
1[0 Environmental Assessment 5-5
F lure 5-1 Project [/eb Site Screenshot
;l
'i]
;
Display ads in local newspapers and on postcards
will announce the availability of this EA for review,
and the date, time, and location of the public hear-
ing.
5.4 Gonclusion
The agency and public involvement strategies dis-
cussed above have helped the project team attain
the project's public and agency involvement objec-
tives. These activities provided mearls to inform
the public and provided a way for the public to
contribute input for the project. Further, they have
helped garner pubtc support for the project, as
demonstrated by the public comments received.
These activities will be ongoing throughout the
preparation of this EA.
5.6 Environmental Assessment 1'r 0
ttlF ?!F
Wesl
Int€llch3 rge
fil-:X h
6.1 Section 4(fl- Department of
Transportation Act of 1966
6.1.1 lntroduction
Section 4(f) was created when the United States
Department of Transportation (USDOT) was
formed in 1966 (Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of
1966).It is codified in Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 303 and Title 23 U.S.C. Section
138. Section 138 states: "The Secretary [of Trans-
portation] shall not approve any program or proj-
ect ... which requires the use of any publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, or
wildlile and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or
local significance as determined by the Federal,
State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof,
or any land from an historic site of national, State,
or local significance as so determined by such offi-
cials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such
program includes all possible planning to mini-
rrrizeharrlr to such park, recreational area, wildlife
and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting
from such use."
Land will be considered permanenfly incorporated
into a transportation project, or used, when it has
been purchased as right-of-way or suflicient prop-
ert5r interests have been otherwise acquired for the
purpose of project implementation. For example, a
"permanent easement" that is required for the pur-
pose of project construction or tltat grants a future
right of access onto Section 4(f) property, such as
for the purpose of routine maintenance by the
transportation agency, would be considered a per-
manent incorporation of land into a transportation
facility. There is an exception to the definition of
use codified in 49 U.S.C. 303 (d). In circumstances
where ttre Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has made a determination that the impacts to the
Section 4(f) resources are de minimis, there is not
a "use" as defined by Section a(fl and a full evalua-
tion under Section a(! is not required.
The FHWA and CDOT worked cooperatively with
tJle Officials with Jurisdiction (OWJ) regarding
Section 4(f) resources to determine if any of the
project impacts will negatively affect the activities,
attributes, or functions that would qualiff the
property for protection under Section a(fl and if
the use of de mirtimis determinations is appropri-
ate. No de minimis determination can be made
without the concurrence of the OWJs. In the case
of historic properties, the OWJ is tJ:e State Historic
Preservation Offices (SHPO), and any impacts
associated with the project must have a "no
adverse effect" determination under Section 1O6 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for a
de minirnis determination to be made.
The Preferred Alternative, as described in Chapter
2, is a transportation proiect that may receive fed-
eral funding and/or discretionar5r approvals
through the USDOT; ttrerefore, documentation of
compliance with Section 4(f) is required.
This Section 4(f) evaluation has been prepared in
accordance with the joint FHWA/Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) regulations for Section 4(Q
compliance codilied at 23 CFR 5774 and SAF-
ETEA-LU (Pubtic Law 1O9-59, enacted August 1O,
2OO5). Additional guidance has been obtained
from tJle revised FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper
(March 2OO5), and the joint FHWA/F-IA De Mini-
mis Guidance (December 2OO5). The FHWA Divi-
sion Administrator for Colorado is responsible for
determining that this project meets the criteria
and procedures set forth in the federal regulations.
Environmental Assessment 6-1
6.2 Description of Section 4(f) Properties in
the Study Area
No public parks, public recreation lands, wildlife
refuges, or waterfowl refuges are located in the
study area.
Two segments of historic US 6 and two segments
of the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal pass through the
Area of Potential Effect (APE). Overall, the historic
US 6 has been assessed as eligible for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
while the overall Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal was
listed on the NRHP in 1980. The segments of his-
toric US 6 and the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal
located in the APE are listed in Table 6-1. See Sec-
tion 3.8 for a discussion of historic properties eval-
uated in the study area.
Tahle 6-1 Section 4(l) Resources: Historic
Segment of 5GF2935.2
Historic US 6
Non-supportive of
the overall historic
US 6 eligibiliff.
Following is a description of the segments of his-
toric US 6 and the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal that
are located in the APE (see Figure 6-1):
Site #5GF2935 (Historic US 6f: This site is the
overall historic US 6 alignment, which roughly
parallels I-70 on both sides through the project's
APE. CDOT indicated in a letter to the SHPO dated
September 19,2OOB that the historic US 6
(#5GF2935 /2935.I/2935.2) was found to be eligi-
ble to the NRHP under Criterion A for its associa-
tion with regional transportation and
development, and wittr the rise of the automobile
as the preferred mode of transportation in Colo-
rado and the United States. However, ttre two seg-
ments evaluated for this project were found to lack
sufficient integrity to support the overall NRHP eli-
gibility of the entire historic US 6, as discussed
under each segment below. In a letter dated Octo-
ber 3, 2008, SHPO concurred with this finding (see
Appendix D).
Site #5GF2935.1 (Segment of Historic US 6f:
Consists of an old alignment of US 6 that runs
along the southeast side of l-7O.lt was previously
recorded in 2001, and was subsequenfly deter-
mined to be non-supportive of the overall historic
US 6 eligibility. The site was revisited during the
inventory conducted for the I-70 Parachute West
Interchange project, and it was found that nearly
the entire segment previously recorded had been
destroyed by pipeline development. However, a
new feature adjacent to the historic US 6 align-
ment was discovered ald documented. The feature
is a small earthen and rock berm located south of
the current I-70 alignment and north of tlle old
highway alignment. It is approximately 12O feet
long, 3.5 feet wide, and 0.5 foot high. The feature
is isolated and deteriorated. It was determined
that this feature does not change the eligibility sta-
tus of historic US 6 as a whole or for Site
#5GF2935.1.
Segment of 5GF654.7
Havermeyer-
Wilcox Canal
Non-supportive of
the overall Haver-
meyer-Wilcox
Canal eligibility.
Source: State Histoic FYeseruation Ofice, 2008
Properties
6-2 Environmental Assessment 12tl]s
Wesf
lnterch4nge
ULSWJ
Section 4(f) De Minimis lmPact
5GF2935.1 Non-suPPortive of
6 the overall historic
US 6 eligibifitY.
Site #5GF2935.2 (segment of Historic US 6):
Consists of an old alignment of US 6 that runs
along the northwest side of I-70. This linear
resource is a discontinuous segment of a former
US 6 alignment, now abandoned. This segment of
US 6 is part of a longer portion of highway that
deviates from the historic alignment discussed
above (#5GF2935.1). This segment of historic US 6
has been abaldoned and is highly deteriorated.
Modern realignment of US 6 has destroyed the old
route at the northeastern end ofthe recorded seg-
ment; I-70 construction truncated the route at the
southwest end of the segment. This segment has
lost ttre majority of its physical integrity and does
not support the overall eligibility of historic US 6.
Site #5GF654 (Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal): The
canal is one of the most notable, large-scale engi-
neering developments in Garlield County history.
This site is tl e overall Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal
system, which roughly parallels I-70 on the north
side of ttre project's APE. CDOT indicated in a let-
ter to SHPO dated September 19, 2008 that the
Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal (#5GF654/6 54.6 /
654.71was listed on the NRHP in 198O and is sig-
nificant under Criteria A, B, and C. However, tJre
two segments evaluated for this project
(#5GF654.6 and #5GF654.7) were determined to
lack sufficient integrity and do not support the
overall etgibility of the entire canal, as discussed
under each segment below. SHPO concurred with
this finding in a letter dated October 3, 2OO8 (see
Appendix D).
r 2,0s Environmental Assessment 6-3
Figure 6-t
tryod
; - I Au s, PorBrUtll.cr
+ tl*nPrcifhRr*sd
lrrrr krpalLd Sqnufi ol Xrvwrrya-lf&or CraC
rnrrr $rprc&d ScArrrt ol Histsfic US I
Site #5GF654.6 (Segment of Havermeyer-Wil-
cox Canalf: This site was originally recorded dur-
ing a 2001 inventory, but at that time was thought
to be part of the Diamond Ditch. Based on new
information and in consultation with the Office of
Archaeologz and Historic Preservation (OAHP) and
CDOT, the site has been re-designated as segment
#5GF654.6 of the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal sys-
tem. Since 2OOl, the northeastern 65 to 80 feet of
this segment have been destroyed by pipeline con-
struction. Overall, this ditch segment is badly
deteriorated and overgrown, and does not support
the overall eligibility of the Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canal.
Site #5GF654.7 (Segment of Havermeyer-Iflil-
cox Canal): This site was not previously recorded.
It is located on the opposite side of existing US 6
from Site #5GF654.6, and was truncated by con-
struction of the US 6 overpass. No clear evidence
of excavation was observed, possibly because the
channel has silted in during nearly a century of
erosion and neglect. No features associated with
the ditch were observed. This ditch segment is
badly deteriorated and overgrown, and does not
support the overall eligibility of the Havermeyer-
Wilcox Canal.
6.3 lmpacts to Section 4(fl Properties
Preferred Alternative
Site #5GF2935 (Historic US 6): The Preferred
Alternative would affect two segments of historic
US 6. As shown on Figure 6-1, the newly-recorded
feature of Site #5GF2935. 1, and an approximate
400-foot portion of Site #5GF2935.2 are located
within the construction footprint of the Preferred
Alternative, and would be directly impacted by
construction of the project. Site #5GF2935.1 has
already been impacted by existing development,
including the modern US 6 overpass and
approaches and recent pipeline construction. It
will be destroyed as part of the current undertak-
ing.
The impacted 4oo-foot portion of Site #5GF2935'2
is a part of ttre northern subsection of ttre seg-
ment. The western portion of Site #5GF2935'2 will
remain intact, but most of the eastern portion will
be destroyed during the project. The integrity and
nature of these two segments have been evaluated
as non-supportive of the overall eligibility of his-
toric US 6.
Site #5GF654 (Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal): The
Preferred Alternative would affect two segments of
the canal. As shown on Figure 6-1, the eastern
third of Site #5GF654.6 is within the project foot-
print and will be destroyed as part of the current
undertaking. The western half of Site #5GF654'7
also will be destroyed as part of the current under-
taking. Both of these segments lack integrity, and
their destruction will not affect the qualities of sig-
nihcance of the overall calal system.
Determination of Effect
FHWA and CDOT have made a determination, and
the SHPO has concurred, that impacts to the his-
toric US 6 segments (Sites #5GF2935.1 and
#5GF2935.2) and' the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal
segments (Sites #5GF654.6 and #5GF654.7) asso-
ciated with the Preferred Alternative would result
in "no adverse effect" for purposes of Section 1O6
of the NHPA. These determinations and SHPO con-
currence are documented in Appendix D in a
CDOT letter dated September 19, 2OO8 and a
SHPO letter dated October 3, 2008.
6.4 Findings ol De Mininis
Under SAFETEA-LU, Congress sirnplifred parts of
Section 4(0 by creating a provision to allow for de
minimis findings. If there are no adverse effects to
an historic resource, it can be cleared as de mini-
mis and no avoidance analysis is necessary. As
6-4 Environmental Assessment 12t0s
Section 0e Minimis lmpact
stated in Section 6.3, FHWA has made a determi-
nation, and tJ:e SHPO has concurred, that impacts
to the historic US 6 segments (Sites #5GF2935'1
and #5GF2935.2) and the Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canat segments (Sites #5GF654.6 and #5GF654'7)
associated with the Preferred Alternative would
result in "no adverse effect." This frnding of "no
adverse effect" reflects a conclusion that these
impacts will not "alter, directly or indirectly, any of
the characteristics of the historic property that
quahfy the property for inclusion in tJ:e National
Register in a manner that would dirninish the
integrity of the property's location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, or association"
as described in 36 CFR S 800.5(a)(1). A de minimis
finding for signifrcant historic resources is recom-
mended when the Section 4(f) use is minimal or
trivial. The de minimis impact frnding is based on
the degree or level of impact including any avoid-
ance, minimtzatron and mitigation, or enhalce-
ment measures that are included in the project to
address the Section 4(f) use. The de minimis
impact finding is expressly conditioned upon tJre
implementation of any measures that were relied
upon to reduce the irnpact to a de minimis level.
6.5 Measures to Minimize Harm
The Preferred Alternative must demonstrate that it
includes all possible planning to minimize or miti-
gate harm to the properties or enhance the proper-
ties that were determined to be de minimis- Tlre
following measures to minimize harm were taken
into consideration in order to reach the de minimis
findings for the Freferred Alternative:
Site #5GF2935 (Historic US 6):
. The I-7O westbound off-ramp was designed to
minimize impacts to the north subsection of
Site #5GF2935.2, being somewhat limited by
several factors. These factors include the fol-
lowing:
- The necessary deflection or departure
angle for the off-ramp from the interstate'
- Slope conditions and distance between I-7O
and US 6.
- Necessary horizontal and vertical geometry
to tie in to the proposed roundabout'
. All efforts will be made during frnal project
design to minimize impacts to the north sub-
section of Site #5GF2935-2-
Site #5GF654 (Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal):
. The I-7O westbound off-ramp was designed to
minimize impacts to the north subsection of
Site #5GF654, being somewhat limited by sev-
eral factors. These factors include the follow-
ing:
- Entry and exit geometry has been opti-
rnized. for traffic requirements witl: the cur-
rent Placement of the northern
roundabout. Moving the roundabout fur-
ther north to reduce impacts to ditch seg-
ment #5GF654.7 would result in greater
impacts to ditch segment #5GF654'6'
- Steep project site grades dictate steep side
slopes and grading in order to frt the west-
bound off-ramp and roundabout between
the mountains on the north and I-70 on
the south.
. The I-70 westbound on-ramp was designed to
minimize impacts to the north subsection of
Site #5GF654, being somewhat limited by sev-
eral factors. These factors include the follow-
ing:
- Geometry is dependent upon roundabout
location and necessaty horjzontal and ver-
tical ramp geometry to meet established
standards.
- Steep existing grades across the project
area will require some grading to the north
(west) of the on-ramp.
. All efforts will be made during final project
design to minimize impacts to the ditch seg-
ments.
12t09 Environmental Assessment 6-5
6.6 Goordination
FHWA and CDOT have coordinated with the SHPO
ttrroughout the Section 106 process, regarding
APE definition, eligibilit5r of resources, and effects
(see Appendix D for correspondence). Also, FHWA
informed the SHPO of their intent to make de miru'
imrs impact frndings based on the SHPO's written
concurrence in the Section 1O6 determination of
"no adverse effect" in a letter dated September 19,
2008 (see Appendix D).
CDOT invited severa-l agencies and organizations
to participate as Section 106 consulting parties
(See Section 3.8). The Grand Valley Historical
Society, as a consulting party, was contacted in a
letter dated October 2, 2OO8, regarding these
determinations (see Appendix D). The society did
not comment on this letter within the 30-day com-
ment period.
6.7 De Minimis Finding
Based on the SHPO's adverse effect finding, and
taking into consideration the harm minimization
measures that have been incorporated into the
proposed action as documented in this Section 4(f)
Evaluation, it is the conclusion of the FHWA that
the proposed action would lirave de minimis
impacts and that an analysis of feasible and pru-
dent avoidance alternatives under Section a(! is
not required.
6-6 Environmental Assessment 1210s
ffiffifl
E$r.ffi
ffi
I-7O Parachute lilest Iaterchange
Finding of l{o Significant Impact
CDOT Project IM O7O2-3[O llBOlSl
Submitted Pursuant to
42 USC a332{2}(c}and 49 U.S.C. 303
bY rhe
US Department of Transportation
Federal H i ghway Administration
and
The Colorado Department of Tr*nsportatisn
Regional Transportation Director
Colorado Department of Transportation,Region 3
Chief Engineer
Colorado Departnrent of Transportation
Acting Division Administrator, Colorado Divisio:r
Federal Flighrvay Administration
'7-13-la
Date
$ubmitted by:
vid Eller, P.E.Date
Pamela A. Hutton, P.E.
Approved by:
Dbuglas *nnett, P.E
{";
STATUTE OT LIMITATIONS
A federal agency may publish a notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United States
Code (USC) 139(1), indicating that one or more federal agencies have taken hnal actions on
permits, licenses, or approvals for a transportation project. If such notice is published, claims
seeking judicial review of those federal agency actions will be barred unless such claims are
filed within 180 days after the date of the notice, or within such shorter time period as is
specified in the federal laws pursuant to which judicial review of the federal agency action is
allowed. If no notice is published, tJren the periods of time that otherwise are provided by the
Federal laws governing such claims will apply.
IN FORMATION AVAILABI LITY
The following individuals may be contacted for further information regarding the I-70
Parachute West Interchange Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI):
Roland Wagner
Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 3
2O2 Centennial Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
970-384-3330
Mark Austin, P.E.
Town of Parachute
336 Main Street
Suite 203
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
970-242-7540
Frrprrc oF No SlcNrFrcANr Irupecr
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
and
Colorado Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Town of Parachute, Colorado
andJAC(}BS
July 2O10
ljo Parachu"te West lwterchawge
FLwdLwg of No sLgwL{vcawt lntpact
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BMPs
CDOT
CDPHE
CR
CSS
EA
FHWA
FONSI
IGA
LOS
LUST
MSAT
NEPA
Best Management Practice s
Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CountSr Road
Context Sensitive Solutions
Environmental Assessment
Federal Highway Administration
Finding of No Significant Impact
Intergovernmental Agreement
Irvel of Service
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Mobile Source Air Toxics
National Environmental Po1icy Act
Acronyms and Abbreviations July 2010
l-7o ?arachvtte West lt:*eerchawge
FLwdLwg af No sLqwL{t cawt twupact
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Chapter 1.O Project Description ............. ......... 1-1
1.1 Introduction .......,...... .......1-1
L.2 Purpose and Need.. ...........1-2
1.3 Preferred Alternative ........1-2
1.3.1 Traffic Operations '... 1-3
t.3.2 Structures. ...... 1-3
1.3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages ......'... 1-3
L.3.4 Estimate of Probable Costs and Project Funding '." 1-5
Chapter 2.O EA Comments and Responses ...,......... .........2-1
2.1 Public Hearing Comments and Responses............ ................2-1
2.1.1 Written Comments ...2-L
2.L.2 Verbal Comments Given To Project Team Members (transcribed on index
cards) :.,..... ..........2-2
Chapter 3.O Clarification to the EA.,......... .......3-1
Chapter 4.O Selection of the Preferred Alternative............. .......'.....4-1
Chapter 5.O Finding of No Significant Impact.. ................5-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Summary of Mitigation Commitments for the Preferred Alternative
Appendix B: Section 4(f) and De Minimis Finding
Appendix C: Public Involvement Materials
tlSI OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity and Study Area.... ....... 1-1
Figure 1-2: Preferred Alternative-Modified Roundabout Design ....... t-4
LISI OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1-1: Permit Requirements..... ..'.. 1-6
TOC.i July 2010
l-7o ?arachr,ke West lwterchawge
Fr"wdLwg of No sLgwLfLcawt tvwpact
Chapter 1.O Project Description
1.1 Introduction
The Town of Parachute (Parachute), in coordination with the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has identifred the
need for improved connectivity with I-70 near Parachute. The study area is located along I-70
about 2.3 miles west of tJ:e existing Parachute/Battlement Mesa interchange (exit number 75).
Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of the study area.
Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity and Study Area
ta
.3I,.t r.
.E/l
\ Y/),
"4s,..-"
froposed Parachule '# "..
Pdrk tshd , ,i .
Pro,ecr S:udy &ea
loa
Project Description July 2010
1.1
r')
tr
iJot To Scale
Proiect Yicinity
::-
l-7O Parachv,te West lwterchawqe
FLwdLwg of No sLZwL{r.cawt ttrwpact
Since the opening of l-7O through Parachute in 1984, this location has been identified as a site
for a potential interchange. The proposed interchange is identified in the Statewide
TransporTation Improuement Program and the Intermountain 203O Regional Transportation Plan.
In January 2OlO, the I-70 Parachute West Interchange Environmental Assessment (EA) was
completed and signed. The EA and this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were prepared
in compliarce with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and witJ: 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.
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 impacts and mitigation for those resources that could be affected by the
Freferred Alternative is included as Appendix A of this FONSI. Resources with no anticipated
effects are not included in Appendix A.
L.2 Purpose and Need
The overall purpose of this project is to improve connectivity with I-70, improve traJlic
operations in tJ:e area, including trallic operations at the existing Parachute interchange, and
improve mobility for both regional and local traffic.
The project will address identified transportation needs, and be consistent with the Statewide
Transportation Im4trouement Program, the Interrnountain 2O3O Regional Transportation Plary and
Parachute and Garfield County plans.
The primary needs to be met by the I-70 Parachute West Interchange are:
) Improve connectivit5r.
) Improve traffic operations.
) Accommodate regional and local traffrc.
In Section 1.5 of tJre EA, a description of the transportations problems and other background
associated with these needs can be found.
To meet these needs, this project must provide a viable alternative route for regional traffic,
while improving interstate operations in the Parachute area.
1.3 PreferredAlternative
The Preferred Alternative (known throughout the alternatives screening process as Alternative
6, Modified Roundabout Design) is the result of a Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) process.
The CSS process involved all stakeholders, including municipalities, agencies, and tle public,
in a collaborative process to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and
preserves scenic, aestJretic, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety
and mobility. As such, this CSS approach considered the total context within which the
transportation improvement project would exist.
July 2010
1_2
Project Description
l+o Parachv"te West lwterchawqe
FLwdLwq of No s@ wL{r.cawt tvwpact
As shown in Figure t-2, the Preferred Alternative would provide a full access interchange at
the existing US 6 bridge over I-70 west of Parachute. This interchange would consist of a
diamond interchange layout with roundabout intersections at the ramp terminals. The new
roundabout on the north side of the interchange would be designed to convert the existing
curve movement on US 6 into the roundabout conhguration.
In addition, the roundabout may be designed to provide a bypass lane for the higher volume of
traffrc expected from westbound US 6 to westbound I-70. The new roundabout on the south
side would also convert the existing curve movement south of I-70 into the roundabout design
and would include the existing frontage road intersection as part of the roundabout. A new
connection between the roundabout intersection and the frontage road would be constructed.
Acceleration ald deceleration lanes on I-70 would be constructed to meet or exceed current
standards. A11 other design elements, including drainage facilities, pavement design, and cross-
section elements, would be desigped to meet or exceed current design standards.
1.3.1 TrallicOperations
The Preferred Alternative would provide adequate traffic operations at the proposed interchange
and would improve operations at adjacent interchanges, consistent \Mith the project Purpose
and Need.
L,3.2 Structures
The Preferred Alternative would not require any new bridge or retaining wall structures.
Providing a sidewalk would require widening of the existing bridge and is not part of the
Preferred Alternative. This could occur at a later date to coincide with planned improvements of
bicycle /pedestrian connections to Parachute.
1.3.3 Advantagesand Disadvantages
The following advantages and disadvantages have been identified for the Preferred Alternative.
Advantages
) Meets the project hrrpose and Need.
I Provides an additional access point for emergency vehicles requiring tfre use of I-70. The
proposed I-70 Parachute West Interchange would provide improved emergency vehicle
Lonnectivity to I-7O and improved emergency vehicle mobility and response time. The
proposed. interchange also supports the Town Master Plan and Garheld County planning
processes to improve connectivity.
) Ftovides about 15 percent reduction in traffrc volumes using the existing interchange,
tJrereby improving traflic operations along I-70 in this area. Reduced traJlic volumes
would also improve overall operations on Garlield County Road (CR) 215 in the existing I-
70 interchange area, red.uce potential conflicts, enhance emergency access, and improve
accessibility.
) Accommodates 2035 trafiic demand in the interchartge area.
) Is compatible with Parachute, Garheld Count5r, and region planning processes.
> Minimizes impacts to private property and the natural environment.
July 2010
1-3
Project Description
(>T
ocl
_>
a
(J
'6r
o-
,t&tJ
=
qJI'
*l
ct
-tarC"
,1,q,:r
an
{!
u,
=o= -Et9Go, 'E-rE'iE
Br
-
alt?U'
6J3::r65GtEIEE'.6-
=u,o"l
6r!
ffi
cE)
tJ1
6Ja
c)
-cl(EE
oE,t,o)
Eo
=OJ.=
(\'
Lo)=
Eo)
OJ
o)
CL
si
o,
J.9l!
-l-roqJs
S) a-
(s
-S rrCEqJs
{d
rJ))a
-S G)\rJ5ul
tlo+SL
-S (L_<-)A
EU!s)S.)A- .3_is
\JJhl\l'\ rJI llF
0t>IIt,
Ctr1--bot*tr{
EIo,Llrq)rt-
o)l-A-
ljo Parachv,te West twterchawqe
Fr.wdLwg of No s@ wLfr,cawt lvwpact
Disadvantages
) Temporary delays and inconvenience as a result of roadway construction.
> Acquisition of 4.2 acres of right-of-way.
) Conversion of land to transportation use.
) Increase in impervious surface area by an additiond 4.76 acres, but no direct impacts to
water resources such as the Colorado River or Parachute Creek.
> Removal of native salt desert vegetation and disturbed roadside vegetative communities.
> Minor impacts to historic US 6 and Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal.
> Indirect impacts to wildlife resulting from both the loss of vegetation and changing trallic
patterns.
) Potential discovery of hazardous materials during construction.
) Modification of the existing visual environment.
1.3.4 Estimate of Probable Costs and Project Funding
The estimated conceptual cost range for the project is $12 million to $14 million (2009 dollars).
This is a total project cost that includes the following elements:
) earthwork
) new roadway connection
) drainage
> traffic control/lighting
) utilities/force account utilities
) contingencies/unlisted items
) urban design/landscaping
) construction signing/traIIic control
> mobilization
) right-of-way/easements
> design engineering
) construction engineering
) construction surveying
) environmental enhancements
> environmental compliance and mitigation
> public participation
Project Fundinq
Parachute has identified the I-70 West Parachute Interchange as a recommended improvement
in the Town Master Plan. This project is also included in the current Statewide TransporTation
Improuement Program, ald the Intermountain 2O3O Regional Transportation Plan-
July 2010
1_5
Project Description
l-7o PaYachvtte WesL lwterchawge
FLwdLwg of xa SLgwL{t cawt ltwVacL
Funding for the EA process, interchange approvals (Interchange Access Request and 160 1
processis), and design came from several sources: Parachute, Garfield County, Battlement
ivlesa Comprry, ,nd the Colorado Deparlment of Local Affairs (DOLA). DOL+ funding was
made available through tlee State's 2OOg Senate Bill 232 which set aside funding for projects in
enerry-impacted citiei and towns. Additionally, Encana and Williams companies will fund
$f SOpOO p.. "o*p*y per year for the calendar years of 2011 and 2012 (yielding a total of
$OOO,OOO). Funding foiconstruction will come from all of these sources plus up to 6 million
dollars from Regiona erio.ity Program funding from CDOT. Construction on the project is
anticipated to begin in 201 1.
Permit Requirements
The permits, approvals, and certifications described in Table 1-1 will be required for
implementation-of the Preferred Alternative. Additional permits could be identi{ied during final
design and required during construction.
Detailed mitigation commitments, includ.ing the schedules for obtaining the permits listed, are
included in Appendix A.
Table 1-1: Permit Requirements
Permit
Federal
Incidental Take
Permit
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Colorado Discharge
Permit System
(CDPS) Stormwater
Construction Permit
CDPS Construction
Dewatering Permit
Colorado Department of
Public Health and
Environment, Water
Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of
Public Health and
Environment, Water
Control Division
Colorado Depaftment of
Transportation
Other Local Permits Town of Parachute or
or Garfield
gperiodswillbeconductedtoremoveinactivenestsbeforeconstruction
begins. The project area will be monitored to discourage nesting.
Other Related Federal Actions
The project team prepared. an Interchange Access Request for the project for FHWA review and
appioval. On DeC lt,2OOg, FHWA issued a Letter of Engineering and Operational
Acceptability based on this report.
Required when active nests of migratory birds covered by the
Bird Treaty Act are disturbedl
The CDPS program issues, monitors, and enforces permits for
direct discharge of pollutants to the nation's waters. Construction
stormwater discharge permits are required to assure the quality
of stormwater runoff for projects where more than 1 acre of land
nequirea for dewatering of construction areas, if necessary. The
Contractor shall obtain the appropriate CDPS general permit for
management of groundwater from CDPHE Water Quality Control
Required for construction, relocation, modification, or closure of
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stande4ls'
access (es) to a State Highway Modifications to access points
along the Parachute Interchange will require a Form 137 Access
Permit application. During final design, access points will be
identified in a formal access control plan prepared by CDOT' All
access points would be constructed in accordance with Parachute
May be required for utility relocations, land survey, local roadway
retaining walls, and
Form 137 -
Construction Access
Permit
JulY 2010
1-6
l-7o ?arachu.te West lwterchawge
FLwdvwg of No s@ wLfLcawt tvwpact
A11 access control line revisions will be fully researched and any revisions will be coordinated
with all applicable parties during fina1 design. Preliminary research indicates that the access
control fine in the project *"" *iU not need to be modified but the barrier line will need to be
moved in one quadrant as part of this project.
July 20'10
1-7
Project Description
l-7o Parachvtte West lwterchawqe
Ft wdLwg of sto sLqwL{ucawt lw"Tact
Chapter 2.O EA Comments and ResPonses
Following the publication of the EA on January 14, 2OlO, the 30-day public and agency review
period bJg.rr, concluding on February 13, 2010. During the review period, no comments were
ieceived tlat requirea any changes to the proposed action. A public hearing was held on
February 3, 201b at parathute Town Halllo ott"in public comment on the EA and the project.
Methods used to advertise the public hearing included:
> placing newspaper advertisements in the Rrle CitizenTelegramand the Grand Junction
Sentinel (on January 14,2OlO and January 28' 2OlO);
> Including a notice in the distribution of the Town of Parachute water bill;
> Posting flyers at local businesses and libraries; and
> Placing large signs in Parachute Town Hail and in Battlement Mesa
Appendix B includes copies of materials used to adver[ise t]re public hearing'
At the hearing, four written comments were received on comment forms and six verbal
comments were made to project team members and written down on index cards. Attendees
also had the option of recording oral comments, but no recorded comments were made. No
comments were received via U.S. If{al, fax, email, or the project Web site. No agencies
submitted comments on the EA'
No impacts to the environment were identified. in comments received that were not fully
addressed in the EA. A11 comments received and comment responses are presented in this
section as theY were written.
2.L Public Hearing Comments and Responses
2.1.1 Written Comments
Comment #1: Janet Cress
Very much need.ed. L,ooks great. Looking forwarded to this for years. Thanks'
Response:
Thank you for Your comment.
Comment #2: Bob and Shirley Ackerman
When the Interest state was coinpleted. A man came to ask if flag girls could eat brunch and
lay on our grass und.er the shade trees. We said certainly. A11 summer six or seven girls were
biought by a state man to eat and lay down and get off their feet. In the summer of 2009 a girl
came"up tt me in Parachute to say Thanks again for letting us rest on your lawn'
They would be welcomed again.
Response:
Thank you for Your comment.
EA Comments and Responses July 2010
2'1
l-7o Parachvtte West lv*erchawqe
FLwdr,wg of No sLqwL{t cawt lvwpact
Comment #3: Judith Ha5rward
There isn't anything that would help tJle Town of Parachute more than the I-70/Parachute
West Interchange. Which would allow an alternative trallic routes especially in relations to
north of l-7O and south residential area. One bridge and one on and off ramp is not enough for
traffic flow.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
Comment #4: Robert J. Ackerman, dba R & S Welding Servlce
This project is a needed transportation control item. The planning appears to be sound. This
should have been done ten years ago.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
2.L.2 Verbal Comments Given To Project Team Members (transcribed on index cards)
Comment #5:
Might encourage more tourism in town by enhancing access.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
Comment #6:
Better to have tourists drive through Main Street rather than trucks.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
Comment #7:
Livability will greatly improve in town with the interchange.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
Comment #8:
Main Street is a mass of pot holes with all the regional truck traffic in town.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
Comment #9:
A lot of trucks use Parachute Ave. past Senior Center and Early Education Center - would be
solved by project.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
Comment #10:
Project would enhance development to the north and east of proposed interchange - good for
town.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
July 2010
2-2
EA Comments and Responses
t-7O Parachutte West lwterchawge
FLwdLwg of No sLgwLfr,cawL lvt*Vact
Chapter 3.O Clarification to the EA
In the Comments and Coordination section of the EA, the date for the second open house was
incorrectly shown as being held on Januar5r 24, 2OO7. The correct date for the meeting is
January 24, 2OO8, not 2OO7 .
Also, several mitigation measures that appeared in the EA were modified based on discussions
with CDOT environmental specialists. These changes include:
> in the Fish and Wildlife section, added a commitment that CDOT will coordinate with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife during final design regarding the locations for installation of
big game fencing;
> in the Historic Properties section, added a commitment that, in the event that buried
cultural remains are exposed, the CDOT Senior StalT Archaeologist will be contacted; and
> in the Paleontologica-l Resources section, added a commitment stating that the CDOT Staff
Paleontologist will examine the project design plan to determine the impact to DeBeque
Formation bedrock.
July 2010
3-1
Clariflcation to the EA
l-7o PaYachv,tte WesL twterchawqe
FLwdLwg of Na sLgwL{t cawt tvwpact
Chapter 4.O Selection of the Preferred Nternative
Based upon the I-7O Parachute West Interchange EA, public hearing transcript, and agency
and public comments received, CDOT has determined that the alternative described in Section
1.3 0f this FoNSI and section 2.5.2 0f the EA is the Preferred Alternative.
For a detailed description of the Preferred Alternative, see Section 2.5.2 of the EA. Appendix A
includes a summary of impacts and mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative.
July 2010
4-1
Selection of Preferred Altemative
;7o ?arachu,te West lwterchawge
FLwdLwg of No sLgwL{"cawt tvwpact
Chapter 5.O Finding of No Significant Impact
FHWA has determined that the Preferred Alternative described in Section 2.5.2 of the EA and
Section 1.3 of this document will have no significant impact on the human environment. This
FONSI is based on the EA, which has been independently evaluated by CDOT and FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts
of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides suflicient evidence
and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. CDOT
and FHWA take fulI responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the EA.
July 2010
5.1
Finding of No Significant lmpact
lAo Parachvtte West lwterchawge
FuwdLwg of uo sL?wLfLcawl tvwTact
ApPendix A:
Summary of Mitigation Commitments for
the Preferred Alternative
Summary of lmPacts
Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Commitments Where to Include in
Right-of-
Way/Relocation
night-of-way acquisition for this project will comply
with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as
amended (Uniform Act). The purpose of this act is
to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or
farms. Owners of property to be acquired would be
compensated at fair market value for their
property, All reasonable opportunities to avoid
relocations and minimize the impacts of acquisition
to private and public property have been taken in
the conceptual design,
NA
Air Quality
Contractors would be required to reduce fugitive
dust emissions during construction by
implementing best management practices, such as
spraying exposed soils, covering trucks when
transporting materials, minimizing mud tracking by
vehicles, controlling vehicle speeds on construction
access roads, and stabilizing construction
entrances per CDOT M-208-1 requirements.
Specification
. A Land Development Permit Application and
Fugitive Dust Control Plan will need to be prepared
and submitted to CDPHE, APCD. BMPs will be used
during construction.
Permit
Water Resources and
Water Quality
Construction activities will include proper
precautionary planning and implementation of
BMPs to minimize soil erosion and contain
construction-related contamina nts to with in the
construction area, The use of standard erosion and
sediment control BMPs in accordance with the
Erosion Control and Storm Water Quality Guide
(CDOT, 2002) will be included in the final design
plans.
Specification/Plan
All work on the project will be in conformity with
Section 107.25 (Water Quality Control) and Section
208 (Erosion Control) of the CDOI"S,andard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction,
Specification
Vegetation
IAtt coof revegetation BMPs and guidelines will be
followed to ensure adequate revegetation of the
study area. All disturbed areas would be replanted
with drought-tolerant, native vegetation as soon as
possible following construction.
