North I-25 EIS, ROD 2us85douglascounty.com/wp-content/uploads/Socioeconomics-TR_M… · 37 improvements beyond 2020 are in the PEL study document. Socioeconomics Technical Report

May 2017

2002 SOUTH I-25 CORRIDOR AND US 85 CORRIDOR RECORD OF DECISION 1

REEVALUATION AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 2

US 85 Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 3

4

Socioeconomics Technical Report 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Prepared for: 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Prepared by: 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

May 2017 36

37

Socioeconomics Technical Report

May 2017

REEVALUATION AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

TOC-i

CONTENTS 1

Page No. 2

1.0 Introduction/Background ......................................................................................... 1 3

1.1 History ........................................................................................................................ 1 4

1.2 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2 5

1.3 Purpose for Reevaluation ........................................................................................... 2 6

2.0 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 5 7

Methodology .............................................................................................................. 5 8

2.1 Summary of Resource from FEIS/ROD ...................................................................... 5 9

2.2 Changes in Laws, Regulations or Guidance since FEIS/ROD .................................... 5 10

CDOT ......................................................................................................................... 5 11

FHWA ........................................................................................................................ 5 12

2.3 Change in Resource Base since FEIS/ROD ............................................................... 6 13

Growth Projections ..................................................................................................... 6 14

Environmental Justice ................................................................................................ 6 15

Lifestyle and Neighborhoods .....................................................................................11 16

Economic Development ............................................................................................11 17

3.0 Description of the Alternatives ............................................................................... 12 18

3.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................12 19

3.2 Refined Selected Alternative .....................................................................................12 20

Design Changes Included in the Refined Selected Alternative ..................................13 21

4.0 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 20 22

4.1 Summary of Impacts from FEIS/ROD ........................................................................20 23

4.2 Changes in Impacts since FEIS/ROD ........................................................................21 24

Noise .........................................................................................................................21 25

Visual ........................................................................................................................21 26

Access and Travel Patterns ......................................................................................21 27

Business Conditions ..................................................................................................22 28

Right-of-Way .............................................................................................................22 29

Environmental Justice ...............................................................................................23 30

Significance of Change .............................................................................................23 31

4.3 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................23 32

4.4 Summary of Mitigation from FEIS/ROD and Changes in Mitigation since FEIS/ROD 23 33

5.0 Public and Agency Coordination Conducted ......................................................... 25 34

5.1 Stakeholder and General Public Coordination ...........................................................25 35

Corridor Stakeholder Group (CSG) ...........................................................................25 36

Regional Stakeholder Outreach (including Environmental Justice Communities) ......25 37

General Public ..........................................................................................................25 38

6.0 References ............................................................................................................ 27 39

40

41


May 2017


TOC-ii

Figures 1

Figure 1. Status of US 85 Corridor Segments ........................................................................ 3 2

Figure 2. US 85 Reevaluation Study Area .............................................................................. 4 3

Figure 3. Minority and LEP Populations in the Study Area, 2010 and 2013 ............................ 8 4

Figure 4. Low-Income Populations in the Study Area, 2013 ..................................................10 5

Figure 5. Refined Selected Alternative Typical Section .........................................................13 6

Figure 6. US 85 Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 Refined Selected Alternative ...............14 7

Figure 7. Changes in Access and Turning Movements .........................................................15 8

Figure 8. Highlands Ranch Parkway Continuous Flow Intersection .......................................16 9

Figure 9. Town Center Drive Continuous Flow Intersection ...................................................16 10

Figure 10. Highlands Ranch Parkway Continuous Flow Intersection U-Turn Access ...............17 11

Figure 11. Town Center Drive Continuous Flow Intersection U-Turn Access...........................17 12

Figure 12. Combined Access for Spring Gulch Equestrian Facility and Grace Presbyterian 13

Church ...................................................................................................................18 14

Figure 13. High Line Canal Trail Grade-separated Crossing: Existing Condition and Future 15

Condition Simulation ..............................................................................................20 16

Tables 17

Table 1. Mitigation Measures from the 2002 FEIS/ROD and the Reevaluation ....................24 18

19


May 2017


Acronyms-i

Acronyms and Abbreviations 1

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 2

C-470 Colorado State Highway 470 3

CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation 4

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 5

CSG Corridor Stakeholder Group 6

DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments 7

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 8

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 9

I-25 Interstate 25 10

LEP Limited English Proficiency 11

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 12

PEL Planning and Environmental Linkages 13

ROD Record of Decision 14

US 85 U.S. Highway 85 15

16


May 2017


1

1.0 Introduction/Background 1

1.1 History 2

The United States Highway 85 (US 85) South Corridor extends 25.5 miles from Interstate 25 3

(I-25) in Denver to the Town of Castle Rock in Douglas County. From a regional perspective, 4

this corridor is a multimodal major arterial for longer-distance, regional trips. The corridor also 5

provides access to numerous commercial and residential developments that are crucial to 6

Douglas County’s economy. 7

In May 2001, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway 8

Administration (FHWA) completed the South I-25/US 85 Final Environmental Impact Statement 9

(FEIS) (CDOT 2001a). A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in August 2001 that selected 10

the Preferred Alternative from the FEIS, referred to as the Selected Alternative. A Revised 11

Record of Decision was signed in 2002. There were no changes to the Selected Alternative in 12

the 2001 ROD in the 2002 Revised ROD (CDOT 2002). 13

The FEIS/ROD outlined a set of improvements to address transportation needs for a 2020 14

horizon year along US 85 from approximately Meadows Parkway to Blakeland Drive. Since 15

then, Douglas County has helped provide funding to CDOT to combine with their own funding to 16

design and construct six segments of the Selected Alternative from the FEIS/ROD. In addition, 17

funding has been provided to improve sections of I-25. 18

The US 85 Corridor segments and their status are shown in Figure 1. 19

As additional residential and commercial growth occurs in the northwest portion of the county, 20

further studies have been conducted to identify what transportation improvements are 21

necessary to support the development. Douglas County is conducting two separate but 22

coordinated studies of US 85. 23

The US 85 Corridor Improvements Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study 24