Speciflcation
Noxious Weeds A management plan for noxious weeds will be
incoroorated into the proiect design and
Appendix A
l-7o PaYach,"tte West lwLerchawge
Ft wdr,wg of No sLgwLfLcawl lrruTact
Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Commitments Where to Include in
EtFl Drrlr:na
construction process by the project contractor,
. Specific BMPs would be required during
construction to reduce the potential for the
introduction and spread of noxious weeds
Specification
Fish and Wildlife
An active nesting suruey will be conducted by a
qualified biologist within the study area prior to the
start of any construction activities to ensure
compliance with MBTA and the BGEPA. Should an
active nest location be identified during this sunr'ey,
then appropriate avoidance measures will be taken
for the area around the nest during construction.
Specification
Hazardous Materials
. Installation of big game fencing along I-70 and/or
US 6 will be considered during the final design
stage to help reduce the amount of
wildl ifelveh icu la r strikes.
Plan
. Potential risks associated with hazardous waste on
construction projects and will comply with Section
250 "Environmental Health and Safety
Management" of the Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005)'
Specification
Visual Resources
. The type, color, and material of retaining walls or
embankments will be determined during final
design.
Plan
Appendix A
l-7o Parachu,te West lwterchawge
FLwdLwg of No sL1wL{r.cawL twtpact
Appendix B:
Section 4(t) and De Minimis Finding
lntroduction
Section 4(f) was created when the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) was
formed in 1966 (Section a(fl of the USDOT Act of 1966). It is codified in Tifle 49 United States
Code (U.S.C.) Section 303 and Title 23 U.S.C. Section 138. Section 138 states: "The Secretar5r
[of Transportation] shall not approve any program or project ... which requires the use of any
publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of
national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local oflicials
having jurisdiction tJrereof, or urny land from an historic site of national, State, or local
significance as so determined by such oflicials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site
resulting from such use."
Land will be considered permalently incorporated into a transportation project, or used, when
it has been purchased as right-of-way or sufficient property interests have been otherwise
acquired for the pulpose of project implementation. For example, a "perma:tent easement" that
is required for the purpose of project construction or that grants a future right of access.onto
Section 4(f) property, such as for the purpose of routine maintenance by the transportation
agency, would be considered a permanent incorporation of land into a transportation facility.
There is an exception to the definition of use codified in 49 U.S.C. 303 (d). In ckcumstances
where the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has made a determination that the impacts
to the Section 4(f) resources are de minimis, tleere is not a "use" as defined by Section 4(f) and a
full evaluation under Section 4(f) is not required.
The FHWA and CDOT worked cooperatively with the Officials with Jurisdiction (OWJ) regarding
Section 4(f) resources to determine if any of tJ:e project impacts will negatively affect the
activities, attributes, or functions that would qualiry the property for protection under Section
a(fl and if the use of de minimis determinations is appropriate. No de minimis determination
can be made without the concurrence of the OWJs. In the case of historic properties, the OWJ
is the State Historic Preservation Offrces (SHPO), and any impacts associated with the project
must have a "no adverse effect" determination under Section 106 of t] e Nationa-l Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) for a de minimis determination to be made.
The Preferred Alternative, as described in Chapter 2 of tJ:.e EA, is a transportation project that
may receive federal funding and/or discretionary approvals through the USDOT; therefore,
documentation of compliance with Section 4(f) is required.
Appendix B
l-7o Parachvtte West twterchawge
FLwdLwg of t'to sLgwLft cawt ltwpact
This Section 4(f) evaluation has been prepared in accordance with the joint FHWA/Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) regulations for Section 4(f) compliance codified at 23 CFR 9774
and SAFETEA-LU (Public Law 109-59, enacted August 10, 2005). Additional guidance has been
obtained from the revised FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (March 2005), and the joint
FHWA/mA De Minimis Guidance (December 2005). The FHWA Division Administrator for
Colorado is responsible for determining that this project meets the criteria and procedures set
forth in the federal regulations.
Description of Section 4(0 Properties in the Study Area
No public parks, public recreation lands, wildlife refuges, or waterfowl refuges are located in
the study area.
TWo segments of historic US 6 and two segments of the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal pass through
the Area of Potentia-l Effect (APE). Overall, the historic US 6 has been assessed as eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), while the overall Havermeyer-
Wilcox Canal was listed on tlee NRHP in 1980. The segments of historic US 6 and the
Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal located in the APE are listed in Table 1. See Section 3.8 of the EA for
a discussion of historic properties evaluated in the study area'
Table 1: Section 4(fl Resources: Historic Properties
Historic Propetties Site No,SHPO Determination of
NRHP
Historic US Highway 6
Non-supportive of the overall
historic US Highway 6
Historic US Highway 6
Non-supportive of the overall
historic US Highway 5
Historic US Highway 6
Non-supportive of the overall
Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal
Historic US Highway 6
Non-supportive of the overall
Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal
Source: State Historic Preservation Officer, 2008
Following is a description of the segments of historic US 6 and the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal
that are located in the APE.
Site #5GF2935 (Htstoric US 6): This site is the overall historic US 6 alignment, which roughly
parallels I-70 on both sides through the project's APE. CDOT indicated in a letter to the SHPO
dated September 19, 2008 that the historic US 6 (#5GF2935/2935.I12935.2\ was found to be
eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with regional transportation and
development, ald with the rise of the automobile as the preferred mode of transportation in
Colorado and the United States. However, the two segments evaluated for this project were
Appendix B
sGF2935.1
5GF2935.2
5GF554.6
5GF654.7
l-7o Parachu'Le West lwterchAwge
Fr,wdLwg of No sLgwLf"cawt lvwpact
found. to lack suffrcient integr-ity to support the overa-ll NRHP eligibility of the entire historic US
6, as discussed under each segment below. In a letter dated October 3, 2008, SHPO concurred
with this finding (see Appendix D of the EA)'
Site #5GF2935.1 (Segment of Historic US 6): Consists of an old alignment of US 6 that runs
along the southeast side of I-70. It was previously recorded in 200 1, and was subsequenfly
determined to be non-supportive of the syslall historic US 6 eligibility. The site was revisited
during the inventory conducted for the I-70 Parachute West Interchange project, and it was
found that nearly the entire segment previously recorded had been destroyed by pipeline
development. However, a new feature adjacent to the historic US 6 alignment was discovered
and documented. The feature is a small earthen and rock berm located south of the current I-
7O alignment and north of the old highway alignment. It is approximately l2O feet long, 3.5 feet
wide, and 0.5 foot high. The feature is isolated and deteriorated. It was determined that this
feature d.oes not change the eligibility status of historic US 6 as a whole or for Site
#5GF2935.1.
Site #5GF2gg5.2 (Segment of Historic US 6): Consists of an old alignment of US 6 that runs
along the northwest side of I-70. This linear resource is a discontinuous segment of a former
US 6 alignment, now abandoned. This segment of US 6 is part of a longer portion of highway
that deviates from the historic alignment discussed above (#5GF2935.1). This segment of
historic US 6 has been aband.oned and is highly deteriorated. Modern realignment of US 6 has
destroyed the old route at the northeastern end of the recorded segment; I-70 construction
truncated the route at the southwest end of the segment. This segment has lost the majority of
its physical integrity and does not support the overall eligibility of historic US 6'
Site #5GF654 (Havermeyer-Iflilcox Canal): The canal is one of the most notable, large-sca1e
engineering developments in Garfield County history. This site is the overall Havermeyer-
Wilcox Canal system, which roughly parallels I-70 on the north side of the project's APE. CDOT
indicated in a letter to SHPO dated September 19, 2008 tJ:at the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal
(#5GF654/654.6/654.7) was listed on the NRHP in 1980 and is significant under Criteria A, B,
and C. However, the two segments evaluated for this project (#5GF654.6 and #5GF654.7) were
determined to lack sufficient integrity and do not support the overall eligibility of the entire
canal, as discussed under each segment below. SHPO concurred with this finding in a letter
dated October 3, 2008 (see Appendix D of the EA).
Site #5GF654.6 (Segment of Havermeyer-Illilcox Canal): This site was originally recorded
during a 2OOl inventory, but at that time was tJrought to be part of the Diamond Ditch' Based
on new information and in consultation with tJ'e Office of Archaeolory and Historic
preservation (OAHP) and CDOT, the site has been re-designated as segment #5GF654.6 of the
Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal system. Since 2001, the northeastern 65 to 8O feet of this segment
have been destroyed by pipeline construction. Overall, this ditch segment is badly deteriorated
and overgrown, and does not support the overall eligibility of the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal.
Appendix B
F7o Payachu"te West ltr,*.erchawge
FLwdLwg of No sLqwL{r.cawt tvwpact
Site #5GF654.7 (Segment of Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal): This site was not previously
recorded. It is located on the opposite side of existing US 6 from Site #5GF654.6, and was
truncated by construction ofthe US 6 overpass. No clear evidence ofexcavation was observed,
possibly because the channel has silted in during nearly a century of erosion and neglect. No
features associated with the ditch were observed. This ditch segment is badly deteriorated and
overgrown, and does not support the overall eligibility of the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal.
Figure 1: Historic Resources
Appendix B
i7o ?arachv,te West lwterchawge
FLwdt wg of No sLgwL{t cawt twqact
lmpacts to Section 4(f) Properties
Preferre d A-lternative
Site #5GF2935 (Historic US 6): The Preferred Alternative would affect two segments of
historic US 6. As shownon Figure 1, the newly-recorded feature of Site #5GF2935.1, and an
approximate 400-foot portion of Site #5GF2935.2 are located within the construction footprint
of the Preferred Alternative, and would be directly impacted by construction of the project. Site
#5GF2935.1 has already been impacted by existing development, including the modern US 6
overpass and approaches and recent pipeline construction. It will be destroyed as part of the
current undertaking.
The impacted 400-foot portion of Site #5GF2935.2 is a part of the northern subsection of tJle
segment. The western portion of Site #5GF2935.2 will remain intact, but most of the eastern
portion will be destroyed during the project. The integrity and nature of these two segments
have been evaluated as non-supportive of the overall eligibility of historic US 6.
Site #5GF654 (Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal): The Preferred Alternative would a{Iect two
segments of the canal. As shown on Figure 1, the eastern third of Site #5GF654.6 is within the
project footprint and will be destroyed as part of the current undertaking. The western half of
Site #5GF654.7 also will be destroyed as part of the current undertaking. Both of these
segments lack integriff, and their destruction will not affect the qualities of significance of the
overall canal system.
Determination of Effect
FHWA and CDOT have made a determination, and the SHPO has concurred, tJeat impacts to
tlre historic US 6 segments (Sites #5GF2935.1 and #5GF2935.2]rand the Havermeyer-Wilcox
Canal segments (Sites #5GF654.6 and #5GF654.7) associated with t}re Preferred Alternatjve
would result in "no adverse effect" for purposes of Section 1O6 of the NHPA. These
determinations and SHPO concurrence are documented in Appendix D of the EA in a CDOT
letter dated September 19, 2008 and a SHPO letter dated October 3, 2008.
Findings of De Minimis
Under SAFETEA-LU, Congress simplifred parts of Section a(0 bV creating a provision to allow
for de minimis findings. If there are no adverse effects to an historic resource, it can be cleared
as de minimis and no avoidance analysis is necessar5r. As stated in the previous section, FHWA
has made a determination, and the SHPO has concurred, that impacts to the historic US 6
segments (Sites #5GF2935.1 and #5GF2935.2) and the Havermeyer-Wilcox Canal segments
(Sites #5GF654.6 and #5GF654.7) associated with the Preferred Alternative would result in uno
adverse effect.' This finding of "no adverse effect" reflects a conclusion that these impacts will
not "alter, directly or indirectly, any of t}le characteristics of the historic property that qualiff
the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the
Appendix B
l-7o Parachu.te West twterchawge
FLwdLwg of No sLgwL{t cawt nwpact
integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or
association' as described in 36 CFR S 800.5(a)(1). A de minimis finding for significant historic
resources is recommended when the Section 4(f) use is minimal or trivial. The de minimis
impact finding is based on the degree or level of impact including any avoidance, minimization
and mitigation, or enhancement measures that are included in the project to add.ress the
Section 4(f) use. The de minimis impact linding is expressly conditioned upon the
implementation of any measures that were relied upon to red.uce the impact to a d.e minimis
level.
Measures to Minimize Harm
The Preferred Alternative must demonstrate tJ:at it includes all possible planning to minimize
or mitigate harm to the properties or enhance the properties that were determined to be de
minimis. The following measures to minimize harm were taken into consideration in order to
reach the de minimis findings for the preferred Alternative:
Site #5GF2935 (Historic US 6):
' The I-70 westbound off-ramp was designed to minimize impacts to the north subsection of
Site #5GF2935.2, being somewhat limited by several factors. These factors include the
following:
- The necessary deflection or departure angle for the off-ramp from the interstate.
- Slope conditions and distance between I-70 and US 6.
- Necessarlr horizontal and vertical geometry to tie in to the proposed round.about.
' All efforts will be made during final project design to minimize impacts to the north
subsection of Site #5GF2935.2.
Site #5GF654 (Havermeyer-trIilcox Canal):
' The I-70 westbound off-ramp was designed to minimize impacts to the north subsection of
Site #5GF654, being somewhat limited by several factors. These factors include thefollowing:
- Entry and exit geometry has been optimized for traffic requirements with the current
placement of the northern roundabout. Moving the round.about further north to reduce
impacts to ditch segment #5GF654.7 would result in greater impacts to ditch segment
#5cF654.6.
- Steep project site grades dictate steep side slopes and grading in order to fit t1.e
westbound off-ramp and roundabout between the mountains on the north and I-70 onthe south.
' The I-70 westbound on-ramp was designed to minimize impacts to the north subsection of
Site #5GF654, being somewhat limited by several factors. These factors include the
following:
Appendix B
t.7O Parachvtte West lwterchawge
F,.wdLwg of No sLgwL{t"cawt lvttpact
- Geometry is dependent upon roundabout location and necessary horizontal and vertical
r€rmp geometry to meet established standards.
- Steep existing grades across the project area will require some grading to the north
(west) of the on-ramp.
. All efforts will be made during final project design to minimize impacts to the ditch
segments.
Coordination
FHWA and CDOT have coordinated with the SHPO throughout the Section 1O6 process,
regarding APE definition, eligibility of resources, and effects (see Appendix D of the EA for
correspondence). Also, FHWA informed the SHPO of tleeir intent to make de minimis impact
findings based on the SHPO's written concurrence in the Section 106 determination of "no
adverse effect" in a letter dated September 19,2OO8 (see Appendix D of the EA).
CDOT invited severa-l agencies and organizations to participate as Section 106 consulting
parties (See Section 3.8 of the EA). The Grand Valley Historicai Society, as a consulting party,
was contacted in a letter dated October 2, 2OO8, regarding these determinations (see Appendix
D of the EA). The society did not comment on this letter within the 30-day comment period.
De Minimis Finding
Based on the SHPO's adverse effect finding, and taking into consideration the harm
minimization measures that have been incorporated into the proposed action as documented in
this Section 4(f) Evaluation, it is the conclusion of the FHWA that the proposed action would
have de minimis impacts and that an analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives
under Section 4(f) is not required.
Appendix B
l-7O Parachv,te
FLwdLwg of No
West twterchawge
sLgwL{tcawt IntVact
Public Involvement Materials
for Porochute Public 3,2010
Parachute West lnterchange pioiect
Puhlic Hearing
The Town of Parachute. the Federal Highway Administration
and the Colorado Department of Transportation invite you to a
public hearing for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed Parachute West lnterchange project.
February 3,2O1A
Town of Parachute - Town Hall
222 Grand Valley Way, parachute, CO 91635
5:OO PM to 7:OO pM
Please attend at any time during these hours.
The public hearing will be an open Copies of the EA are available tor public and
house format and will cover agency review at the following locations:
several issues including: o cororado Department of rransportation,
. Background information about Glenwood springs
the proposed project. :f;::f:ff[::T:.,.r,
r The purpose and need of the . parachure Town Hall
proposed project. 222 Grand Vafiey Way
parachute, CO 81635. The preferred project
arternative. ' cDor Region 3
222 South Sixth Street
' lmpacts from the project and Grand Junction, CO 81501-2769
proposed mitigation. ' FHWA - Colorado Division
123OO West Dakota Avenue, Suite 1gO. How to comment on the Lakewood, CO g}22g
project. r Online at www.parachutewestinterchange.net
The comment period for the EA ends on February
13,2010.
For more information contact
Town of Parachute - (970) 285-7630
e-mail: Parachutewestlnt _ website: www.parachuteWestlnterchange.net
Appendix C
Announcement
Pararhute
Weot
l-7o Parachute
FLwdLwg of xo
West twterchawge
nTlLfrcawL tttnpact
tepubticH@OrO
Parachute West Interchange project:
Public Hearins
colorado Dspartment of Transponation invita you * " puOi," i""ri[for th6 EnvrEnmcntat A6E5sm6nt {EAt for the o_oo".iEr.iiJi,West lntBrchange Feject.
Copir6 of thc EA ar. av!it.H6 lor pubtb cndagercy review at th! lollowing leations:r Cdo.do Depiltm€ni of TraBpstililon,Glswed GpdngE
2O2 Contsani6l Str@t
Gteawrcd Springs. CO 8160I. Paadlur. Towfi Hatl
221 Gtrlt Vltlcy WryPar€chutr, CO Ar 635
. CDOT Beqion 3
222 Sosth Sixth Strs€i
Grand Junction, CO e1 toi -2769
r FHWA - Colorado Dlvlstm
12300 Ws6r Dakota Avorue, Suite 1g0Lal,?wood. CO EO22a
t Onlim at ww-Far*hutewostint6rchange.n6t
Tha commBnt Xrisd for the EA onds 06Fcbruary't3. iOlO.
fibnrrry ?. ZA1A, 5;OO pttrl to 7:OO plf
Town ol perechuts, Town He!ZZ2 Brand Vrloy Wry, Friechuts. Co Sfo3splceo ansd a{ afs, timo 6$ing rh$ hoG.