Report (Douglas County 2016) updated the 2002 FEIS/ROD recommendations for 25

transportation improvements to US 85 from approximately State Highway 67 (SH 67) in 26

Sedalia to 0.5 mile north of County Line Road. The PEL study identified the long-term 27

transportation needs beyond 2040. It was done primarily to determine what improvements 28

are needed in addition to those selected in the FEIS/ROD. The PEL study defined a 29

Purpose and Need, developed and evaluated a set of alternatives, and recommended 30

improvements for the study area. Near-term improvements to 2020 include providing six 31

through lanes with continuous flow intersections between Highlands Ranch Parkway and 32

Colorado State Highway 470 (C-470) (which includes a multiuse path on the east side of US 33

85) and providing six through lanes from C-470 to 1,200 feet north of County Line Road 34

(including a new bridge over C-470, a grade-separated Centennial Trail, and a flyover ramp 35

for northbound to westbound traffic). More details about the recommendations and 36

improvements beyond 2020 are in the PEL study document. 37


May 2017

2002 South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor Record of Decision Reevaluation and Section 4(f) Evaluation


The Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 Project is another segment of the FEIS/ROD 1

Selected Alternative. Douglas County obtained funding from the Denver Regional Council of 2

Governments (DRCOG) to construct this project beginning in 2019. Before design can 3

proceed, the 2002 FEIS/ROD needs to be reevaluated to reflect current conditions. This 4

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reevaluation determines if the findings from the 5

FEIS/ROD remain valid, so that this segment of the FEIS/ROD Selected Alternative can 6

proceed to final design and construction. 7

1.2 Study Area 8

The approximate 312-acre environmental resource study area for this NEPA Reevaluation is 9

located in Douglas County along two miles of US 85, from Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470. 10

The study area begins approximately 1,900 feet south of the intersection of US 85 and 11

Highlands Ranch Parkway and extends north to C-470, as shown in Figure 2. The eastern and 12

western boundaries vary along the length of the study area but extend an average of 500 feet to 13

700 feet in either direction of US 85. The boundaries were set to encompass areas on either 14

side of US 85 associated with the Refined Selected Alternative improvements to be evaluated 15

for direct and indirect impacts. 16

1.3 Purpose for Reevaluation 17

The purpose for this Reevaluation is to reevaluate the 2002 FEIS/ROD to address changes to 18

conditions that have occurred since it was issued by FHWA, and to reanalyze impacts of 19

recommended improvements for the Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 project. The 20

Reevaluation uses data from the most recent fiscally constrained 2040 Regional Transportation 21

Plan. The FEIS/ROD used data from the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. The Reevaluation 22

identifies changed existing and future conditions; identifies a refined Selected Alternative for 23

improvements to improve capacity, operational performance and safety for traffic volumes in 24

2040; identifies changes in legislation, regulations, and guidance related to the improvements; 25

reanalyzes impacts; and develops needed changes to the mitigation measures identified in the 26

FEIS/ROD. 27

28


May 2017



Figure 1. Status of US 85 Corridor Segments

Source: HDR 2016.

1


May 2017



Figure 2. US 85 Reevaluation Study Area

Source: HDR 2016.

1


May 2017



2.0 Affected Environment 1

Methodology 2

2.1 Summary of Resource from FEIS/ROD 3

The FEIS/ROD evaluated socioeconomic conditions for the US 85 Corridor on the county level 4

using a 2020 horizon year. In 1999, the population in Douglas County was estimated at 221,774 5

and projected to grow to between 356,716 and 385,685 by 2020. Using data from the 1990 6

Census, the US 85 Corridor was identified as having slightly higher concentrations of minority 7

and low-income populations when compared to the rest of Douglas County. The FEIS/ROD also 8

noted that the 1996 Douglas County Master Plan stated that no additional urban development 9

beyond what was already approved would occur west of US 85 because of the existing 10

inventory of approved development and the major cost to provide infrastructure and services to 11

this area. 12

2.2 Changes in Laws, Regulations or Guidance since FEIS/ROD 13

Since the preparation of the FEIS/ROD, laws and regulations regarding the analysis of 14

socioeconomic resources have not changed. However, CDOT and FHWA have released the 15

following guidance, resulting in more complex analysis processes. 16

CDOT 17

CDOT’s 2001 NEPA Manual provided guidance on preparing and processing documents that 18

comply with NEPA and other applicable state and federal environmental laws affecting 19

transportation projects in Colorado. Chapter 9 of the manual had detailed resource-specific 20

information, including a section on social resources and environmental justice. Chapter 9 was 21

last updated in July 2015 but did not include any changes to social resources. 22

The update of Chapter 9 in 2015 of the CDOT NEPA Manual (CDOT 2014) establishes a 23

detailed methodology for the identification of minority, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 24

low-income populations; the determination of effects to protected populations; mitigation 25

measures; and public involvement. CDOT also requires that U.S. Census data be supplemented 26

with other data sources to determine the presence of minority, LEP, and low-income 27

populations. 28

FHWA 29

In December 2011, FHWA’s Guidance on environmental justice and NEPA was signed to 30

supplement FHWA’s Technical Advisory 6640.8A (FHWA 2011). The document provides 31

guidance on the process for addressing environmental justice and includes documentation 32

requirements for NEPA studies. It directs the analysis to consider only those adverse effects 33

that remain after mitigation is considered when evaluating disproportionately high and adverse 34

effects. 35

In June 2012, FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 36

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (FHWA 2012), replaced the 1998 FHWA 37

Order of the same name (FHWA Order 6640.23). The 2012 Order establishes policies and 38


May 2017



procedures for FHWA to use in complying with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 1