- -
lY.*O,': hearirg *rll be an open houre fo.mar and.ryrI cover *veral,ssBs includtng.r Background inform6tion 5bo!t the prcposEd proiecto lhe purpose and nmd of the proposed p.oiect.r The preferred pro|€ct alternatrve.. lmp*ts lrom tln woioct ud propo$ad Eitigition.. How.to coftment Dn tha prc.iBct.
Fq morc inrdmadon &ntsd. r*- -. "-ffiendr : p{aciurewsdntff dlanr€6p?::: #T;:ff l:ffi J:,r.")
2ab- 76ao
chutalv6tlntgchff O€ -n6t
Appendix C
llo Parachu,te West twterchawge
fLwdLwg of Xo sLTwl.{t cawt ttvtpact
_ lsrylpgper Disptoy Ad for porochute pubtic Heorin g:IglrIgU 3, 201!_
Parachute West lnterchange projeet:
Public Hearing
The Town of parachute. the
Federal Highwt na.;i"r*,"n coPies of the E,A are available for public
and the Colorado Department of and agency review at the following
Transportation invite you to a locattons:
public hearing for the Environ- r Colorado Department ofmental Assessment (EA) for the Transportation,
proposed Parachute West Glenwood Springs
lnterchange project. 2O2 Centennial Street
Glenwood Springs, CO g1601
FebrUafy 3, 2OlO r parachure Town Hal
E:oo pM to 7:oo pM ;3:.in::X3;1#;,
ToWn Of paraChUte o CDoT Besion 3
TOWn Hall 222 South Sixth Srreet
222 Grand vauey way . :;ili1::,'j*..;;:,::,-r,unParachute, CO 816g5 ;;ffi west Dakota Avenue,
Ptease attend at any 6me Suite 18o
during these hours. a^.1:*""0, co ao22a
r Online at
The public hearing will be an www.parachutewestinterchange.net
open house format and will The comment period for the EA ends oncover several issues including: February 13, 2010.r Background information about o The preferred project alternative.the proposed project.. . lmpacts from the project andr The purpose and need of the propo"Ja mitigation.proposed project. o F]nra; +^ ^^__^^- __ _,i r.vrvvvv t,,vJcu(. o How to comment on the project.
For more ,nt"r
e-m ai I :. ParachuteWest I nterch ang e @ J acobs. com*uO",t"'
-
Appendix C
t-7o parachuie West twterchawge
FLwdLwg of xo sLgwLfLcawt tvttpact
During the 30-day oublic..cglment period, the Parachute west Intercha,ge Environmentalf,"ffffffiX'-ff)"ffiitailable r"t piuii" review r',a "o..,,,,".,t ar.i.,g.,o.irJ*o.king hours at
Colorado Department of Transportation, Glenwood Springs202 Centennial Street
Glenwood Springs, CO g1601
Parachute Town Hall
222 Grand VaJtey Way
Parachute, CO g1635
Colorado Department of Transportation Region 3222 South Sixth Street
Grand Junction, CO gLSOI_276g
T: 1: fl_ -"tghway Administration _ Cotora d o DivisionI23OO West Dakota Avenue, Suite tgOLakewood, CO g122g
Online at wum.parachutewestinterchange.net
Locotions for the Environmenlot Assessment
-
Appendix C
17543 2:10:40 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-West Porochute Interchonge\18018\D€sign\Drowings\18018-Titl€Sht.dqn
fE3
3
ooq@
Noq
N-a
E.
^o
!
!
C:.
l
o
3o-,ol
CI,
-oooo
l
-.
e-o
Tot.
l'r
aooI
l7
o
!.
a
Oo
I
zo
oo
I
o
zo
3I
COo
@
I
--tI
oa
f:*
6f
-o
)'
oo
I
@
No
II
=
A
TNo
Oz
z
--t
oz
r
:r
6)I
=
a
ln
-{TN
..)
io
I
P on
aIFCoICan
mzo
aozi
o
vE
B
1
P
o
o+oi
!o
@
oz
aozj
om
Ao
B
a
P
oI69oo
rza
I
eT
?
I
No+!I
@
@mO
z
v
!
I
@:
oo+oo
bo
mzc
4
E!
q
I
P
u
+!aL
!
@
o
2
v
E!
I
i
P
oo
69oo
zo
n
PT
e
q:
P
N
N
+:'o
@
@
oz
7
PI
q
@
P
oo
3Iao
mzo
D
!
z
@:?
NN+
Poo
@moz-kn
t
q:
P
oo
6Ioo
zo
c
a+
P
o
I+qob
@
oz
C
@
o
@IP
aoI6Ioo at
i
Oz
-t
BCt-
i
oz.
oTl
rmz.6)--l-
e9
Ima
6)z
o
-{
N
@
@!
q
!oo
N
No
o
q
!o
N
!
@
I
1o
o
=
P ob!
INo
I
@
o
b,N
9 o+
N
oqa r
I\JEHY
FH7
=t!zH
AVE
HI,N
zaI'vAvFH
Ft
l-lAvz
(a
H
Fi
TI
AvE
oAvFAv
)ivAv
F*
A
:f-- ;JrC E<z t!>q, u<Ht=Ei \2 r^'r\) Itl \ .,/HZZ-larnl qX!r-fP-l(Jli-itrZFSUC*fii-nv a trl Y \ I
---rfP la+ s< 7l -1.9itxP5
[1lv*d4Qo25w:9;-rUXqJ7,-,9.2 \AJ
t,1-v(vEt.f,Ft i d ,-,27 " ^3'6\J OA' {\Js A f'Tl
@ N)*rV
=
taF
m lr-
-ro
t-,
U)
'n!LJ
ooza:Acoi
Ez
orm-
Nozm
Orn
B
Noz
Ia
Po
oa
+vCo
Nouo
I
q
oz:A
o
P
C
Ima
oz
q
!
mo
z
c
I?I
4I
o
P
z
C
@'I
P
Io4
NOz!
P
P
C
on
Bm
=z
c
n
B
C
o
oCn
oma
6)z.
I
-t
No
J
No
:1
ox
i
n!
@oa
I-
l !-
a
nl
o
f
9
o
N
Ii
c
@
o
No
ni
N
x
Et
JL
o
II
I
o
!-:
N
i
obo
Nooo
J
a
E
!
o
i
Nu
o
I
N
o
o-
I
o
!-
No
:r
N
i
cc
oN
i
A
?T
@
No
I
B
IN
@oo
Ia
l
ua
nT
a:r
N
I
IooN
aoo
i
4
!
o
No
Ii x
B!
x
ooa
I-
l
o
!I
N N
J
!nooN
N
oo
-
A
Ea
a
!o
:
oI
I
a
Ta
ooa
a:
a
:r
o
@oo
:
ZDE)2
f>C
7o
_uo
--n 6'-"-"c o-oaz-q-[
E rycrz- o
X:roIdP oo;r+-'cra
n
i=-€b'
=T.a-oO
lg.:.oQO:t+_a
oaot.!-.ol
Xxxxxx><xxxxxx)<
o
I
LN
G
co
I
(,
Cn
Cr
IG\]
GO
IuN
N(n
IN
@
Nu
IN
INN
o @
I@
o
I
!
o I N
a-rrlm-{
z.tr
no
o
=
on
C]
ana
a
Trlo--t
Oza
a
oz
z
c)
zo
a--ln
-o
z
6)
T)-za
ac
G]
I
@
az
CDOCz(f
nra
on
Z
6)m
onoaa
a
Trto-t
tr)ztn
on
ozo
zO
On
z
6)rrl
-D-za
xo
I
=
o
Trl
-i
l-a
no
0
=
-o-z
zO
-o
7JDI-TNa
-!
Ao
rno:
C]
mx
m{
-oo
--t
oz
-o
6)
rno
Trl
--.1n
c)
oC
--.1
aC
n
O-rl
-o
-onOX
--1m
oC
z--l
--1
TN(
o
rnz
rnn-zo:ma
--1
T
-
a
TNo
Oza
a
.-,1
zo
v0
-!r
za
-a
--1
--l
--lr
rn
aI
TN
TN
-l
z.0m
><
C]a]
a-mrn--{
U)
c00B
(,
o
o
afoo
no
s.
U',
of
IA
oo
3lo
l
l
C)oo
clo-o
I.D€ct
=(D
=o
o
=o9oa
ct
o
flii,
$iil
=9c3
.q=
&9
S4 99
li9;
J,
&
ao€.I
(,1
-6)-
5 rs
iPPr,,3*ttoo
EBeEi
PE$BQ
16ode
o
<lril3
Its
zo
Ao:.a,
o
f
?
o
oofa
-t
Co
oo
O
3
3
?.
!4o
o:
q
i
I
P
OOmT+
=
-o
o
oo
Tq
l€.
loo
7Joq.ootr
tnl
€.troo
.t
ootr
oo
o
.t oofr+-too
f
o-1lo*o
f
a
=oo
zcl
q
o @o
@
o
-_lo
N
I(!
o
!-to
oot+zo\oo
o_o
17543 11r40:07 A]',1 S:\TronProj\loo0l846l-w6st Porochute Int€rchong6\18018\D€sign\Drowings\lBolB-Stdptonlist.dgn
!9+
g .'e
^-ioo
-@ 6-
6Nd
!-
s.
^oo
N
!
-n
o
zo
3I
@o
o0
Ia
o-o
o
l-a'-
-U
j'
oo
I
0o
NO
lcl-lrlrl*oj
ot,o:
cl.
rooool:. 1
e'l
al
!t![[!!!!rD !tDD!!EDnDIDEDED tI trrrl=p
frfr*+*rF**rs HHs+,=ssssslFE** *F uu**lE=**-: r$t*ti** iii:IiIiir!ii:3I 33 =rrr
t1l(_l< -o
lm>lrn 6)lzm
! l I n E ! ! ! D E ! [ [ D D ! D r l=P
d d d d d d 6 d J A e I ; ; ; I ; I i i lflz3ts 3 ts3FT F T T T ? 33 i i i( ! (rnI J -r- J, _l-,-! * J,S J J ,. l I j j,,,N+tv=.truN-
r n I I I ! t=P
! ! ! r 3 3 lE=
:.HHI'++$5ANdi,ln5JJ
-ooC)(,<
4LCLBr.r>>@2otrI(4m>ooc(nnAna-l>>-nr
==>>'Or<--rqrrlnt)m11-H-.ts8If;
^!uz-t:-l t^2T=:G!*q,-|'l>i:=d#<:i;
omOui>bor:YAa1A;aL^'H = - ?4'I T H 13'r J"g:(" G 9;d:
4 + g=:m#:r'l rB :9s:: ;
'::t:,i:':o-1oiuP!HO&&{6,-tuoo(p(o
lnz
lTq rrr
ls=la
s l3=
O
7
a
(no-U)
(/
Q ,tAr I rJ
i-i l-.r D
d l;3:D:n:O
I
-o
-o
4o
o-
no
Oa
o
-ioI
_i
-o
TNa
a(n
<i
=rn;f,1Hrn
-rn=<c)>I --l{Eazao
;oi:C
uazTmMUmi>aZvo
aCll
rr'lA
rrl-rrl
:
Cz
a
I
rrtrrl
(,
N
aImrn--ta:
^mNy
e9
H;--lIAO-z
2o
@
ox-rl
r--OA
<A--tAC(,
--.1Cn
rrl
IA
IrClU.] /./] O-E<--lmrnro=--{or;rqx>=cA:nZ>a<o!lJ@:.lqozL->
=;-;orrg-<P'_'"'' =r2V4>\29I E:: a a iEEEEp*iJr!
I;;;t=;iE',Ho-*-=. 1'-9Pvru-UT-O:xXx*-:Nox:Q.,od9, q2l:FFF=i: fr;;-:<<(^r,(4:I5r'nrnrnH_ilrcj'. 4n7";;'. Y-i:--rif-t:v^I
:^-^aLr)'.:!o'N.NiN>r: 67:''Qm: +=.I,rn(/.lmlfi!.
- = - !),,t m.rnfim!/14:: ri Hi-i :w: : Au). _-::Ji : )-^i 9gg: tai i*-u: : : : : I!: i tig
: ' : I *el '":EH: : ; | : 89: :Eeuj: : . : : E-: : 3=:-
":.:::::Y:: u G ,, : $: N,??T,T:yUF33rs3$!xfii
--l
-o
rrl
a
a
oor-m
T
rrt
o
=r-a
-rloA
-o
-o
rrr
Im
q)
=t-r
V)
za
-o
-o
TN
CC-rrt
--.1
-!
z.
6)
@ --.1
--{ -u
m-{<n-o
', N
(^a:I.rn. rr1: --r.a
:$.(o'ls3
Im
rrl
--taI
(n
N)
I(,
oc)!A<5-of,lrrtm']nZfrl =jZroo*>c)q:r>;r-=c) m u) =>ria>Fi-.,il1;o>Evzz^-on-ooo:-a-oclr=>r
-7fr24<fr-ro-l-uT;-d6ir-ml-'m, r ltl;2*-ofHzoo="-rrr -;^ql(r-:NU!r<xH-;63:ni=Pum-€6,,;fi
IG: : : .l1Y)I H =e: ra,S 1rr :S: IS:
s d:8' i$'ao, oo :oz. oz
d^@@Ffr:..<=: : . : .
@o^:;=+',+:3r+'+tr+I o,+(llho
<c)o==>oc==4<Ai;
oni---
m)ZJ-cn-[<<a>!r8
oh-<9Q
oi
;otro
NO@
(! (l(o@
17zlm rnl<€tl-lazl -D o m - < lmo
,o D il $ { ! lozoa:E2,>m
o--r-rIrizZ;
=
H-€'<-am>!l;-izt'tt>omo.^z
rnrn>^oS.---{:Lr>(o: Uj: oi .A.^::-utl---li: c: H^l=>l,l: ai J.-l-zI r W (, lrrlLJ
:--llrnN' : g: : -r El
;:::::lz.
6 : : : : : lg-+:@:@olS.U| ? : : i ICD>o <o <b o ci cb lFlONqNO@ol;Dm
TTM('TIC)')O
o)rDZ<>:ri->>O0CJrmmzz-=-axXCDm{rn'n
nmnll 'c)!l?zznirCLi!rfrlli-->l,Xr = 6) iu r -'EI*diIaa;;3G6:;?9!;?r!3H
r ::DG-iUl,'i,./,!)
1-,;-ii+9HYE,-O-Ofrrl<:
t'Ptucri: : : I:v.
:::: :fr:
i:::;im:-.::..:LA 9: ; : : , ,FPA,. <:< :: : : : : ;9: fr:'o
. . N'- o':: E---3ba9aDb='l.tcr
--+-l-lr,l--NNB66=F3
'- txz.lrq m
r l;=
P s E lg=aE!Lnz=
_o;
a2o
=orz'-a-z.-"'.:l;
'rlr: <1,. Tr't I'. z= a.zi G 1 r--,9: 4 - l=>. m a l-Z-, 1 fr lmg. Lim P: )-:J 7::Y)Cf
::EAc=
::FO
: :*Z::E I
::,1=: tL_: B + l5X
s r s IIR
o-
aa
a
6)za
(,(o
-rul oOIrTlrn >>@ox(,trl
->H-==z>o<(,
aa9
aaa
a a-.u] u
GS ur
tn* rnfrE!F-a
dE:-l=>HF5y)*:P.o.,?
'0
:p
:i!
:N.o,o:9:i
++(nOlt+++N
I.)OC]AZoc)f,l-Tn> --rAna-rl
HO
--tlJl -HZc)OZAa
G6
4a
mc)n-I
AAva-
Oa
(,
I
o
8;XSGPallgfrz===:BS=-ic2!!=lA=EiE
;HE;E3E!E4!=:Hi;*orrnG=G_=E_u,-.>.-
aZeE "1 -fl
=
E E l 2aua
a;=il f; =EEE=frit*il:'6 Fj 2z z>^ --r-C,
i=au E 7 a2fiATi|frEEil1 7 ZT
.,*Xs 6 ig=ii2aG38EHI E "=6ilr,2: I
Y.i g!2 >: z'. [E:: =: (A
H?t, n E: aaz, *.G
=F: n E: i.: ai d: ?o5: ;-'.ipi ! i: i:!:Lr, i
i Ei ; i' i i 3: f;:F?
f tr! l g,-. i-p:iffi$a ! HEsqsr str
>@z>OI4<=
rI
*l rrro(,
-u
-4--L
fr-(4-tn6
OzoA
Trt--lm
ul
7
rrlna
--l
rn
;o:
_rlr
aI
zo
@rn
ooz
-D
OA--t
ulrrrl
o'rn
--t
-I
z.
rrln--l
ma
(n
-o
IOz
qaLnaaaqaaatAa(AAqa* * *s+ e ddiisdill do o o-rf I +A+f +f +++ +,l "! ,LJo + +,S,.!JJJJ r.* .lOOONHO+NOO*
r
N(,
(, -TI 'T 'rl -I
;rnmmTrl';----
;ueoo{oorr_-r-Yt>>
=-nalor(I,ut=no-EHli33
?J-froo.; 6zt-t-nn,-64<<-'aacrc,
NN:>>.aa
Y:'. aa
:
N:::
@:
I
NNNNN@!o,(,+
E Dt ![!D!!!!DD![
rt
no
AArrtO-.rTo- ;B_ :s-2. =(JC_OQ-S.f c h;2
V aA oBn r*J - Tt 1-6 $>T -,8f, .Z-l- zl>+ XP> >8o YP.z- a-r\JA)ATo)u IN 6 r ia-{N)_1EOzO
@
NNoo+(,
aToo
-a-no
a'.o:l
(1,
oollotr
q
g fliit$ q
:,fliiH 3EOo (D5i= E::..6' *:aE = =od - o
-= =?:; ova-*ti;3EE- E;4
=o+,=cooQ* s'
€
QiiFd;XT^Q
:Ec35
a, 3So
zo
xo
s.a
o'
f,I
,0o
6o*
@
oo:l
u)
-lco
oo-
ooq.