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated 2

February 11, 1994. 3

2.3 Change in Resource Base since FEIS/ROD 4

Growth Projections 5

Low- and moderate-growth scenarios for Douglas County presented in the FEIS/ROD were 6

obtained from the 2000 Douglas County Population and Development Report. In 2020, Douglas 7

County population was projected to grow between 356,700 and 385,690. 8

Recent DRCOG 2040 forecasts indicate the Douglas County population will grow by 136,000 9

persons from 2015 to 2040, for a total of 474,000 people. The build-out of the Chatfield Basin 10

would add another 36,000 people, for a total population of 510,000. Employment in Douglas 11

County will increase to 242,000 per the DRCOG forecasts, and the build-out of Chatfield Basin 12

would add another 4,000 for a total of 246,000 employees. 13

Environmental Justice 14

Methodology 15

Since the FEIS/ROD was completed, the methodologies to identify environmental justice 16

populations have improved. To identify the presence of environmental justice populations for 17

this Reevaluation, an environmental justice study area was established that included census 18

block groups that intersected with the area approximately 0.25 mile from the Reevaluation study 19

area. This area was established because it is generally assumed that project-induced impacts, 20

particularly those experienced during construction activities, would be concentrated within these 21

areas. Therefore, this is the study area that applies for the following discussions with regard to 22

current conditions. 23

As described in Chapter 9 of the CDOT NEPA Manual (CDOT 2014), after impacts and 24

mitigation efforts have been identified within the study area, a determination must be made as to 25

whether each alternative will create disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and 26

low income populations. A disproportionately high and adverse effect is an adverse effect or 27

impact that would be: 28

Predominantly borne by minority and/or low-income populations; or 29

Will be suffered by minority and/or low-income populations and is appreciably more severe 30

or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect suffered by the non-minority population 31

and/or non-low income population. 32

Many factors are taken into consideration for this analysis, including effects on: 33

Health. 34

Natural and physical environment. 35

Significance of the risk or rate of exposure to health hazards or environmental effects. 36


May 2017



A project’s benefits and mitigation to any adverse effects are considered in addition to the 1

adverse effects. If impacts on environmental justice communities are still found to be 2

disproportionately high and adverse with everything taken into account, there must be a 3

substantial public need for the project with no reasonable alternatives in order for it to be 4

approved. 5

Minority Populations 6

FEIS/ROD Conditions 7

The FEIS/ROD used the 1990 Census to identify minority populations. At the time, 5.2 percent 8

of Douglas County residents identified themselves as being of a minority, notably lower than the 9

Colorado average of 19.1 percent. Although percentages of minorities tended to be slightly 10

higher along the US 85 Corridor at 5.1 to 6.3 percent, they were still well below the state 11

average. Methodologies for determining environmental justice populations were not fully 12

developed at the time of the FEIS, so specific environmental justice populations were not 13

identified. 14

Current Conditions 15

In the 2010 Census, 14.8 percent of Douglas County residents identified themselves as being of 16

a minority, 9.6 percentage points higher than in 1990. The share of Douglas County residents 17

who identify themselves as being of a minority is approximately half that of the percentage in 18

Colorado overall. The minority threshold is a percentage of minority populations greater than the 19

county average; which is 14.8 percent. Census blocks that exceed the county threshold are 20

located east of US 85 and generally adjacent to Highlands Ranch Parkway and Town Center 21

Drive. Minority populations in the Reevaluation study area are shown in Figure 3. 22

Low-income Populations 23


At the time of the 1990 Census, the percentage of Douglas County residents living below the 25

poverty line was 3.1 percent, notably lower than the Colorado average. Therefore the area was 26

not considered to have a low-income population that met the requirements for environmental 27

justice. 28


Douglas County has consistently reported a per capita income higher than many, and at times 30

all, other Colorado counties. Between 2000 and 2013, the per capita income in Douglas County 31

increased 69.6 percent to $75,747. This is notably higher than the Colorado average of 32

$31,109. In 2013, the Douglas County median family income of $112,930 was more than 33

$40,000 higher than the state average. 34

In 2013, the percentage of those living below the poverty line in both Douglas County and 35

Colorado decreased slightly. However, the percentage of Douglas County residents living below 36

the poverty line remains notably lower than the state average. 37

38


May 2017



Figure 3. Minority and LEP Populations in the Study Area, 2010 and 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, HDR 2016.

1


May 2017



The low-income threshold is a household income at or below the US Department of Housing 1

and Urban Development poverty guidelines. The low-income threshold is 7.11 percent in 2

Douglas County. Census block groups south of C-470 and/or west of US 85 contain a higher 3

concentration of those living below the poverty line than the Douglas County average (4). 4

LEP Populations 5


The FEIS/ROD did not present information specific to LEP populations. 7


LEP refers to individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a 9

limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. These individuals may be entitled to 10

language assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or encounter. The 11

identification of LEP populations plays an essential role in the development of public 12

involvement processes that are inclusive and meaningful for all affected populations. 13

There are seven census block groups located in the study area, all of which exceed the county 14

threshold (see Figure 4). A specific concentration of LEP populations in specific areas along the 15

corridor was not identified, although Hispanic populations are concentrated on either side of US 16

85. This information was used to assist with public involvement and outreach techniques, as 17

described in Section 5.0. 18

Community Resources 19

Supplemental data sources were reviewed. These identified the following community resources 20

in the study area that may serve as a resource to low-income, minority, or LEP populations. 21

These resources also serve other populations in and around the study area. 22

The Crisis Center in Douglas County serves the populations within the Reevaluation study 23

area. The Crisis Center provides in- and out-patient services for victims of domestic 24

violence. Of both in and out patients, approximately 33.0 percent identify themselves as 25

being of a minority and approximately 56.0 percent reported a family income of less than 26

$30,000 (Crisis Center 2015). Patients often travel to and from the Crisis Center by bus and 27

are picked up / dropped off at the bus stop closest to the facility. Clients often receive bus 28

passes from Douglas County. 29

Wind Crest, an adult living community with more than 800 residents, is located southeast of 30

the US 85 and C-470 interchange. Less than 1.0 percent of residents identify themselves as 31

being of a minority. Low-income populations are not present. Wind Crest has approximately 32

550 employees, 400 to 450 are hourly employees (Dilger 2015). 33

34


May 2017



Figure 4. Low-Income Populations in the Study Area, 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, HDR 2016.