@)o
:t
r
x
U)
foo
Cr)cuao
al
c)
Trlztrtn-
0o
9.
o
;:
C
6)
a
-.tzI
nI
-'lJr
Za
r
(/',
-l
q
o
a
c
g
o._to
N
I(I
o
a
foo
zclq
o
N)
@o
@
-U
-to
oo
zo\c)o
o-o
1754J 4:39130 PM s:\Tronproi\loool8461-w€Bt Porochute lntorchonge\r8018\Design\orowlngs\l8ol8-RDry0l..d9n
IT
l_qlNl-
lB
lsIIlo
I
ll
.l
;l
+l
;i
=lslotol
ln
o
zo
3I
@I
@
In
C)
--t
FI
ls
l3
lr-lol=tolr
1lololalottlfl*to'lal
-U
='oo
I
0o
No
o
-U
o
o
3of
Et!
XII
c)6)oaalooog*s
lJfrO(o(o
6 A(nA
- \J!\lE (nCn(,
" -Il-ur
o6)c)o6- oo.-lo ++o)allt NNNo) NN(!
oc
a
o!o
fo
o
oo-o
o-
Jol
u
,I
I
I
I
N't
Eo
o
ooo
N
?
I
=
o)
Bo
c)
ooa
O)
N\l
t!o
6-oa
N
N
I{d
ia
!O,o
!
rrl
rrlz
-lo
rTI-{
t-
I
i
I
I
I
t!!
III<=<
6)ooltaooooac
ffl
'Or.o(o
Q !,99
- !!-.14, (,Or(n
-E -U 11C,6)oo6- oo)\lo ++o)6ltl NNNO) NN6
oc
q
o!o
fo
o
oo!o
fo
f
u
NI
Eo
o
ooo
N
o)
ol
C)
r)
oao
o)
Nq
ulo
o
oao
N
Tlnoz-{
6)rrl
n
C]
o
T
m
rrlz
-{
Um-{
r
NNN)
I-I
oc)oaiioooqsql5l(oiO(o
o @qa
- '-J!!4 (n(,(r
a" -IM)c)o6)o6- Olo!o f +O,oltl NNNO NNCD
oc
a
o!o
fo
o
oo!oI
fo
(,
?
T
=
Ng
Eo
c)
oao
N
-g-]I-lFP=A? Pi-I
ttttt
<-o--ll5'o.='o ^-j'tE : i
5 q-?'o- 6)!(/)5'f:,_ o +i :-: e b'
3a ra
60 lo6-
='Oot-oaaEo
9.
o
o
fo*116F I
?
?
bo
o
ooo
o)
Ng
Eo
o
oo
@
N
n
Ta
zo
ul
-IJ
m
rrlz-{
U
rTI-{
t-
l+
lu
I
IElf
;ol
t
---___orr
| !a5
f a o
-@;
NNd
s.
..o
o
!
oo
I
a
foo
vo
9.ofq
flii,\t s'
ili,Hi
-60 04E 3 E"_-'
q-E * e*,Fo 5dY = +?:; oyi-= +E;3T=- ox- ="6:9Edo+, 1906
q,o
6'
=(,r
n()-
:=_=- +s
fliE!E
mgSPE
=89-6
o
=
zo
no
s.a
o'l
?
U)
oo:la
-lco
oo-
i
-U
o
t-
U)rno
-loz
l4
lst;cuao
a:
--t
p.
oo
ao
g
of
AoA
l@lc
af
o
JI
a
E
c
o
a
Joo
Zclq
o
!-to
oo+
z.o\oo
o_o
o._lo
N
Iq
O
@o
@
oo
ooo
ll
Jo
ooo
li
I
I
I
i
I
lt
-__-_o
If
17543 4t4ot49 PM s:\Tronproi\loool846l-w€st Porochute Interchong€\l8ol8\0esign\Drowings\l8otE_RDTyo2.dgn
!o5
3?s
"-r o
-@dNNd
E.
-Oo
I!
!
IClf
l=
lq
t:
=lil
el]rl
-. Iolal
I
o
zo
JI
@o
@
Ino--t
o
N
q
(,
l
q
rolo
l:,, Il=
I
I
I NNNt---
/ --Ir >>>/^^^
J O6)C).atr
/ooo. cLo_c,ffl iO (I rO
a 9gg
- !!\JE ()U|o
6" ll1l-uoc)6)o6- o)Or!o ++oolrrNNNOI NN@
--{oor
C)oo
oc
(r't
o!o
o
o
oo!o
fol
(l
l'o
c)oo
?-
=>
o)
bo
o
ooo
o)
Nq
@
c)
o
qo
N
3
tra,a
loa
a
7
!a
o
z.o
I
NI
Eo
o
oo
@
N
n
rrl
rrlz-{
Um-{
F
N
;ofo
oso5
ot.oq
Nerofo
oO ta:;o'polq6-.E
+O1
J,Y ol IEo foOctutNq ;.1
q
oso
f,
o
o
p
cf
'v''
?
aOaaOO-o+6)5'c
,,o
E
EOo=
^oa)O
fiqOa
o)o
llo
of
of
--.t
!c)oC1
N(,
^ore9o6'9l*o
5
e
c)ofo
o
o
-t
o
o
3of
N
=!
Bo
c)
ooo
N
--l5.,oC
po
^ord"o^
6'1f;o
t
Eo
o
ooo
O)
-{
!oOc
I
Nq
aOaaoCIo*c)ocf=
Hq
@
N\l
ulo
o
oaa
N
noCzo
G]OC-{a
-€-I--lo-u<6)'y.' > iI
ltltt
<!---(,5'o.5'o :
='f 6 FYI +o ==5 qri''o-o
+.P
=-6'a=; :a o-
-{o o'"€,, =53F d
=Oodro
aa!oo.
oo-
o
fo*
o
E
NC).l!9
oBBiooo
-11!? o oai6qqJse9
ll
rrl
rrlz.i
Urrl-{
r
N
-tcox
l
-o
5'
Io
o
c0
No
ls
lil*l*l"
l=
lr
fl}I
rlolol
;t
=t
$tol
laIrlolol*no
-ur'
6'flal
c)o
3
3of
@
iliixr I
EIiiHE
EOo O4s B Eg o@
== + e*,io =6Y - +?-:; ouiFi +S4olirE* akE =G€do+, 1900
9,O
=E =s5Ie:il#eeFi
BEET]
i3-'oi
o3
zo
no
@'
o'
f
?
Ao:.q
og
a
oo:l
@
-tco
oo-
-{
-o
C)
t-
amo
-loz
l+
lst;cq
aot:
--t
o'o
la
q
aJ
9,
N
o
JI
a
f,oo
zc
lg
o
A
T"to
oo
-fzo\oo
o_o
o\]ON
IG
O
I
I
I
I
I
lt
ao
g
o
.t
n
@n
17543 2:13:23 PM S:\TronProj\10001846I-West Porochut6 Int6rchong€\l8ol8\oesign\0rowings\l80lB_cENrol.dgn
3?e
": q?
U@
NNd
N-a
6qt
7
-Oo
!
-o
f.
l
Oo
I
o
No
C)rrlzrrl7
t-
z.o
-{rTIa
o-n-oo
!l
o!o1+Oo=']J-'
=ooar<o
!
(/J=(DJgocoJ**oa
o
-o
o
olof
lo
o
_:.o
-(,,
fo
q-
o{
='(O
ao
oa
o
l-i;$ ffi ra1f ;[ $iffi[ iiif El
$tffi+ r; 'ii; i* +it5* + * iil {il
tri;;A rm ;+A I t*;i[ [ [ {il a[
*:;i+ i; qir ; $EEs; E i ;; ;;
ui{ ft i: q=; : :li e; r 5 i; s;
tE$g E #s igffiii ieii i*
o E=;-! il 1:5 -
:3
=il
r { p- &,o.;$19 i iff E*tg;* ;if [=il-:: ==
-li
i#g# iiff q;r;i * rIs;-s : *qi gEu#=€ i +i*q
fl-;m I ;4; $ lnqi" l: s s=
= IT€ = =i3 e Jl*li-nr1 3 +l
$31i E ill iE=H;i i'
-; -I
i+*3 E ra;:'#3+r +
=
i ., =' Ko_ o- rffl... I
: --r)Otso
-x-
:::C)o>o
!qz
!-
o
o_
rrllc
9.
=o
o_
a!Jon
q.
ot
f-<
P
U:'c
o
o_
>>r-(.o(O O Or.or.o -O.; <^
EE i''
a"a'ri
ouPooo=:aa"-co o i*6'ooi o
oo: m
1r: IAA. -oo:;
ai +-oo: 6'OO; O-aa,aai >iaNOr: !w! lr:::o
iii^.a:::oiiiti:bf
@@,i=
--"6GGrr)-
CrlC,r <f @ar-r-i o99,^-:.a a "-''. . !^
\\' v,
c)c) -<ucc6'(,
--S>.-l*f -oo.
g{
-1 O(D+oo
o
O_Al-q9
q
+(DfOcaTno:l o_(o
='o6Ao^1U
o-ca
!o
o*
o
tf-olo
lo
-oc
='oI
r-ooo*of,a
a:to:
cto
a
g ; r_. e# F[ E #F :# {i#
=#J ?n= €# {= igts # :&F
# l i 1= 5i ru;:; E!
{[3 gis #; i? ii l€ Is $;; Effi
fr;aii +n* Tii ffii #E ftf il +i Ei+ iLE [i9i q $ €+;d ;di q i+ :ad. (-- rEi
[fl i i lil E] tla l tf sffr
=1q= :"= si i.g.
'+ il iff$ ][
+fl igffiilIt i[lI*i TI
*H*l
$ iili *rt ira* [ [ *g =f d'r: € rd s1f *=d ]: : ]i [ 3i i s+ ftf
[1 ii;r;r
-i
iir iEf Ig }l r:4 [[i f {g I;,E+h B*=:u ; ==.*S rB :*;+q IE; fli fE[f==+[3i r.*,3ffi +t t; €Ft;t: =; ++33 i i fr= ,'6 t S 5[;;E3i-ri FE-;i+$fi+91[$1{f; E1+.l ;i:+-a; i+;s+-r#+i!;ii[& 3il
taST*.= $ fiE=qfl ir l; o-Ho .,E #€+5ifr; I n slq:;{ \z l? ! 1: il g E==*d1q *fi] .:+f Eig1;; l;HiI+ illc!ilsile'i',-.rqF 1Eo d 1=> [E # i= A ' I *+
o o- il o= 3= 3 b. fi = a" t ; j1 sB : I I 3E'=oo'v)'+oo
I
o
z
lI
oo
@
I
6)
TNz--lo
iIol
Cl
l
o
3o
o'l
C:.
-oooo-l
ll
=tolal
ro
_].
1.1
a
o
I
5
o-aoo
I
zo
oo-
U1:t-oo
no
s.
oo
3lof
q
Stii'Rl I
g|iiHi
EOo (Dg.a 3 E
== = =a5 - 6
*,=o =@= +A-n- o$Ie -{-6- =>a H
@ac-os=@o
o
:
!IpnB
43s-6l-'AH
o
Zo
iDo
5.
o'l
@
C)o
f
U',+'-tcot+oo-
omz
rrln
r
zo-{rna
a
f,oo
(f)
c(,ao:i
6)rnz
rnv
P
oo
o
o
;r
C
6)
Oo
9.(olo
:':
-
R
@cq
@
o
a
c
q
a
f,oo
zcloo
u
o
!o
N]
I(,
o
T-to
oo*zo\oo
o_o
17543 3:53:22 PM S:\Tronproj\10001E461-west Porochule lnterchonge\l8ol8\o€sign\orowings\18018_s0Aeo1.dgn
f a oYi9
-@ 6-
NNo-
E.
!
l-lr
l=l5le
IJlo
lol-
5
-ololil
TI
6'lal
lr
l:
l',n
ls
l(s
l.-
{
'l6lol
el
>l
=lot
olol
I
o
zolI
oo
@
Iao
ao
iIol
.U
-'
oo
I
@
No
ac
=
=r
o.Tt
!!Iox
={
m
oC
z{
+ta
oooooooao6l-5aoooaoA@Aoo6
ooo883656
AAN)@oa
oooF6noooJOOo@NOooo
PNPooooJoNO!
NON
ONNooo5005oANrioqo8S8
@@6e3JJJfaoll6'Sa.
*6daH3*2366.9;o5--oq;o65
loa
g
6'
=
AN@a@
l=ooofff!llnooo
-=fddd
ood8. 8. 8.C)c)a)oodBAe66Aooommm
-llaoocnaag8[
o66f,lf
5@N@o5
lloo65fftrnrla.a.a
fl:d6'd
odd8. 8. 8.oc)a)oodBBEd6aooo-u l, -EEEE
Oo.ooo33f!. !- !-oooooo
-E -O -O
ooooo6ooo
;=a
dEq
=EOrQ69.!*6
di@tIFsafob'soBgdog=d-o!9.E3
o
3E.o
oj
!dog
rlor;oo
:d*=
tsEo<fr:!a J=o^
o
-lttoaa
nux-o
o
N
19
Oo.o
@
i r'6
!!EJfoDo@
=4-otd8oo;fJ,o2,do:GE0'fi.3
Oe{?Ng
>-EC,@o6o=Noo5@=oo=6@
@
A)
ooo
o
ao
N
t!mlle39
rqo
-P=O=
<aE>Ol:,o!tfatso(ofo!.o
o
=!o
g
nnnooo
==loooEE6.
ooo
P;'A6fo
oofGo=a
-l -6E-(i
o
llnnoo6334ooo6.E 6.
ooo
=-a@-tBBoDSn-
I4@^.U
d:.II
nllnooo3=3ooo8 6.[ooo.Il!-Dooo
6o-6'flf
ooo
!!-o
ood
ooo
@(nu)
cacoooccooo
oooo
N4
lrllooo=alooo-.6.6.3qqg
onaqnc)
laiCBo gsa
*
no
a,
o
f
@
-U)ln
f,iixt 8
fliiH3
EOo 6{E 3 E
== + B
c= =?:; o
G-l!Ioidrg- 3"6!o 'E.]or-
900
9,O
{5_t {3
HRp.3
oSgg:
=89-5
o3
7Jo
a'o*
@
C)of
a).+-tco,+oo
zo
7)o
a'
o'
l
?
a
foo
acC'
o:l
aC
Io
o
o
;:
x
U)
oa.
@lo
x
a
T-UnclxaHT<=>=;B
o\C-
=i-{
-t
rrl
U)
ac
q
o
N)
a
c
c
a
foo
zcluo
OJ
@O
@
.U
-to
oo,+zo\oo
o_o
o!oN
I(!
o
GI
vc')-
^-lOo9-F
Noq
s.
I!
lclfl=t;l"'lilo
ol
Cl.
-o
Ooo
5..o
a
lTlo
t--l-
t:
o;
o
at
ao
q_
I
a
zo
oo
-rl
o
zolI
&o
@
IaO
ao
No
-D
-'
oo
o
@
No
aC
==r
o-Tt
!!rox
={
m
oC
z{
+
fra
ooo
655oooooo
ooN
ooo
o5A6AA
ooo
Noo
oooooo@@6${,{)
oooNNJO
ooo
ao@654ooooo NJOO
ooooooP?PNro
oooJOOooo
II]
m>zEe3oo:=oooSoo=f36:oo95
-Ic)oo<-
>3*qac
3o:
oc-oT90o6'=
^NY3+
o=-o 6':ao
3.oo
OUrr9Po'
=oE.2hi:l_qs8Ea-=q
Ba
=. 6i
=bOo
19
!99qooogo
Qaa
=@6
@@
-cc
qdE
N^NN
NO_f3rrO Cnloo
? -r,so
To!=Oq
=eod
eo -=Ig
0ag
(AA@
6@{6oflI-o'u:11 ooo=lfoa-
!^oOr)90dE!?o5ex.
{T
9.=Ooo!rQ:d
a8&fao:xg!!<-
!68f.6
-go
oJ
!
N
6
loo
c)o?
g
o
ooocccaaao0all5qoooooccc
ooo
iir
!!-ooo
NNN
6GGoooooo
666
=-f=-r
oqlm
fo-o
3reDfG)=O
qE6
-{=3EUNodN.g6
a.of
Tg
q
g
omaop
!-{
oz
no
s.a,
ofa
ool
3otr
fliiR I
iliiH3
too O
=: a 'E
=="' o
s== 3o- - o+,=@ =-x =az; o
ti;a
#E I.-6
=o.ra@o
q,O
o
=
(J{
n6)-
{
!PP,3
339q6
o3
U'
oo:)
U)
-tco
oo-
Io
5.ao+
zo
no
a.o
l
2
aJoo
acg
o::
U)C
n
ao
_o.
o
.t
xC(n
T!noxaHC3z>2.;E
o<C->H
.2.J-{
rrla
@
@
N
o
N
a
c
c
a
Joo
zclg
o
\l
!-to
oof+zo\
C)oo-o
o
r_JoN
IG
o
17543 J:53r53 PM S:\Tronproi\1000lE461-W€st Porochut€ lnt6rchonq6\l8ot8\D€sign\oroyings\t8OlE_s0AOo2.d9n
-@ 6-
NNO_
-!-q
!'
!
lclr
l=
f
o
loaof
Ct.
-oooo
l
o'
al
ITlo
N
q
oo
I
t-Noo
o-aoo
6-
:)
ol
6"1o_l
-rl
o
zoIo
oo
@
1
6)--oro-
-U
-'
0o
o
o
N)o
PI JoJ+00.24
lz
Ieloo({
o-
\
@o/
sl
n
*!
o
fi
I
o
rrl
@
8
s
lz
/ogli- oOQ+Q- C{-
o)
r\
,?
cHIltlA
oCn
rrl
U
-t
N\lI._l
(n
No
rY
C,-
(n
q
o-i
(,
:(,q
N
+€ot
N({
Uit
'j
u
(,q
o'!
+
N
G
+t
=
NI
(nq
$(!
(o
+to
e
a:toot+
no
s.a.
u(o
\]N9(o+
u
@
:(o
N
(n(o
No..J
Po+
u(o
o\'l
N._lo
No!
!:u+
No!NN
P!
@
N
\,]
N
@$iu(,
No\]N!
@:
No!(,
ou
io
@
No..J
(n
P
@+
N
.-](r
:.J(,(,
N(o
N)IN(,
\jN(ooINu
!
m
a
--,1
z
fliixl I
iliiHi
rcoo (D{4 3 E..x'*sF= =a6 - o
-: =a-q ofaa=
:ll@6{E*
="o9E
+,=@o?*oo
6'
=(r
-C)-
! "-
HlpI'3
P8$80zit9o6l-o;-., 8go
a
c)o
f
@
-1co
oo-
Ao:.ao*
no
s.
t!..
o1
?
af,oo
U1cg
ao
ai
c)
rno
rrl-in
Io
1.o
.t
c)
ooa.
6fo
;'l
r
i\
6)rno
rrl-{n
o
r
C]C
-{
c
q
o
N
a
foo
zclq
o
@
Tao
oo/+zo\ooo-o
o
!o
N
I
G
o
17543 l1:46:J6 AM S:\Tronproj\100018461-West Porochut€ Int€rchong€\l801B\0esign\0rowings\18018_GLpLol.dgn
t zozoiioloz
\
I
o
€
@
\
\
\\\+
1754J 2:20:06 PM S:\Tronproi\100018461-w€st Porochute Interchonge\18018\o6sign\Drowings\l8otB-cLpLo2.dgn
3.-9
sNa
s.
!
.D
='oo
I
o
NJo
Ca
o)
<lqEa,
d"
%it -
fi 414!g:IZ
4fl16q.77
PT 42GF7O.1E
N 593254.26
z
(,t
ct
olo
isl;
H
I
H{l. 6\to1
m@
@
sl
(J{l
bq
lot0+oo
z
cnor
tI
\P
z
(T
(n
o
CNtq
IBl;
8lc) I.N
!
6
.2o
-t@o'o
e
US
s+q
No
E
[q
a\i
k
z
uq
o
o_atu
\r
IE
h
et zg:4!!
rn
No!N(o
!
Oli(o
E i6is;+o'oo
E 2072905.80
ffi#'ffi
€ 2073928.46
I
o
zolI
@o
@
Ior-oro
Noo
f,
IClll=t'-llI+to
IJlo
lalr
cf,.
ooo-o
I-.
a
ITlolr
ll
Il0
l3lot"
Noo
o-aoo
tq
zo
o
oor+
ao
:(.a
oo
3lol
fii'xl 8
*iiH3
too OqE B E
I d@ -!st3 =o6 - o
d=
=TZn e.
ilE- ="@:9 -9
+,=coo
q,O
{5 --r +3Q;ilf,.;;aa a
;i €99q
EPrRrEi
I6o;-
o
zo
no
o'
o'
lI
a
oo:la
-!cor+oo-
a
Joo
U)co
o
a:
orrlO
TN
--.1n
6)rrlO
rrl--tn
o
r-
oCi
oo
q.
o
I
@
q
o
@
N)
o
Lr)
foo
zc
3oo
(o
T-to
oo
zo\ooo-o
O\JoN
I(i
o
b
\\\\\X\
\+
17543 2t22to6 PM s:\Tronproi\loo01E46l-west Porochute Interchonge\180I8\o6sign\Drowings\lBo1E_sITEol.dgn
17543 1:12:J5 PM Sr\Tronproj\loool8461-west Porochut€ Int€rchong€\lBolB\oesign\0rowings\18018-Roppol.dqn
1754J 3:15:55 PM sl\TronProj\lo0ol846l-w€st Porochut€ Intorchong€\t80t8\oesign\D.owings\180t8_RDppo2.d9n
17543 1:1J:J4 PM S:\Tronproj\looo1846l-west Porochut€ Interchongo\18018\Dgsign\Drowings\l8ol8_RDppo3.d9n
17543 1ll4:29 PM S:\TronProj\100018461-Wost Porochut€ lnt€rchonge\18018\Design\Drowings\180lB-RDpp04.d9n
1754J 1rl9:55 PM s:\Tronproj\1000t8461-w€st Porochut€ Interchongo\18018\D€sign\ororings\1Bot8-RDpp05.d9n
17543 3tl7t27 PM Sr\Tronproj\100018461-wsst Porochute Interchohg€\18018\0€sign\Drowings\18o18-R0pp06.dgn
17543 4t42:O2 PM S:\Tronproi\100018451-west Porochute Int€rchohg€\18018\Design\Drowings\18018-RDppoT.dgn
17543 1t21:36 PM Sr\Tronproj\100018461-West Porochut€ lnt€rchong.\18018\0€sign\0rowings\18018-RDPP08.dgn
fE
:
!a+
l!9o
ODG@
Noq
o
Cf.
l
o
lo-.ol
CI,
roooo
f,1o
Iot.
l'l
aooI
!i
o
o-
aoo
I
Zo
oo
I
o
zolo
1lt.tr
oo
(!o
@+OO
(!
o+oo
G
+oO
(n
N+oo
g
(!
3o
(l
+oo
(,
(,+oO
(,
ct+oo
G
._l
+oo
(!
a+OO
q
@+oO
(!
N
OtO
(^
N
+oo
4+,
-ic]rn
o-rl
-n
rr
MATCHLINE STA 309+OO
l
I
I
I
I.,
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
't'l
It\
/':l1li
lrllllpl
a*1l
o
ooz
--.{xor--zrrl
!
l
1
1., "-
;GI,ts'or+i3
;
I
f,
z
\:
il
iiri
ii
I
tr.
I
trIrll
I
lt
il
I
1
I
z
(,
Coo()Nb9ON-q
N(,|oex
1H
rlr!
1O
I,€,E
I
(Io
N+OO
I
I
STA 314+31i
-."--""""*-t
l
o xb ir rr'r
iisf ",\J3
.'..==.*.''***- .*^.,j
i.il
"ll
5L|
s
oCCa--l:o
--to
:E
I\]o
c)x
E
rrl
zI
o
I
Ij
.--- ......*.r.-........."......*--l --
i
t
t
ti
i
l
MATCHLINE. STA 321+00
I
Il
g
No
,
/ .lvrs=rlrt
I
l
:
. . .. ...... .i..--.- ".^ ..... ,.- ----l ,
u
oo
*l
l
I
l
I
ii/i
I
''rn" lx
a:-lz
.....-.6L..--.,-., .",..--
o:A,oCz.I
\
\
VPI=J1
ffi'
o
@
Iao-U
-oo
c0
ia6l
@
N)o
1000
C]o
o
a
f,oo
no
a,
o
fa
.)ol
3ol
a
l.-
Ooo
oo-o
I6Eo
5o
=o
--{
o
q
!o
al
o=
fliiI
i|iil
@=?1
+,a
Srg
;
A
7o€.o
(,r
76)-
IreiI
tri9SPg
EEEEJ
239-6f6o6e
o
o.
+
no
a'o+
zo
no
s.
9.o
l
2
a
oo
fa
-Ico
o
o_
a
foo
acg
:i
nO
(]
=
oo
o
o
;:
C
o
Ioa.6lo
-
7E
o
=
T-!e'a
lo
Cf
Tno-t']
rrrl
q
a5
Co
o
N
+ofr=
aa
atoo
zclg
o
o
@O
@
o\]o
N
I(r
o
1l'fo
oon
z.o\ooo-o
309+00ST
Iq
I
U1
3
3o
t.o
llo1- o-go
o
ulNo+oo.
I
I
17543 1t22t05 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-W€st Porochut€ Interchonq6\18018\O€sign\0rowings\180t8-RDPPOg.dqn
17543 1t22t29 PM S:\Tronproj\10001846l-W€st Porochute Int€rchong6\18018\Design\Drowings\18018-R0PP10.dgn
ooUo
Noq
!_
!
!
3
C
=.
f
o
lo*.
f
C:.
-oooo
f.-.o6
Tof.
l'l
aooI
ii
oo
o-
aoo
o
a
zo
oo
Io
zo-I
@
O
co
Ixo-o
-o
o
iaol
-o
5'
oo
I
@
No
OO+OO
o:i5O
+o
N+oo
IoG+OO
O
+Oo
Iou+Oo
o
ct)t
o
+o._l
+oo
+o
Co
6O
+o
@
6o
O+oo
6o
'/'
oarT-t<€81'^irI ol' t'o I- d Illru-- |
ssleHE{
P -l e)
J0 1.
g\
o
6-
@.91!1.a.
EL.=5122.55'
VPC=41G169.8
MATCHLIN
(n
+O
VPI=4
o C)
llltt
(lilUb,6 q
oiY-63
)Groo.00
:53.75
t99.88
19.15'
i
i9.88
651
--to
--lo-
I
-.1
zI
onEaa
ar-o!rrl
o
--\\\\\ ,-----
-I
-t,o
, rr1
oi -rl
'al
\rrr
US6
Urn
O-rl
Q*" E
\ ,_:_
tr-- L!
N
P(o;,-.P\
.37 \ '1
:\
\l
I
t
t
I
1
Vl -M
c:,
)\
,*^ Ii
\
j
--lo!
o-n
oC
-t
F _-v1a6\o
IPT .401+{---T---
-I
i
I
,\.t.tti'oI rrr
O-rl
-rl
rr
I
I
!
!
!
J
I
i
iP
i
6ti-Jrblo
\
\
\
\
\v\z\[! \
\o \
E .JU
-o, \ \\
'tr \ \'o' ,,. lo\\lz'\ ' 1
-{7\\,,o\,rr\
r\\zm\'.
N
f.2
n
\ Ell 1-
IHll-:, I ll=i I ull{\ I ;ll$
",Ill=
IIL{,lll
" lll
'.,
\tt
\
,/
1000
ao
I
U)
=oo.+
no
5.th,
ofa
c)ol
3oa
l
<)go-oo-o
e(DEofo
=o
o
=oE6fo
I
rcoo
frdqt€=E
a ='=+,o2
;
+,
n?6) aj-u
3 iiii
=I r.
EREI:
o
o
+
Ao
6'o*r13
'1rl+
l3-
a
foo
acg
ol:
7JO
O
=
-o
o
o
C
o
a
@
9.
@lo
-
ncl
I
=
-u-,t
loI
TnclTl
t-rrl
a
a
o
o
N
{c6.oai!
od
a
Joo
zclq
o
N)o
@o
@ ili
sTA 408+93
\, --
\
osXN
/r)
llnlt
liirll-tl,
1754J 3:21t14 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-West Porochut€ Int€r.hong6\1.8018\0esign\Drowings\18018-RDPPll.dgn
11 9o
oo
Noq
N_C
E.
o
!
.'
a
Cl.
l
o
3o-.ol
Cl.
-ooao
t.-.o
a
Iot.
l'J
(A
oo
I
fi
o
o
|*
aoo
I
zo
oo
I
o
zolI
c0o
@
IAo-o
-o
:--ool
-!:.l
oo
o
co
No
+Oo
N+oo
(^+oo
+6o
i(I
Eo
+
o,+oo
+
\,]+O
O
@+oo
+
(o+oO
No+oo
(n(,
ONoo
rlL
II
sTA 411+00
vPI-42G{-70.18
EL.=5117.35'
I
-i"
o
No
MATCHLINE
I
1
:
_L.,_
1
i
I
I
!
l
I
t
i
t
aq
U
ir
o\
t-
rilr:f
'i -...--t_-
I (rr3Qo"
I
U)
il
a
llo
t.
o
l,oaoq
o
L
l
,5
{
f,
I
r,:,,
i.,
i\
i
I
I
I
I
I
,l
I
l
I
l
:l
,l
I
I
t
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
tr
t
ln
L
A
Ca
O)
l+
l(.,l1'+r6:o
I
i
I
:
I
I: PC 416+32.82
PCC 417+$9.77
J
I
I
t:
I
I
I
INE ,;IA 411+Oo
li
9J
I
I
1l J.cflm
iolIir.rl-
I
PT
lltlllil,
I
Vt
Pi-oi
(]i
I
N)(noe
A
Nv
I\lo
=ul
I
0000
(]
o
o
a
=oo
no
a,
o:la
c)ol
3ol
a
l-
<)oo
cro-o
E
<D.(,o
3o
o
e
U'Eo-o
o
illi
Eili
t=
#q
S:g;3;
+,
no66'
(i
fr6)-
€! ,.-'-,r3;x-:Q
5*3#:
Ea,,692.2@-q6l6'6e
o3
ilr zo
7Jo
s.
oJ
?.
a
oof,a
-lco
oo
U)
Joo
ac(,ao,l
,o
O
=
oo
o
o
.t
6)
oa.ofo
r
xcl
Cf
=
-u-;>
'a
loI
!no-rl
t-m
qcq
@
o
o
N
odi
a
foo
z
lq
o
lv
@o
@
O!ON
I(!
O
-o
ao
oot+
z.o\c)oo-o
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
l
tttt
!/+
:N)l6
;3
io
I
Iyt{
/
1
rlIi.t
t'.
I
I
I
I
tl
1754J f,:35:29 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-west Porochute Int€rchong€\18018\D€sign\0rowings\I8018-RDPPt2.dgn
17543 3|37144 PM S:\lronpro.i\I00018461-W6st Porochut6 Int€rchong€\18018\Design\Drowings\18018-RDPL0t.dgn
P_q q
NNd
^Oo
!
Ct.
l
o
3o-.o:
C
f.
roooo
l.
-.o
a
To
F'
aoo
g
!i
o
o-aoo
o
zo
oo
I
o
zo
3I
@o
@
In
Cf-o-O-ool
-o
5'
Oo
I
@
No
aPI>OO<o+.o;H
e- !r
T:'N
PE?-r3
e--.l(o
axE
*E*>rbv-N
n:'N))'O+
=cs"tr.oz-h
eg5(4..J9
o(IY
-+i
@
oCvq,
,'o @oahfi
i rN--l -r 9tre;
a
I
-{
c)-oCM1(! t\)
4G-3
a --{
c-1Z--{
l-l1 *n6
-{
C]FI
aI
frr
/_
--t
ll
rn
N
U)rrlc)--t
Oz
(!
!o5ooN+
-d-(r
U HG3n ;g
ai5(,uoN5o -+
-- -JlN
b(,
c:xou)- o@5oOl+v -(rr.co
@
C\lO@'@q
oQi
-r@--{ (n
b
Co
oCa(Il
20
c)C
-t-imv
Ns
A
'.6EI PgIg !;F
- >lNn{
--t
-!
rrl
N
u)rno-{
oz.
a6s
tuE
-o3-r ir
c@o(,io
:!o -+iP(o$
!Nb9
-@r- (o
c0
N>z
0;ar^oY
-J
> 111-a
-o)Ea-o(O CDou+
!i \lI
--1
derqb
pG)
c2rno
C)
--{ oo:z-i
=Sg
tu
-(d/Q /-r
a
=oo
7o
s.a,
ofa
;orp'oo
alol
roX
aroo{o+-oI+-rl.J
\,]
+N(n;ioev!'Y
1g(!
(n
+
@
).1
(,
-(, (,;ePo+-(o7'N
'N
@
+N(n;:'r q
vNf(,N;e!N N
i'9zrov(r;-{
(soe
7
c\lo(,G9
otYv-N
1a
N(,
N>z
O;OIo\,iC
o-l
-n
q,
+(n a+(,(ro +f-o;i -di
-o -(,lIi, ib'o u
(no
!9
00 -irlo-i,o
aE5(,.- o@unoO)+v -6|,{
@o
oo(I+NI
:-
!,Nq
f-
--{
(i
)
(noo+(,|oi-o
tv
(o=
.o
q+
o
I
uo
sq
4ts
+
ai
o9
tiiBe
(Dfii Ests= =o; - o
6Y =tzi q
Eg- E
E
=oT=+zd,o
<)=Cd
7
-
a?6a.'c).F O,oN+e -{tro
, !.,}
N
3E:H 3\gut 4. F-N VN+iooD Ndi.B !B (,o
io9
N}-T
I!
rl .(n
Ca
o,
c@oa'^oHoo -+v7l Nt-{ IiNro
io<C.EI
rrl(I)
N>zao
C! cr
-Jo-l
-n
(D
C Y'O(roo..t !e4t
-N)
i,{I
n(o>:-=:-OYrql -1
;'6 N
Prqi.":F
q,i(r
N)
No
+
lsN(o
\J
io(,
;1--l I
oCAql
2o
oC--tim7
--t
ll
rrl
N
a
TNo
--{
oz
(I,
I
/1
,
N)(,sa
NN
oY
19'+N
I
: -_
HkprH
ri 3sI
i- (n
---1!O <ON? E5
X f ,.,*.8 aEEB:
c]--lz._1rn
3',
+NN)
isF
J=3
zo
Ao
G)'
o
f,I
@
oofa
Fts-tco
-loo
;EX
P'e ircYd
s!frN(,oo
o!-dr@-r i,
@
ts\
Ff,\bo
Aod\1N
&F
1N
6
au(,IOY-+
.r,!IO+
LNbo
\ Io\ 3i"
\;
N(,(,o
:.Ntn+-orc0-ri
+
(noNx:J!6e()r
a
foo
lnco
o
noooto
oo
o
o
;t
n
@n
aoa.
@lo
;t
r
x
nn(=E>Cgz19>
ulEoL rrl-l -1*Ir
fl\IL
'NN1l #i9I] <=+ll 1lYt1
1t o1L
I '.,- 't
ll, '.
ll, r
11, \il''fi/i/F/t. --{trl oii r"l
5l olTll,\ T
t,-
\t-*\
\
\
--t c)<c1l i0
rq gl
-P
0;aIo.1C
-Jolz1
3
PoI---l
-r1
A
N>z
a;aIo\.1c
-rE-lzm-n
N(,t:
n
-+(n3:fi
;T- (rl
-(r-!r
ta
)
-N) (,\ -:.]NO\3L q\ c&\ -i\--{N\-r
q
?.
o
N]
a
foo
ztrl
o
I\)
Gl
@o
@
or_toN
I(!
O
Tao
oor+zo\ooo-o
^..1.'J,Cl:O "I3aE /'-1$., 6[ E\.\ -+! orTl+v-i !
sroN
w4
6)
lon
=\%'-
T",%\
a\
\a\la\B
17543 3:40r29 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-w€st Porochute Interchonge\18018\Oesign\Droyings\t8018-ROPLO2.d9n
oo
Noq
g.
!
Ct.
l
o
fot.ol
C
l.