May 2017



The Wolhurst Adult Community, located northeast of the US 85/C-470 interchange, does not 1

have a high concentration of minority or low-income residents or employees (Loomis 2015); 2

however, it is included in a census tract that has a 21.66 percent concentration of low 3

income households. 4

In addition, there are two churches with food banks in the area. One is 5 miles and the other 3 5

miles from the study area. And, there is a Goodwill Donation Center about a mile southeast of 6

the US 85 Corridor. 7

Lifestyle and Neighborhoods 8


At the time of the FEIS/ROD, the east side of the US 85 Corridor was primarily large, open 10

space areas and large ranches. The west side of the corridor had two communities, Sedalia and 11

Louviers, and was paralleled by the Plum Creek floodplain, which passed through a low-density 12

developed area. The northern half of the US 85 Corridor was in close proximity to segments of 13

strip commercial development and heavy industrial development. The 1996 Douglas County 14

Master Plan indicated no additional urban development was planned west of US 85 before 2010 15

because of the existing inventory of approved development, and the major cost to provide 16

infrastructure and service to this area. 17


The Douglas County 2035 Comprehensive Master Plan (Douglas County 2014) states that 19

future development in the Chatfield Urban Area, which is located west of US 85 and south of 20

Chatfield State Park, should be sufficiently diverse to offer residents the benefits of a 21

multifaceted community that can provide residential, commercial, medical, recreational, and 22

educational services while preserving the areas characteristic open spaces, viewsheds, and 23

wildlife corridors. 24

Economic Development 25


At the time of the FEIS/ROD, Douglas County had active plans for well-managed, quality 27

commercial development to provide local employment opportunities and to diversify its tax base. 28

The County’s strength as the centerpiece of the Denver/Colorado Springs Development 29

Corridor comes from a blend of quality lifestyle and business environment. 30


Douglas County continues to undergo rapid commercial and residential development. Recently 32

completed non-residential development includes 371,000 square feet of retail and commercial 33

space, 119,000 square feet of industrial space, 181,000 square feet of office space, and three 34

new assisted living facilities. The issuance of residential building permits fluctuated considerably 35

between 2008 and 2015. Development decreased during the economic recession and has 36

experienced a steady and sometimes rapid increase since 2010 (Douglas County 2016b). 37


May 2017



3.0 Description of the Alternatives 1

3.1 No-Action Alternative 2

The No-Action Alternative consists of leaving US 85 in its current condition between Highlands 3

Ranch Parkway and C-470, with two general purpose lanes in each direction. Improvements to 4

other sections of US 85 and to portions of I-25 as adopted in the 2002 ROD have already been 5

implemented and are assumed as part of the No-Action Alternative network. The No-Action 6

Alternative also includes improvements to C-470 as defined in the recent Finding of No 7

Significant Impact. 8

3.2 Refined Selected Alternative 9

The 2002 FEIS/ROD Selected Alternative included widening both US 85 and I-25. The I-25 10

recommendations included widening to eight lanes between C-470 and Meadows Parkway and 11

six lanes between Meadows Parkway and Douglas Lane. An east side frontage road was 12

included between Schweiger Interchange and Castle Pines Parkway. Interchange modifications 13

were included at Schweiger, Surrey Ridge Road, Castle Pines Parkway and Plum Creek 14

Parkway. All improvements on I-25 that were in the Revised ROD have been completed, except 15

for the widening of the Happy Canyon Road bridge. 16

For US 85, widening to six lanes between Highlands Ranch Parkway and C-470 and four lanes 17

south to Meadows Parkway was recommended. The SH 67 interchange was to be reconfigured, 18

a frontage road was recommended at Sedalia, and a minor realignment was recommended at 19

Cook Ranch. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities were to be included all along US 85, a grade 20

separation at the High Line Canal trail was included, and enhanced wildlife crossings were 21

recommended. 22

Improvements in the 2002 FEIS/ROD Selected Alternative between Highlands Ranch Parkway 23

and C-470 included a six-through-lane section (eight lanes including the auxiliary lanes) with a 24

total width that ranges from 106 to 131 feet. The travel lanes are 12 feet wide. The alternative 25

includes a raised median, inside curb and gutter, outside curb and gutter, inside shoulders, 26

continuous auxiliary lanes, and a shared-use path. It also includes improvements to the High 27

Line Canal Trail by changing the existing at-grade crossing to a grade-separated crossing under 28

US 85. Access consolidation includes modification to right-in/right-out accesses, based on the 29

Final US 85 Access Management Plan, South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor EIS (CDOT 30

2001). 31

The Refined Selected Alternative includes all of the features described above, most of which are 32

illustrated in the cross-section in Figure 5. 33

34


May 2017



Figure 5. Refined Selected Alternative Typical Section

Source: HDR 2016.

1

Design Changes Included in the Refined Selected Alternative 2

Changes in the Refined Selected Alternative design compared to the Selected Alternative 3

include continuous flow intersections at Town Center Drive and Highlands Ranch Parkway and 4

minor changes to access and some elements of the cross-section, culvert sizes, bus stop 5

enhancements, and retaining walls (Figure 6). All of these changes are minor refinements to the 6

same basic alternative. 7

US 85 Mainline. The width of the auxiliary lane increased 10 feet to 12 feet. In some locations, 8

to minimize impacts, the auxiliary lane may be 11 feet. The FEIS/ROD design had included an 9

alignment shift to the west. This is no longer a part of the Refined Selected Alternative. It also 10

includes a wider raised median (30 feet compared to 10 feet) and no inside shoulders at the 11

continuous flow intersections. 12

13


May 2017



Figure 6. US 85 Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 Refined Selected Alternative

Source: HDR 2016.