-ooao
I
f.*.o
a
Iol.I
U)oo
I
ti+o
o-
a
o
:1
q
zo
oo
I
o
zolI
mo
@
lAO-U-o
N
-D
='ao
o
@
No
*E$
e3fi
oCa
@
2o
oC
--{-{rrln
J
-U
rrl
N
arn
C)--t
oz
N>z
GaIo(1c
- --l
-m-n
E
eP5a:lo(.rgn:t
-(o{}
oc+o(,bI
eq*r:o
i.5
o)
-rl
rr
c@otz)i$[
o-Tvr!i+b
NNI
A
--{ o<C-or
rq ul
N>2
Eo(.lc
-J9;-n
N>2
a"rq^o:l
-i- --{tfr
-AePa.
LO Ntso)+9;3
--r rNo
o
5+@
l$lu
--.t
.NG
ts$-D -:,Ll_Og-bo
C\]a'@
oQrl-{
-N(j{s$!- "1^-{O!:L {
--t o<CllrmGl
N>2
a"
3p
o -.{2m-n
(D
Noa'n
I
N(ri-uo+
4,.
.-]
=oo.r
no
s.
@,
o:la
oo
3lo
=
\l
:,i
I
I
i
o
F++
P_.t
@
e6a;oo)-vI-
--t
I
EtiiB=
EOo (D
iia Eo6 - o*aE ='r'=; oox-s=E
TE*
=
9€
J:Laad * q'
-g o
N+!p
o)
-.J
5\f*-*-
d, !.J+./L,/(rf /'
?ag6 b
-,@u
v-d4Al.
rco =Ehivo
o1l"
@
cY'o,IF
gr'96
tr@-r bD(o
--.{ c)<CTN
rn u,
N>z
a-r4^a):J--{:
- --lzm_A
o\
f,lo^EbYiei
s1fi
--l c)<c1rf,]
rq ql
ls>z
a"Io(,lc
-Jo --lz.a
oen
(r+
oQ
--l
--'lo<Clrnrq@
N>za"
3p
E;-n
ol
cLo(,qI
ert'orb
@{1 ,-
HiF,3
_JGG iJ -
OF9QA
i89-6J-'PBo dNo
=u= Nan; Ue;& v
--{ \]
u!
HE(rqro+-+ni--l N
NNen
Ca
o,
e[5(/)bi
e3t
^l coi.i
--l o<Cllrmul
*E
A(]
3p
HIo-zx
ax5aYYo+ee&ioN
+
6'l$i>ox<oY-o;d
g 'b,
@
EEH-oQti
o4iv-@ (,
aN+
EsE-u-6
o--lPu--l
ll 8/ 3aul<o -o;
{
Ao
N){
s aegI_f.:
or]{-3
--{orn
oI
-rl
f-r
no
ooo
zo
7o
s.
9.o
l
3
a
oo
fa
-tco
oo-
+In
{o,,
a
J0o
acq
ao
nooo{o
Oo
9.
o
.t
(,
o
9.
@lo
..:
-E
xnacr>CUz.=y)
ulcl-:m
xrIt-
q
cq
a
N
o
N)
a
Joo
zcloo
NI
O
-_l()
N
I(!
o
T-to
oo
zo\ooo-o
17543 1t27t29 PM S:\Tronproj\1.00018461-West Porochute Int6rchohg€\18018\Design\Drowings\18018-CDPLOt.dqn
fEf
99o
oo
Noq
g.
os,
!
!
Cl.
f
o
3o-,ol
C
f.
roooo
=.-.o
a
ro:.I
aoo
:q
oo
o-
aoo
o
zo
oa
I
o
z
olI
-D
5'
oo
0
C^J Iott tlro I
'lt tliitttil
!l
tl
.t
l
l
il
lllte I
rup ,tfilll tlffl lLtllt I'lili t7l\ I
WI I I
lh r4 tfl r IIt = Il:i tlttilttl'e t
6ol
I
I
I
I
l/,l
I1,t
I
i7,\i ol,=lt@ll
i
T;
,' o/
rrt@t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
l
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
,l'
ii
:;ts o,> O/3:l o,,
I',II,,t'J
,l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
. --l.E
m
,c]-n
-n
r
I
I'l
t
I
I
I
. ''lt '
.. !. 1
I
I
I
I
l
I
l
I
I
I
I
t't.,:+ I ffiil[fi,
.' t.' I
I
I
l
l
I
'r .i/
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
l:il
s
I
@o
@
Ioo-o-o
ia6l
@
No
0000
oo
o
a
=oo
no
a
o'
=U'
C)ollol
@
l
<?oooo-o
a(DEo
=o
=
o
o=oEo-ct
o
rco6q30
(9 do
o=P
ge
=L-@
S4ol{
-6-;!
+,
-tic-g
-3
g gii
:.$ii
{ *_{ +a
!PphB
ni 999S
489e6
o
=
<lro loals." l3l*
zo
no
5.a
o'lI
o
oofar+'lco
oo-
aJoo
trq
ao
ti
a
s.
f,o(o
o
(]
o
o
o
l
A
@x
(,
oa.
@lo
oI
6)n
B
z.
6)
zo
Un
z.
6)
Trl
!t-
z
@
q
=
o
(n
za
li
oF
0o
alill6l-l
cl
J I*ilel6
INl(,l
or_lo
N
I(!
O
-o
-to
oor+zo\oooo
I
,lt',tiit7,(
.t: :
.t
S:\Tronproj\100018461-West Parochute Inlerchonge\18018\D€sign\0rowings\l80lE_GDPL02.dgn
l:28:59 PM Sr\Tronproj\100018461-West Porochute Int€rchonge\18018\Design\Drowings\18018-G0PL03.d9n
17543 1:29:48 PM S:\Tronproj\10001846l-W€st Porochut€ Int€rchong€\18018\D€sign\Orowings\18018-COPLO4.dgn
!7543 1t31t27 PM S!\Tronproj\100O1846l-West Porochute Int€rchonq€\18018\D6sign\Drowings\18018-C0PL05.dgn
17543 11:58:03 Al.l S:\Tronproj\100018461-Wost Porochut6 Inlerchonge\18018\Hydroulics\Drowings\t8018-HY0PP0l.dgn
fE
:
-o5
--iooGo
NlN6-
N-C
^Oo
I!
Cl.
l
o
3ot.oa
C
f.
-o
oo
l.
-.o
a
Tof.
l't(,
oo
I
ii
oo
o-
a
o
I
zo
0
o-
-n
o
zo
3I
c0o
@
II
(f-!
-o
o
iaol
ll:.l
oo
I
@
N
c) -oxn>oq, -urnoa
rno
v
P.I
A
(,
Ouo
i
t
1
uo(,o
(, (,OO!@oo
'- i'- *' '
i
lit:li
uo$oo+o l----oi
I
I
Ori+iooutoIO
(,oo,OO+.
ol
I
1TI 1
j
At
1l 5l
tol
Jai-tl
i
(, N.+:Gt o;ro{&r!.)l(rl iot
I
IG}I.oo(no
O)o
(,o
@o*S
l)f/;,I.i
I
I.-,.i
'ur,=q*uu.r,
]
(,o
@o
:
Nl+to;TolNI
Inl
TI
I
oi
z"tel
c)i
Ial{:
Gl oi
NINt+,(olotIbi+ cll+i6iot
i
I
1
i
I
I
t--ri
+oOU] (noour o)OO
i EL'
ri
!:\,)
Ic)rIX--(:: v).
Ozo,
oo(oo
0000
oo
o
a
=oo
no
5.
9,o
fa
C)o
flol
tr-
Ooo
ctao
a
<D-(,o
=o
o
o=anEo
o*,o
=
o
Eri i
Erii
sq-95
@=
+,a
Sag
;
+,
a(D(!].o=(rt
76)-
€
: ,ot- ,n3
H*FiI
5*Sf;
;Eqst
?@o;eo 3$o
5lt =lt
+le.
lI
(n
foo
C)cq
o
Un
z
c)
TN
Io
o
o
a
u)n
C]oq.
@fo
;l
o(]
on
z.
6)m
o7oaa
a
rrlo
-loz
U)
q
J
o
G
ct
of
@d
a
foo
zc
3uo
U.ro
@o
@
o\]o
N
I(,
o
T'ao
oot+zo\ooo-o
NrlA6n
ll
C)
a?-.{ 9
(,
@+{b+or3 o
+
o
(,
o
i
I
:
I
I
r
l
1
i
I
I
l
I
l
I
12'
(n
+oo
(ruoo@ooo
1,
vPr:o+45:76
Gr.=sooe .as,
!\
\
ver=r+\,s:
EL. =50 64106')
t.
II \ i6)-oi I ln.n>O| -nr TrlO,6
)nti/
,/7:/,
I
i
.
iij\'jr :
l\r(i
l\tllmllx
.'/61./ --r
:6)i
6):n -Czl, O.,:
,
:l
I
il
\\
1754J 11158154 Ail S:\Tronproj\10001.8461-W€st Porochut€ Inierchong€\18018\Hydroulics\Orowings\l8Ol8-HyDPPO2.dgn
D9+
Jl 9o
ooGo
NNd
g.
o
!
!
.'
3o
Cl.
l
o
3o-,ol
C:
=-oooo
f.-.od
To
f.I
aooI
tl
o
o-
U)ooI
a
zo
oo
I
o
zol
P
@o
@
II
O-o
-o
o
N
ia
@l
-o
:'
ao
o
@
No
o6, ...-,.
or
I
i
1
i*
A:ol
INI+l
-i ---- '
ol
i
a
:
Gi+Oo
++oo
o
Oo
:
--,]+ ...,..Oo
I
c0+=i
i
i
i
:i
@'$,)or,
i. +-oi mti ,r-i
C)j
1l?t,6uot !
I
I
i
t
-t+ro:ol
I
!
l
i/
-t /N: I
o
ll+
7
=T
o
a-{
(Jl
Gl
+
@
io!
T
Ol
n
T
a-{
(o+(o
b(o
gg
N(,OO
ii *i
/jritt!.
ll_ii,
c)-oItr>Ooi!
TTI Oarnp
-".*;"-- --*1..........;. **...l.iil
ii
Ij
I
,...............,..,..,,,j,,,,,,.,,,.,,,,,..,,',,,,,li
l:l,
....."--t-..., -."-......-
i.* .. -**l,t,t.
t
il:
ljl
1,il-'l,i,
I
,
I
qr(n(,oooo\]@@ooooo
il
i:l
il:l
i/t*
\
)
t,l:,i:/
il
* --l-o:
l:
.o
.\
3iI=10+44.15 A HYJ
.=5083.11' "'3
rn! oliri-i
I
:
(n(r(,(n
o=NGooo
J
i
i
I
(,)q
llz
!,:l
XrCT!
i
___r_tiiiiii:it*__4 _ * i*
;
VP
i
oo
mo
(,(noo(') \]900+
^i'
lol I
o1+, r6-' -" -*
o(, (,looo!oo
(,
o
9.96
i80'
Toc)i
:
.
NrltGr3
n
-U
C)
(!u)t-{5
+J+(o
cD5 Oi
;@rl
.zrO I
,no-U
1000
(,
o
o
aJoora'
no
s.
9..of
@
oo
3
3otr
l.-
<-oo
oo-o
a(D'Eo
3o
o
o
o'!Jo
o-.o
da aa 6-,^
@==
=99
? ffii
s
v?6)g-z
€! ro
Ilpr"3
#ss99
439-6f@o;a
o
5ld-lr 6lt
+ le.
lI
a
f,0o
acg
Uv
z
(.)
rn
ao
e.
o
;:
n
G]n
I0
9.
@tro
a)a
ov
z
6)rrl
o7o
u')a
(,
mo
--{
oz.a
@c
@J
N
o
(,
fcao6rr
tl.tI l-
'lHgt
o\]oN
I(,
o
ll
-!o
oortzo\
C)o
o-o
I=I+7
=5121
]VP
i=.*rn.oi
i51o9.57r
I
j
l
I
I
t
17543 12:00r00 PM Sr\Tronproj\100018461-W€st Porochut€ Int€rchonge\18018\Hyd.oulics\Drorings\1EOt8-HYOPPO3.d9n
il
!o5
!aQoC@
isN6-
N-O
=.
o
!N
Cf.
l
o
3o*,ol
C
=.-oooo
It.o
a
=ot.I
aoo
e
oo
o-aoo
g
zo
oo-
T
o
zolo
-o
-'
c,o
o
o
(,o
i
I
I
(/rn(n(J(,
olNG.tr?o o o o oIoi
O-1,
r -/ I
t/:
IOa' :rn, ,(]i to:. ,1.>,O
, i r''l
(n
O
I
I
iii
!,ii:i. . ",,., "",J."-..............-(no(,
iNGUOO
N:+!oO
i
:i
.i
(r.
+-o,
:
i:
::
5!+o)a O
]Ir,
Ti'
(o
"\./
-!
I
CD
N
;-tr:lzof
tnoi!
Oi
a?Jdr
+io.
+(oo.r iir?o3
/
\
\\
IO+o--ogoO
(Irnu(,p:lo=N(^oooo
i-o AO-!
EtA,TIioi",]:Dt>
l
i,t:
l:
ii
iil
I
(no
N(,oo
-{
6,m
7o
E
\l\l\i
I
I
I
ll
li"iililii..,
,it
61 1g, ., I
3!o
llii!il
7ll
TEi rurlj."ii
-tii
N ,ni 'xTo ti . "---.r:.ui 1-+oi 6Unr1-li-N;c)o, i i"
I
(rro(o?o+olOi
i
I
J
i
ii
i
i
I
Ti
I
l
i
f.: I
6tOi
o)i+loo
,
I
I
I
i\,]+oiol
i
l
i
I
col+6Ol
vPI:6+13.97: ;fl +5114 aor C
ll
\,\\
HIt,\1lOr1,'
m'
><
tn
--l
z:6)
lo)Jro:C:zE
vHI=5+69.23
ELi =s106.89
:li,i i/;i\ l
, t,
ll,\r"l/| / O[rli/ nX
/ >a
,. oz.
'\ oj
\
\l.".\ l\\i
co
@
I
I
o!-!oG
iaotr
co
No
0000
oo
o
a
=oo
no
o,
oJu
oollol
l
<-oo
oo-o
I(D.Eo*Jo=o
o
a.E'
o
o=o=
.f iliE' :ili Eii
:9
+,
sa
*
s
-?6)A-a
=€ -_: +3g{EF*
+^: a o
Seed:
Pg$8Q
o 6No
=
$lr =lt
+le.lI
a
f,oo
acq
o
a:
(f
7
z
(^)
rn
Oo
9.
o:l
x
@n
ooa.
@lo
o
Un
z
6)rrl
C)no
u')(t
U''rrl
C)
-.{oza
@c
a
(n
o
(!
Ic
6=
ai;
a
Joo
zc
lq
o
(,
N
@o
@
o\]oN
I(,
o
T-o
oo*zo\ooo-o
+oo
-.J
+oo
CotO
@+oO
=L+L) -7-7
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
Ij
(n
(,o
17543 l2to4t27 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461.-lVest Porochut6 Int€rchonge\18018\Hydroulics\Working\SgASINl.d9n
fEf
oo
Noq
st
H
Cl.
f
o
3o*of,
Cl.
-oooo
1.-.o
a
Io:.
l'r
aoo
I
Oo
o-aoo
I
zo
oa
:tlo
zolI
a
@
a
z-aol
-U
_-.l
oo
I
@
No
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:l
l
I
I
I
!
I
l
I
I
t'
/ ,Gl, io
,' L/ tI l,' o
,' sli, _ llil' ,=//i
!T
7Or
,' tl ,'@i
--;-ttaa
,l]t
t,t
I.,'t
I
'tl
,tf
Lif
'i
,i
iltl
,i Iii
' illlli
M
,l
il
I
'- I
I
I
I
I.t
I
I
II
IIt'.t.t
, i.. t.
It.l:t.
I
I
tt'
I
I
I
It:t:
I
I
I
l,ffitrtM
0000
oo
o
a:too
no
s.
9,ol
U)
oolIol
l-
.Jo6-
cto-o
=oEo
=(D
(>
-to
oEo
o=o
=
TOO
q86
ad -
d= =L-6
slseE
;
+,
-?c)e-a
E tii
€
lRpr"3
=CG o -
SsBc:
z:99-6l-o;o
o
9.
3
!o
a'oo
z.o
Aol.
9.o
f
2
@
ool
U)
'-tco?+oo-
af,oo
acgao
O
a.
lo
'oo
C,o
9.
o
.t
Aon
(]
oo.
6lo
c)a
aCul
Iul
a
z.
qloCz-U
x
m
U)
c
@
o
(,
@
c
c
a
foo
zc
3oo
(,(,
@o
@
O!o
N)
IG
O
Tao
oot+
z.o\
C)ooo
li. .:
:
,' j
17543 12:06:35 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-w6st Porochute lnterchonge\18018\Hydroulics\Working\SBASIN2.dgn
17543 3:42:3J PM S:\'Ironpro.i\100018461-West Porochute Iniorchonge\18018\Hydroulics\Working\SBASIN4.dgn
17543 3:44:54 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-West Porochute Int€rchong€\t8018\Hydroulics\working\SBASIN3.d9n
1754J 12tlOi40 PM Sr\Tronproj\100018461-West Porochut€ Interchonge\18018\Hydroulics\Working\SBASIN5.d9n
Sr\Tronproj\100018461-Weot Porochut€ Int6rchohg6\18018\Design\Drowings\18018_SSPL0tA.dgn
!dQo
No9
NJA
s.
^Oo
3
C:.
f
o
3o-.ol
C
l.
-oooo
tr1o
a
Io
I
a
o
I
fi
oo
o-
aog
I
zo
oo
lt
o
zolI
o
O
@
Iaa-o-o
Pool
.D
='
oo
I
c0
No
l*---.-.--r
9,sooz{
-o
iln
=.rc
=Ifrft
i+Fogo
6) -rl
2.fr
-{
=J
E
@
-=- 6'x1s6
t:ffie)ec+
@
ffiols
vN
I
\t(,l
lso6)
=z{{
-O-E
mmI-o-{r
7l c)>m<o-o
C)<
UH,0t-mm
a1'rrlo
P
\ \\
\o\\ 1r,.\, ,\
I\o
rn
@
il
l- - *l
FI ltrErraL__l
=frme
TIm
^TN
O
m
Am.U-
om
l00B
ao
o
afoo*
7o
9.o:la
C)o
3
3ol
a
tr-
<?ooaclo-o
ooEo
=o
=o
o=tnEo
cl-.o
!oo
9Qo
Q oo
o=P
ad -* q'3
e,og!d-;
=999x3;!