1


May 2017



Intersection and Access Improvements. Changes in access and turning movements are 1

described in Figure 7. There are notable changes at the intersections below. They are described 2

and illustrated on the following pages. 3

Highlands Ranch Parkway and Town Center Drive. 4

Norwood Drive, Carder Court, and Brandon Drive. 5

Spring Gulch Equestrian Facility and Grace Presbyterian Church. 6

Figure 7. Changes in Access and Turning Movements

Source: HDR 2016.

7

8

Location Existing Conditions2002 Selected

Alternative

Refined Selected

Alternative

Change from

FEIS/ROD

Midway - Town

Center Drive

No U-turn

southbound to

northbound

Grace Presbyterian

ChurchNo change

Highlands Ranch

Parkway - Dumont

Way

No U-turn

southbound to

northbound

Note: N/S through movements assumed for all intersections

No Access Documented

(Church constructed 2012)

Left turns (except

southbound) and

east/west through

movements

displaced

Brandon Drive -

Spring Gulch

Equestrian Facility

Combined access to

Spring Gulch

Equestrian Facility

and Grace

Presbyterian Church

NEPA Reevalution AccessFEIS/ROD Access

Left turns and

east/west through

movements

displaced

Norwood Drive

Left turns and

east/west through

movements

displaced

Carder Court


May 2017



At Highlands Ranch Parkway and 1

Town Center Drive, there are 2

continuous flow intersections. This 3

innovative intersection design improves 4

operations for intersections with a high 5

number of left-turn movements. This 6

type of traffic pattern exists on US 85 7

within the study area, and the Refined 8

Selected Alternative incorporates this 9

design modification at the Highlands 10

Ranch Parkway and Town Center Drive 11

intersections. When compared to a 12

traditional signal-controlled intersection, 13

the primary differentiating feature of the 14

continuous flow intersection is the 15

relocation of left-turn movements on an 16

approach to the other side of the 17

opposing traffic flow. Figure 8 and 18

Figure 9 display the continuous flow 19

intersection layouts at Highlands Ranch 20

Parkway and Town Center Drive with 21

the relocated left-turn movement 22

highlighted. 23

24

Figure 8. Highlands Ranch Parkway Continuous Flow Intersection

Source: HDR 2016.

Figure 9. Town Center Drive Continuous Flow Intersection

Source: HDR 2016.


May 2017



At Norwood Drive, Carder Court, and Brandon Drive, the intersections are right-in/right-1

out. Left-turning traffic is relocated to adjacent intersections, as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 2

11. 3

Figure 10. Highlands Ranch Parkway Continuous Flow Intersection U-Turn Access

Source: HDR 2016.

4

Figure 11. Town Center Drive Continuous Flow Intersection U-Turn Access

Source: HDR 2016.

5

Access to the Spring Gulch Equestrian Facility (owned by the U.S. Army Corps of 6

Engineers) is combined with access to Grace Presbyterian Church. This is a 3/4 7

movement; however, the southbound left turn movement may be eliminated at CDOT’s 8

discretion if safety issues materialize. Traffic destined to southbound US 85 from this access 9

would make a U-turn at Town Center Drive. This change includes paving of the driving entrance 10

and relocating the entrance 120 feet south (Figure 12). The Grace Presbyterian Church was not 11

in this location in 2002, so the project setting has changed. 12


May 2017



1

Figure 12. Combined Access for Spring Gulch Equestrian Facility and Grace Presbyterian Church

Source: HDR 2016.


May 2017



Retaining Walls. There are more retaining walls (approximately 80,000 square feet) to avoid or 1

minimize parking or property impacts, minimize riparian vegetation impacts, minimize impacts to 2

water quality treatment and drainage features, minimize impacts to Section 4(f) historic and 3

recreation properties, and minimize impacts to the railroad bridge substructure and foundations. 4

Improved Bus Stops and Connections. The design now includes improvements to the 5

existing RTD 402L bus stops: 6

The stop on US 85 north of Highlands Ranch Parkway is being eliminated. The existing stop 7

on the north side of Highlands Ranch Parkway east of US 85 is being moved and enhanced 8

with a bench, shelter, and bike racks. 9

The stop on US 85 north of Town Center Drive is being moved to south of Town Center 10

Drive and enhanced with bench, shelter, bike racks, and bike lockers. 11

For both southbound and northbound stops, the Refined Selected Alternative includes 12

sidewalk connections from the bus stop to the adjacent side street. 13

Shared-use Path. There are minor changes in the width of shared-use path and the width of 14

separation between the roadway and path. 15

Highlands Ranch Parkway to Blakeland Drive. Rather than a consistent 5-foot landscaped 16

buffer, the path has 2-foot gravel shoulders, and its distance from the roadway generally 17

varies from between 2 and 22 feet with landscaping in the buffer where there is adequate 18

room. At the railroad crossings south of Blakeland Drive, the path is detached and set back 19

from the roadway by 14 feet. 20

Blakeland Drive to C-470. The Refined Selected Alternative has a wider path (10 feet 21

instead of 8 feet) that is detached on the east side of US 85 with landscaping in the buffer 22

where there is adequate room. On the west side, it is also 10 feet wide but attached. 23

C-470 Trail (also called the Centennial Trail). The shared-use path is connected to the C-24

470 Trail with an improved at-grade crossing of US 85. The at-grade crossing 25

enhancements for the C-470 Trail include restriping the crosswalks, adding new Americans 26

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ramps, reconfiguring the existing median island, and 27

providing better wayfinding through the intersection. A future grade-separated crossing will 28

be constructed in a later project when funded. 29

Water Quality Treatment. To meet current municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) 30

requirements, the Refined Selected Alternative assumes conversion of an existing parcel owned 31

by Douglas County (north of Brandon Drive) by the High Line Canal to a water quality facility. 32

This location has been tentatively selected at this phase of design, but specific details may 33

change during the final design process. If the changes result in additional environmental 34

impacts, those will be documented in a reevaluation. 35


May 2017



High Line Canal Trail Grade-separated Crossing. The culvert for the High Line Canal Trail 1

underpass at US 85 (Figure 13) is now 2 feet higher and wider than the Selected Alternative—2

12 feet high and 14 feet wide. 3

Figure 13. High Line Canal Trail Grade-separated Crossing: Existing Condition and Future Condition Simulation

Source: CDOT 2002.