+,
=r?6)g-a
g flii
n ilii
{
ileri":4lroii
zFQo5
1n-;Pb 8Xio3
<lrolo
ol1... I olq
t..
zo
ao
a.ol
(/)
C)o:la
-1co
oo-
(n
foo
acgq
o
ai
9.6t.lo
Oo
o
olt
Ca
=
oo
9..olo
.t
C(A
=
a
6)z.
z.
G)
z(,
a-lv
Tz
6)
Tt-
z
a
@
I
o
@
.2. a
1;
a
foo
zclq
o
(,l
@
@o
@
O!o
N
(,
O
T1o
oot+zo\oo
o_o
\Jo
ffl6
S:\Tronproj\100018461-W6st Porochute Intorchonge\18018\Design\Drowings\18018-SSPL0l.dgn
rE3
oo
Noq
-?.
^Oos,
Cl.
l
o
3o
o'f,
Cf.
-oooo
t.-.o
a
=o
--.|r
aooIr
oo
o-(,
oo
I
zo
oo
-tlo
zo
3I
@o
@
Iaa-0-of-o
@tr
-!
-'
Oo
o
@
No
il
l
,ll
ttl.
,'o//€/
,l *t
I
I
I
Glo
U1
I
I
l
I\o
rh
@
I
l
I
!o
s
I
l
I
,i^].?
{.rt-]"
t-m
6)
rrlz0
a
C)z
zC
@rnx
t--_l
L__-l
A
Trl
O
Trl
n
Trl
o
TN
R9
Am-U
a
c)
TN
0008
oo
o
al-oo
no
s.
9.ola
.)ol
3ol
l
<)go
clo-o
C'oEo
=o=
o
o=oEo
o*.o
flii
ilri
q3
e=
+,a
SIo*=;
+,
$
-(Droo
=(,
-C)-
I "-
!PPhH
zP-oo6
:"'dH
o3
3o
alox
7Amm
=m2ar4t
7ElO{o_>u-{(]
,,' lll . :, ltl E ---
,' l,
ltliiti1!
i,!
.11
lt
I
i
CD
C)Jrda
{'
i .i
il-r
allrrlo
P
.i.-, {l\.)
r*l cl
("t^
t:i L:i
Ct
1-\-,(
"ll
l!
q
r0
@
A€o@,E {OIe tnr LJ
6
@
\
\.-.,J
/-\.,( rl\ -'r
,l -l-'
'i-- \ r'l
1-- 1 rl(' -t),
^/iI "\!!'- /'r 1 -t'v- -.*r f
,' )r.'t- )-l
( \lr' 1,\..\-{ iJ
i
I
B
I
I
II.-.5 ILr I.Jl.:.1 i
I
/\ I
)
r
o
*-
xo
ao*
zo
no
q'.
o
l
2
a
oofa
'ftro
oo-
aJoo
ac(I
o
a!
q.
ol5'o
ao
9.
o
.t
L
(,4
=
ao
9.o
f,o
.t
Ca€
a
C)z.
z
6)
zc]
a
-lv
-o
z
6)
Tr
z.
o(,o
I
o@
q
@
N
o
@
ZaC-);
ofl
}{,
f,o0
zc
3q
o
o,l(o
@o
Co
o
--1o
N
IG
o
-0:o
oor+zo\oo
o_o
,/l I!l
tl
o/9
t c.tlI o/
/ 9-I
6oI
I
I
I
l
II
tE@
17543 l2tl4t28 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-Wost Porochut6 Int€rchong€\18018\D€sign\0rowings\18018-SSPL02.dgn
AE
3
99o
oo
Noq
g.
r6"
^O
{,
H
!
C
=.
tr
o
lo-,of
C:.
-oooo
l
-.o
a
Iot.
l'l
aoo
g
ii
oo
o-
(n
ogI
@
zo
oo
-rl
o
z
lI
oo
@
Iaa-U-o
Noo
l
.D
-'
oo
g
o
No
O\
ro I
<Nl 'EEl> ^ r-j---:i+.,
z!U
t:
i
l
l
0
l,ll tsli ll vi/l nnI ll 1*lll Hq
,,''/ ll E"
AI1I *,,
GINo+oo
lltlg
l
l
a
n
o
!
I
I
i,It
t'llt,
l'l1l
It
tl
li
tl
Itl
!tl',
ii,
ri
tl1t
liti
11
Ill
ltlf:Jiolrli5l
rcl'i.
I;l
jll1
I
I
I
I
l
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tI
o/(J) r
3/oi
l
I
!
i
M/'./" i/rro
I
l
l
!
/
!
1
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
/'//
t;
11
I
rlIH lil!Or11.l tTl rl@r
1l
1i
IlI.tllr
I
I
I
I
/
/
i
i
."////
/
!
I
I
!
I
I
I
le'l?."_ _-
,'l; '
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
l
I
l
l
Effi
!>
i
I
I'
t
l---l ri ttre
L--J
a l-rl{oli
r'l' {
eJq
l
ri
tl
1
L
I
1
I
ot
I
U)
oz
ZC
o
Tfl
7
Aq
7
Trl
o
m
',', i\\iiii
i\i
\r!\t\\\i
\\\
,]\i
\\\
Ll ii\i
't\i\,\ l
\ri
,ll
il,'
lt .1
1 i' '' r'-
i/i \'
l\'"-\\
'\ t
\i
,,,l
l\
il
i1
11
J \,.
,'1\
It
\t
11
\r
\r
)Jr
-
m
Q
7Jn-!-
c)
Trl
1
I
I
,,1
\\
\\
\1l\
/\ c Irr@l
i \,\
r\
\"i\rl.k'\ \Fli\f,
r \l \Fn I .lI \r lFI} 11'
llrli'ntilr lFlllFllt Iilrll'rl llt tx ll',!, tl,' l',l ti'it fItlil
it,
t:
,l'
tl:
[,
I(,o
I
o
ii
c00B
oo
o
a
=oo
7o
s.
9.,of
<n
()
o:lol
)
Ooa-
oo-o
(f(DEo
=!P
o
o
@_ico
ct
o
=
nii
ilii
+,a
Slo
;
&
v(D6o
=(,/
-6)-
{: -_
YIPrH
rEqgEl-oi-ij g{
o3
o
+
A0
q'
oo
zo
no
,!'-
o
f
?.
a
C)of
U'
1
Co
oo-
a
f,oo
6cg
o
C'.ol5'o
oo
q-
o:l
Ca{
ooa.
6tro
C(n{
a
6)z.z
C)
zI
a-{n
.E
z
6)
nr
z
@
qJo
?.
(!
o
@
gT
ic
6e
a@
a
fo
o
zclg
0
+o
@o
@
\Jo
N
I(,
o
Tao
oo,+
z.o\oo
o_o
I
I
I
I
/{itrH
tv
!
I
I
'./
i
i
,m'[[)r
=
17543 12t'Ot47 PM S:\Tronproj\100O1846t-West Porochute Int€rchong€\18018\D€sign\0rowings\18018-SSPL02A.dgn
iE3
oo
NNd
E.
9
B
!
Cf,.
f
o
lor.ol
Cl.
rooooI
l.-.o
a
Iot.I
aoo
I
oo
o-q
oo
e
zo
oo-
o
zolI
@
O
@
I(f)a-o-oN
Paotr
-!
f.l
C,o
I
@
No
i
i
I
I
'i
i
L
\
I
I
I
\\ i\iilir,l!11 i,t\, \liiItlt1\
li fl\i\\ilr 1It{11i\lr\\l,\l
lL
lrrl
\i,lir
I,,rlli
\i
\\
ll,,i\
ll
l1
tl
ll
it
/,' :'
itiil\'.,*
\r
t1
\\
\\,l
l\li
ti,l
lr
i\l
*X liIEt il#J r\
\t
ti
it
it
it
it
11
i1"11
It
it
/t
ir
It
"\\\\,\\i
ill
\ \\\
I i1\
'il\i
\\'\
I \ i ,.
: \ \ t'\, \\
\\',\Iit"'Iri'l\\\
t\\!r\I i',llI \\,,
t'1rirlill
ll\.lr
i,i ' I{. ll Irl,tl') i il \I '-' r \ i-,tlrt,'i\rr r/ \ li
, l)'t li'' -..'i r "r ll,,_,/ \ .l ,l
-,.' , I rL
-,-- r ,, | ,\/ lla I \l \r tF,
- z, d*.**r r I \. ,l-frYI [ ; ll ,ll rf
<FE E r- 'l i. '1.ErE E I lr Jl l'20r[__-._J . II ]i tt' i, ''] r[i rr ,ll ll'i ll t il'i ,' I ll ;l
: ! I l, li,| /' dj I: ll lt lP': tl ]i $
.,iu 'll 1l ,'ir"\ ' rr '1,' ,i.
,'"*f,wl ' l/ Jr c it F t tl l,@,1r* i' I 7'orl,\."/.ttt\ / ,l I l,
i ^r \ ," ,, lt ,:l'\,' ,'," l: :f, \ ,7 ,t'i I'
,,\ l, /L,'--''' 'zl\ ,ll Ir -i-.-.-L ,,r' \ lt il,.' // \ i' 1l- - /- \,1 it'
. --. \. tt,ll ,'l':. : ,. l/,
I t ,r,' ! ' ,.'l' rr--/ rl tI 'it =:lusI,' ; rl 28[*"{il-l
"l'
-*T*
'i; , li, --.-i r ,,1. --.,'',t,' il*"''tt ! '!-I I tlQr I l!,L',t''l tf'... 'l ll\lttti\ ]t I t,t,\ -/' tt\l ,,f',tt I U'
o" , ,'l/ t' rltjr , lL,! .t,.1 t lLILi,i, lhI i rl'l t ,ttI !1.
=t
@I
crE
4i
.( l,
=I-mG?lL^ZG9
ll
.l)'r r'
+
+
+
+
+
't-
+
I'
l-
+
i-
+
1-
l+
-t-
-f
+t
-1-
1.i
+
I'+
1't+
+
-l'
+
I
+
-1"
ilt
l1.l
tii
lrl, lli,\l"li lrlr ttt
lr r lilt
l+iz .llt'\rr\ ril\ tri
lil\ ritlrt\lil
+
.l-
1'
+
-1
-l-
i-t-
+
-f
I
-1'
.t-
'1-
l
-l'
i
I'
-1-
+
i
t
-l
-l
1t
-l
l
.i.
'+
I
t
l---l ri ltre
L__J
It
6)z
zC
(D
TNA
nmzo
Trl
7Jm
O
Trl
e9
n
Trl-or
C)
TN
c000
oo
o
U)
=oo
vo
s.a,
o:la
o
3lo
l
a
tr.
Oo6-
ctoo
q,
(DEcl
=(D
o
o
o-oo
odio
=
EOO
930
96 -*qE
L-@
=999
;
+,
-?6)*
-3
ii
ii
-o€.o
=Cd
:
{ :a
iePh:ll- oii
zP9a6l6oido 6No3
o
+
Ao
6'o*
zo
no
s.
o'
lI
o
oo:la-+-ttro
oo
aJoo
acg
o::
a
ozz
C)
oo
9.
o
:t
La
=
oo
9.olo
.t
Ca
=
a
C)z.
z.
C)
z.(f
U)-{A
Tz
C)
Tt-
z.
ac
a
o
@
a
c
c
o
U)
foo
zclg
o
+
@o
@
o..,]o
N)
IG
o
Tao
oot+zo\
C)ooo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-t.
I)
\,\AJLV
-rla
n9
Q-{
C)m
Clg
o
17543 2r54t42 PM S:\lronproj\10001846t-Wsst Porochute Interchong€\18018\Design\Drowings\18018-SSPL04.d9n
17543 12t34tOC PM Sr\Tronproj\100018461-West Poroch!te lnterchonq6\18018\0esign\Drowings\18018-SSPL03.d9n
17543 12135t29 PM S:\Tronproj\1O0018461-West Porochut6 Interchong€\18018\0€sign\0rowings\18018-SSPL05.dgn
!a+
ooGG
Noq
E,
^Oo
I
3
Cf.
l
o
3o-.ol
Cl.
-ooo0
:.-,o
a
Iot.
1.1
ao
o_
I
:i
Oo
o-
aoo
g
zo
oo
I
o
zolI
T)
-'
oo
o
l1\l1\11114i ll
\o\t, rrl \\l @ r
\i I
W,
i
\
\l
\\tir\\,\\\."i
\'\
\\\
\,1
\\\\ r 1.
\i
\ii\'1\\I
,\\
\,\
i\\
\\r
\i\i\\
\1
\\i
\\,
\i\
,,\\
\\\
,,\t,,,
iril
.til'l
I
t,\\l
i'i1,, I
rlllr\,il ,-ll r' ..r\1 iOl I
. \L\r-{ ri>l
,C)llrqt \
\P' iro', l\>r,(rr Ii\i '1i\
,iitir\
l'r\r\t,\Iriii,lrtl
\i\i,I
\\\
\r\
\\\un\ i \'-?
\\6\r\o
\,\\T\
\\\
\\\
|--_.]ll-I rtrEt16L--l 1
1\\
\,\
\\\
\r
a
oz
zC
G]
TNA
I
I
I
I
7n
o
Tr"l
V
I
I
:r, I
I'lItL
I
I
--eir
-.4-- I
I
I
D
\)
'ii,;....
A
Tq
o
Trl
a
TN-!-
o
Trl
i
Iiilsl'llJ
l-l ,'o ll= \\o It'
\\Ii
oo
@
I
C)
<f).U-o9ool
CO
No
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1
l
I
l
\
\
l
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
1
t
I
\
\
\
, \ai
\
\
\
I
l
I
l
I
Ni
(nl
6or
t
\
I
\
\
\
qll Nq
l
t" )
t1nn
/
/lt,/
'l
7
o lr=
I5-
{,-
t_.i
,n
INml
l>^
Z-
Ll tir
'l , 7<a!,-o
l,l
il t'l Ir1
I
I
I
I
t.
I
\
I
\
I
t,
I
I
* *U!
*l*. K g*l
"*' + u
l00B
illilli l' sll N)i '-It e' llll 5iolt ol=ll
I ,I\-:
1il1
I
I
I
l
+
(nIo
+
o
6o
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
l
i
I
ao
tl
a
=oo
vo
U'.
o
fa
C)ollo
l
a
l-
a)oooo-o
E(DEo
3o=o
o=q-Eo
o+.o
too
930I d@
q,5
=9= -
=99
;
+,
-?C,3j-E
i tii
{ --5 ::
! t P,':
zP9-61E-deb 8Xic
a.*
no
6o*
zo
no
s.
Lo
lI
a
C)o
:l
@
-tco
oo-
a
Joo
aco
o
al
c,.o)
5'o
oo
9.
o
;t
La
=
oo
9.olo
:r
C
6
=
a
C)z.
z.
6)
z.0
a-ln
-]J
zc)
Tr
z.
@c
q
\]
o
@
a
c
c
o
a
Joo
zclq
o
I+
@o
00
o
-_lo
N
I(,
o
!ao
oo
a+zo\()
o
o_o
\
I
I
I
i
I
I
\
\
\
i
\
l
Ni
N),O,+lOioi
\
\
\
I
alo7_a
#nr\a--
-rnbTc)'Io-oz
uffiuffi
L .,,,,1rIrF rtrr i
tr
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
{'
F
!.
\,
I
[,
I
I
I
i
I
t7543 12136124 PM S:\Tronproj\100018461-West Porochute Interchonge\18018\0€sign\Drowings\180f8-SSPL06.dgn
fE
3
!o5
QO
Noq
{J
x
!
!
C
a.
l
o
3ot,ol
C
f.
-ooo-o
L-.
6
Iot.I
aoo
o
ii
oo
o-
aooI
@
zo
oo
I
o
zo
JI
@o
@
Iaa-Ur
o
ia
@l
-u
-'
oo
I
@
No
{ lrl
lilltitlrclla l
io,it/lilr
lli
\\,
irrlli
.!.'| )ttlrli"
ti
I,],rll+liltllli
Tl{loi
I2" iol IriIttirllr
lrlrl'il+
I
I
l
I
I
I
rillti
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
l
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
t..' )+i(.
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
I{o
rnE
\\
\
t
1" ,
{l
aN
I
!
UI
l
rE
a-o
TNo
f-
a-o
TNo
-
(J-
t-----]llrI ttrErraL__J \
=I
\.1o
noa
nlnmm<m2amfr
pFl
Oic)>\-{oz
mx
-{
ru
@-a EEooE=9fftg6
@
(n
6)z.
zC
omn
Agcto
=zr-{iofio
m rriIr{r
7rc)> rrt
=(,1'H
8=vrm rrl
n
an
O
m
a'o
rflo
F
nrn
O
TN
)Jm-o
r-
o
TN
- -od=E
l00B
ao
I
a
=oo
no
s.U'.
o
=a
oo
3
3ol
l-
Ooo
oo-o
a(D.Eo
=(o
=
o
o
=@Eo
cl-.o=
!-o
oQo
od -
d6ts =J, a*ts;B
;!
dh-E
f flii
:. ilii
:3 p.
UPP*H
EsnIi
16-aP
o3
5lda l5.lI
zo
Ao
a.o
l
2
@
oo
=a
-tco
oo
a
f,0o
tncg
aol:
q.ot.lo
ao
o
o
;t
La
=
Uo
9.
@lo
Ca
=
u't
6)z.
z.o
z(]
U)
--tA
Tzo
-U
r-
Z.
qc
aJ
o
@
o
o
za
=o
@a
a
foo
zc
3ro
Aul
@o
@
O--lo
N)
I(!
O
T:o
oo
zo\ooo-o
/ni
:t
1
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I\lo
mq)
I,1l1
t\
I
1\
\\\'lr\r
il<rl In' \iol Iz"1-{\ i r> \\c)i I
l frll r 1I a\ \l
tO\1 Bi