4

4.0 Environmental Consequences 5

4.1 Summary of Impacts from FEIS/ROD 6

Highway widening was not expected to cause adverse impacts to specific neighborhoods. There 7

were no neighborhoods that existed on both sides of the highway, and the highway widening 8

would not divide neighborhoods or create neighborhood disruption. Access to specific 9

residences may change but in no case will access to a residential area be eliminated. 10

Widening and other improvements to US 85 had the highest potential for socioeconomic 11

impacts due to indirect or quality-of-life disruption. Increased noise, traffic, and evening lighting 12

could adversely affect the lifestyle currently enjoyed by nearby residents. While these effects 13

were not expected to exceed any thresholds of importance, they could become annoying and 14


May 2017



disruptive to residents close to the existing highway who are already affected by highway 1

activity. 2

Temporary construction impacts could disrupt traffic flow. Residential and commercial 3

development in the vicinity of the corridor may occur based on the availability of improved 4

access. 5

No disproportionately high or adverse economic or environmental effects on minority or low-6

income populations were expected to occur as a result of the Selected Alternative. It would not 7

result in adverse impacts in any specific neighborhood where residents are minority or have a 8

low income. The impacts from the Selected Alternative were consistent with the spirit of 9

Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. 10

The relocation and property acquisition information described in the FEIS/ROD was not detailed 11

enough to identify impacts only within the Reevaluation study area. 12

4.2 Changes in Impacts since FEIS/ROD 13

Noise 14

Under the Refined Selected Alternative and the No-Action Alternative, future noise levels would 15

approach or exceed the CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria for some residences located along 16

Highlands Ranch Parkway. This would also occur at an outdoor café along Town Center Drive. 17

The increase in noise levels (of 2 to 3 decibels, which is barely perceptible) would be due to 18

increased traffic from projections of future population and employment and not due to the 19

Refined Selected Alternative. An analysis of noise barriers was conducted, which found they 20

would not be reasonable. 21

During construction, areas adjacent to the construction would be exposed to construction noise. 22

Although of a temporary nature, the additional noise can be annoying to the public. More 23

information regarding these impacts may be found in the Noise Technical Report, US 85 24

Corridor Improvements, Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 Reevaluation (HDR 2016a). 25

Visual 26

The very minor changes in the Refined Selected Alternative elements and setting since the 27

FEIS/ROD would not change the primary findings of the visual impact assessment that was in 28

the FEIS/ROD, which is that the alternative would have a neutral or beneficial visual impact. 29

Access and Travel Patterns 30

The continuous flow intersections would not change travel pattern origins and destinations and 31

would not close any accesses. However, some travel routes would be changed because of the 32

right-in/right-out restrictions. This situation also existed with the Selected Alternative as 33

described in the FEIS. This would primarily affect business patrons, the Spring Gulch 34

Equestrian Facility, and the Grace Presbyterian Church. The number of impacted drivers is 35

expected to be minimal. Changes to access at specific intersections are discussed below; more 36

detailed information is included in the Transportation Technical Report, US 85 Corridor 37

Improvements, Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 Reevaluation (HDR 2016b). 38


May 2017



There would be a change of access control to right-in, right-out movements at Norwood Drive, 1

Carder Court, and Brandon Drive. This would affect local streets through relocation of left-2

turning traffic to adjacent intersections. This would cause a minor inconvenience to businesses 3

and their patrons as they adapt to new traffic patterns. 4

The Spring Gulch Equestrian Facility access formed the east leg of the Brandon Drive 5

intersection in the FEIS/ROD Selected Alternative, and is consolidated with Grace Presbyterian 6

Church in a three-quarter movement for the Refined Selected Alternative. Traffic exiting 7

southbound from the equestrian area would be required to turn right and U-turn at Blakeland 8

Drive, or route via Town Center Drive, Lucent Boulevard, and Highlands Ranch Parkway. 9

Access and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists would be substantially improved from the 10

existing condition and also from the FEIS/ROD. The shared-use path would be wider in certain 11

locations now compared to what was planned for the FEIS/ROD. In addition, the box culvert 12

used for High Line Canal Trail users would be larger with the Refined Selected Alternative 13

compared to what was planned for the Selected Alternative. 14

Business Conditions 15

The Refined Selected Alternative would add retaining walls at several business locations 16

specifically to avoid impacts to parking. This is a beneficial change since the FEIS/ROD. No 17

changes in business visibility would occur. Right-of-way would be required from 46 property 18

owners, most (if not all) are associated with commercially used properties; however, no 19

relocations would occur. The FEIS/ROD noted positive effects to commercial and industrial 20

areas as a result of improved mobility, improved visibility, accessibility to a regional roadway, 21

and improved safety. These positive effects have not changed. 22

Temporary construction impacts could occur through disrupting traffic flow. Access to local 23

businesses may be temporarily disrupted or a minor delay may occur which could negatively 24

impact the performance of some of the businesses. Conditions would return to normal once 25

construction is complete. 26

Right-of-Way 27

Douglas County and CDOT own most of the right-of-way available for US 85 widening and other 28

improvements. Some right-of-way would still be required for temporary and permanent 29

easements as well as permanent acquisition: 30

Temporary easements: 27 parcels 31

Permanent easements: 26 parcels 32

Right-of-way acquisition parcels: 46 parcels 33

A total of 14.9 acres would be required for the Refined Selected Alternative, and there would not 34

be any relocations. 35


May 2017



Additional information is available in the Right-of-Way Technical Report, US 85 Corridor 1

Improvements, Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 Reevaluation (HDR 2016c). 2

Environmental Justice 3

The minority, low-income, and LEP populations along the corridor would be affected to the 4

same extent by the Refined Selected Alternative as non-environmental justice populations with 5

respect to impacts from noise, visual changes, access and travel patterns, and right-of-way 6

acquisitions. Construction-related impacts would be temporary and borne by all segments of the 7

population traveling or residing along the corridor. 8

This analysis looked at whether or not any high and adverse impacts would occur, based on the 9

definition in Section 9.15.3 of the CDOT NEPA Manual (CDOT 2014). The Refined Selected 10

Alternative would not result in destruction of human-made or natural resources. It would not 11

diminish aesthetic values. It would not destroy or disrupt community cohesion or community 12

economic vitality. It would not destruct or disrupt public or private facilities. It would not cause 13

adverse employment effects or displace persons or businesses. It would not cause increased 14

traffic congestion or isolate or separate any environmental justice individuals from a broader 15

community. 16

The Refined Selected Alternative’s benefits to environmental justice and LEP populations would 17

include enhanced access to transit and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, improved mobility, improved 18

water quality treatment, and improved safety. 19

Specific outreach to these populations is detailed in Section 5.0. 20

The Refined Selected Alternative would not result in any high and adverse impacts to any 21

populations, including low-income or minority populations. All segments of the population along 22

the corridor would benefit from the improvement in travel conditions. Therefore, the alternative 23

would not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on any environmental justice 24

populations in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and FHWA Order 25

6640.23. 26

Significance of Change 27

None of the changes in impacts described above constitute a new significant impact that was 28

not addressed in the FEIS/ROD. 29

4.3 Mitigation 30

4.4 Summary of Mitigation from FEIS/ROD and Changes in Mitigation since 31

FEIS/ROD 32

There is no change to mitigation commitments identified in the FEIS/ROD for any of the 33

socioeconomic resources, with the exception of right-of-way. The measures to minimize and/or 34

mitigate harm to socioeconomic resources as described in the FEIS/ROD and for the Refined 35

Selected Alternative are outlined in Table 1. 36

37


May 2017



Table 1. Mitigation Measures from the 2002 FEIS/ROD and the Reevaluation

FEIS/ROD Selected Alternative Refined Selected Alternative

Lifestyle and Neighborhoods

No neighborhood impacts are anticipated as a result of the Selected Alternative; therefore, no mitigation is required.

No change.

Environmental Justice and Socioeconomic

No environmental justice impacts are anticipated as a result of the Selected Alternative; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Provide advance notice of all construction delays or detours.

Use construction practices that minimize traffic flow disruptions.

Maintain access to businesses and neighborhoods.

Relocation

Relocations will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This includes assistance to reestablish affected business operations and to secure replacement housing.

The process includes property appraisal, determination of just compensation, negotiations, payment, relocation, and rights under eminent domain.

No relocations.

Provides for “housing of last resort” in the event that comparable housing cannot be secured at the time the project is scheduled to proceed.

No relocations.

Residential and commercial relocations will be completed on a case-by-case basis and take into consideration the circumstances of the displaced resident or property and the status of the project.

No relocations.

Right-of-Way

Implemented in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.

The acquisition process lasts approximately six months for smaller projects and one to two years for larger projects.

Mitigation for right-of-way acquisition will follow the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, as amended. The changes are detailed in the Amendments to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24 and in changes as a part of MAP-21, both of which are described in the Right-of-Way Technical Report, US 85 Corridor Improvements, Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 Reevaluation (HDR 2016c).


May 2017



5.0 Public and Agency Coordination Conducted 1

The project team conducted a robust public and agency involvement program. Activities 2

included agency coordination meetings, one-on-one meetings with adjacent property owners, a 3

Corridor Stakeholder Group (CSG), two public open houses and concurrent online open 4

houses, an interactive website, and other issue or stakeholder-specific meetings. Dates of these 5

meetings and the discussion topics are described in more detail in the Agency Coordination and 6

Public Involvement Summary appendix to the NEPA Reevaluation and Section 4(f) Evaluation, 7

US 85 Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470 (CDOT and FHWA 2016). 8

5.1 Stakeholder and General Public Coordination 9

Corridor Stakeholder Group (CSG) 10

A CSG was formed to provide community direction and feedback on the US 85 NEPA 11

Reevaluation and PEL study. Members of the CSG represented a variety of local community 12

groups related to transportation and mobility, recreation, business and homeowners 13

associations, emergency management, and regional jurisdictions. The group met at four 14

milestones in the process between October 2015 and June 2016 to discuss design concepts 15

and analysis results. 16

Regional Stakeholder Outreach (including Environmental Justice Communities) 17

The project team met with several regional stakeholders to provide updates and gather 18

feedback between November 2015 and June 2016. 19

As part of the effort to involve environmental justice communities, the following regional 20

stakeholder outreach occurred: 21

Corridor Neighbor Meetings were held on March 9 and 10, 2016. The three meetings 22

targeted corridor property owners and were held before work and during lunch-time hours to 23

improve the accessibility for business owners and workers without infringing on their work 24

day. In advance of these meetings, the project team conducted a door-to-door corridor walk 25

to connect with property owners reminding them to attend the meetings. This walk-through 26

included areas identified as environmental justice communities. A Spanish-language 27

speaker took part in the walkthroughs and was present at the meetings. 28

Project team members met with the Wolhurst Adult Community on April 20, 2016, and had 29

regular interaction with residents throughout the PEL study process. 30

General Public 31

The following outreach was conducted for the general public: 32

Email Updates. Between October 2015 and May 2016, the project team sent project 33

several email updates to interested stakeholders via emails addresses collected through the 34

project website and at public meetings. The final email update sent in late May 2016 was 35

sent to several hundred people. 36


May 2017



Public Meetings. Two public meetings were held. Each included an overview presentation, 1

as well as a series of maps and information boards. Materials were made available on the 2

project website for comment through two concurrent online public meetings. A Spanish-3

language speaker was in attendance at these meetings for any translation requirements. 4

Website. Project updates and materials were regularly posted on the US 85 Corridor 5

Improvements website. 6

Public concerns noted through this public and agency involvement program included: 7

Traffic and Congestion. One frequent comment was the concern about traffic congestion. 8

Several commenters noted the increase in congestion near C-470. Others commented on 9

how traffic throughout the corridor would increase as new homeowners continue to move 10

into the corridor. One online meeting participant noted “Several homes are being added over 11

the next 20 years. I don't believe 85 can handle the capacity. A discussion about sustainable 12

growth would be nice.” 13

Noise Impacts and Mitigation. The majority of written comments at the April 2016 public 14

meeting noted noise impacts and a desire for noise mitigation as a primary concern in the 15

project area. Of those who commented on the desire for noise mitigation in the project area, 16

many mentioned that reconstruction from asphalt to concrete would create a louder 17

roadway. They also mentioned that expansion and additional traffic would bring more noise 18

to neighborhoods bordering US 85. Property value decline as a result of noise levels on US 19

85 was also frequently mentioned in noise mitigation comments. 20

Intersection Safety. Another comment trend was the idea of intersection safety. 21

Participants raised concerns related to the need for additional wildlife crossing signs and 22

additional traffic control in the area near Murdock’s at Highlands Ranch Parkway. One 23

online meeting participant noted “To improve safety today on Santa Fe Dr. eliminate all of 24

the left turns onto and off of Santa Fe Between Mineral and Titan Road.” A few commenters 25

specifically mentioned the continuous flow intersections presented at the U85 open house. 26

One commenter suggested that the continuous flow intersections at Highlands Ranch 27

Parkway and Town Center Drive do not seem to flow continuously and suggested that 28

another approach would be to design those areas similar to the Santa Fe/Belleview 29

interchange. Another commenter noted “there are a couple of things you can do to make it 30

(the continuous flow intersection) more effective: 1) incorporate higher barriers so that you 31

don't realize you are traveling in a weird flow between 2 lanes of traffic and 2) cutting an 32

underpass from south bound US 85 to the other side of the north bound of US 85.” 33

Property Access. Commenters online and in person noted property access issues along 34

the roadway. Specific areas to be addressed were business and church access from C-470 35

to Highlands Ranch, and northbound Santa Fe to west bound C-470. Several commenters 36

suggested that additional traffic from new housing developments will aggravate the already 37

difficult access points. 38


May 2017



6.0 References 1

Crisis Center. 2015. Crisis Center 2014 Annual Report. Website: http://thecrisiscenter.org/wp- 2

content/uploads/2014/01/Annual-report-2014.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2015. 3

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2001a. South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor 4

FEIS. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 4(f) Evaluation. May. 5

— — —. 2001b. Final US 85 Access Management Plan, South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor 6

EIS. March. 7

— — —. 2002. South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor Revised Record of Decision. October. 8

— — —. 2014. CDOT NEPA Manual. Website: 9

https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/nepa-program/nepa-manual. 10

CDOT and Federal Highway Administration. 2016. NEPA Reevaluation and Section 4(F) 11

Evaluation, US 85 Highlands Ranch Parkway to C-470. 12

Dilger, Kathy. 2015. Phone conversation between K. Dilger (Wind Crest) and D. Braitman 13

(HDR) on December 21, 2015. RE: Information about community and transportation needs. 14

Douglas County. 2014. Douglas County 2035 Comprehensive Master Plan. Website: 15

http://www.douglas.co.us/documents/full-cmp.pdf. 16

— — —. 2016a. US 85 Corridor Improvements Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) 17

Study Report. 18

— — —. 2016b. Douglas County Department of Community Development, Community and 19

Resource Services. 2015 Growth and Development Profile. Website: 20

http://www.douglas.co.us/documents/douglas-county-growth-and-development-profile.pdf 21

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice and 22

NEPA. December 16, 2011. Website: 23

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/guidance_ej_nepa.asp. Accessed 7 September 24

2015. 25

— — —. 2012. FHWA Order 6640.23A. FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 26

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. June 14, 2012. Website: 27

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/664023a.cfm. Accessed 30 October 2015. 28

HDR. 2016a. Noise Technical Report, US 85 Corridor Improvements, Highlands Ranch 29

Parkway to C-470 Reevaluation. 30

— — —. 2016b. Transportation Technical Report, US 85 Corridor Improvements, Highlands 31

Ranch Parkway to C-470 Reevaluation. 32

— — —. 2016c. Right-of-Way Technical Report, US 85 Corridor Improvements, Highlands 33

Ranch Parkway to C-470 Reevaluation. 34

https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/nepa-program/nepa-manual

http://www.douglas.co.us/documents/full-cmp.pdf

http://www.douglas.co.us/documents/douglas-county-growth-and-development-profile.pdf

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/guidance_ej_nepa.asp.%20Accessed%207%20September%202015

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/guidance_ej_nepa.asp.%20Accessed%207%20September%202015

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/664023a.cfm


May 2017



Loomis, Lon. 2015. Phone conversation between L. Loomis (Wolhurst Adult Community) and D. 1

Braitman (HDR) on December 18, 2015. Re: Information about community and transportation 2

needs. 3

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Decennial Census. American FactFinder. Table P5. Website: 4

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed 7 September 2015. 5

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

Documents

North I-25 EIS, ROD 2us85douglascounty.com/wp-content/uploads/Socioeconomics-TR_M… · 37 improvements beyond 2020 are in the PEL study document. Socioeconomics Technical Report