Meeting Notes
Meeting:	Stakeholder Committee Meeting #8
Date:	August 16, 2001
Location:	Streets Building 625 9th Street Fort Collins Training Room
Attendees:	Scott Fisher Peggy Arevalos Sid White Kelly Bole Steve Sarno Scott Koskie Bonnie Painchreed Tom Kramer Scott Ellis Kathy Kregel Sue Reed Jay Hardy Mike Fagan David Zander Mike McNeil Maura Green Barry Schulz Carrie Wallis	Doug Kindsfater Maury Albertson Hank Hersh Donna Brown Gladys Russell Ernie Marx Joe Dumais Mike Buderus Jane Clark Charles Rogers Kathy Dwyer Nancy Mart Barbara Staples Bill Millican Dwight Whitney Jim Green Chuck Attardo Nate Allen	Tamera Sass Linda Sanden Nancy Wallace Wayne Chase Adrian Weaver Ron Painchreed Len Roark Bob Scott Hank Ragan George Reed Larry Stroud Jerry Aiku-Williams Trish Zander Jane Hail Kathy Monty R.A. Plummer Randy Hensley
Agenda:	General Business Meeting Purpose Comparative Evaluation of Routes Other Business

I.   General Business
Barry Schulz reviewed the ground rules and member roles with the committee and emphasized that this committee is an advisory group to the Project Management Team. Three members have been added to the Stakeholders Committee representing the Waverly area.

II.   Meeting Purpose
The purpose of the meeting was to go through the comparative evaluation information for the alternate routes. The clarification was made that sprawl was eliminated from the comparative evaluation as a differentiator but that it would still be considered in the final report.

III.   Comparative Evaluation of Routes
R.A. Plummer went through a brief review of the geographical layout of all the routes. The clarification was made that the CR 76 B alternative was eliminated in the unrealistic strategy screening. A handout was distributed that lists the evaluation criteria for the alternate routes. The alternate route fact sheet was then distributed to the group. This sheet details the number of lanes for each route, the width of the roadway, information on the interchange and railroad crossings, vertical grades, right of way, and additional constraints and special features. The laneage map with the typical roadway sections for routes and a handout showing the route evaluation matrix was also distributed to the group. This handout detailed information for each of the comparative evaluation criteria for each of the alternate routes.

The handouts of the evaluation criteria for alternate routes, alternate route fact sheet, revised route evaluation matrix, and laneage map with the revised typical sections are attached to these notes.

Traffic Operations/ Route Utilization
A handout was distributed that detailed the route utilization for each of the routes. The question was asked as to how the crossroads will be handled. R.A. explained that each cross road (north/south) will include stop signs. Intersection improvements will be required for all of the intersections. The question was asked as to how many through trucks would potentially move from I-25 to the new route. R.A. responded that there could be more trucks moved to the new route but that the information is not available to get an exact number. In the matrix, the number of lanes required to meet the minimum level of service, change in vehicle miles traveled, and travel time from I-25/SH 14 to US 287 /I-80 is also shown. A summary of the route utilization handout can also be found in the matrix. The route utilization handout is attached to these notes.

Comments (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• Is this the appropriate level of detail for a decision to be made regarding the alternate routes?
  
• Put/show numbers of trucks still on Mulberry and Jefferson
  
• Issue/concern about showing all traffic on route
  
• Wellington section of CR 62/64 and CR 62E should include bike lanes

The question was asked as to whether or not frontage roads will be constructed. Frontage roads will not be constructed and properties along each of the proposed routes will have direct access.

All alternate routes will include grade separated railroad crossings except for the routes that travel through Wellington. The 30 mph speed limit through Wellington will not require a grade separation for the railroad. A clarification was made regarding the definition of a grade separation. A grade separation is a structure that allows a road to go over or under another road or railroad tracks.

All alternate routes will require a new interchange at I-25 or an improved interchange. These interchanges would be standard diamond interchanges, that would support the traffic volumes from the 2020 model.

CR 76 A, CR 72 A and CR 70/72 A will all require additional cut and fill to meet a 6 percent grade for the western portion of the route. This additional cut and fill will require additional right of way. A clarification was made regarding the definition of cut and fill. Any land that is too steep for the desired percent grade must be cut to achieve this slope. When a relatively flat road is desired some dirt must be filled in under the road base. The western portions of CR 66, CR 62/64 and CR 62E will require additional cut and fill and additional right of way to achieve the desired grade. CR 58 A will also require additional cut and fill and right of way for the western portion to meet the 6 percent grade criteria.

All the routes will consist of an asphalt road surface. The question was asked as to why not use concrete instead of asphalt. R.A. responded that the Project Management Team had agreed that it was reasonable to assume an asphalt road surface for this study. R.A. also stated that for the purpose of a relative comparison a concrete road would raise the cost of each of the alternatives therefore not acting as a differentiator in the evaluation.

The question was asked as to how the total cost compares to that of other studies. R.A. responded that as far as cost per vehicle these numbers may be higher than some other similar studies that he has been involved with.

In addition, the cost per traffic utilization is shown on the matrix under the cost heading. These costs are shown for both total traffic and through trucks.

Environmental Resources

Farming
A map detailing the potential regional farming resource impacts was distributed to the group. The information used for the evaluation was obtained from the National Resource Conservation Service. Soil classes I, II, and III were used in the evaluation. The evaluation was conducted using the first half of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) provided by Larimer County. It was noted that this was the first time that LESA was used for analysis. Parcel size and distance from route could also be used to get a more accurate LESA score.

Some other comments (not necessarily statements of fact):

• Is rangeland being factored in?
  
• This approach biases against rangeland and other non-farming uses
  
• Hard to believe when Wellington is shown as farming classes of soil

A revised analysis was completed after the stakeholder meeting using the LESA evaluation in conjunction with the Larimer County agricultural board. All seven soil types, farm size, and distance to annexed boundary were considered in the revised analysis. Revised LESA scores can be found in the evaluation matrix attached to these notes along with a revised map of farming resource impacts.

Wildlife/threatened & endangered species
Chuck Attardo from PBS&J presented the environmental information collected through the project. A map showing the potential threatened and endangered species and wildlife impacts was distributed to the group and is attached to these notes. The information was obtained from the Colorado National Heritage Program and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. In the evaluation matrix Federal and State protected species and CNHP conservation sites are listed by acres of potential effect along each proposed route.

Some comments/concerns (not necessarily statements of fact) were brought up after the meeting:

• There is a sanctuary of wildlife around my house
  
• There are two active Eagle nests on either side of CR 66 near Reservoir. They are within 200 feet of the existing road.

Wetlands and Water Resources
A map showing wetlands and riparian areas and a map showing water resources was distributed to the group and are attached to these notes. Riparian areas are adjacent to wetlands and harbor different types of vegetation. In the evaluation matrix, acres of potential effect is calculated for both wetlands and floodplain areas. The number of canal/ditch crossings and number of floodplains impacted is also shown in the matrix. R.A. clarified that acres impacted is within the 100 feet of the center of the proposed roadway on new alignments and within 70 feet of the roadway on existing alignment. Some concerns were raised after the meeting that the map did not include all of the wetlands in the area. Another concern was that impact to the wetlands would extend beyond the 200 feet of right of way and that these impacts were not being taken into account.

Noise Analysis
Distances from the road for noise impact were determined from CDOT and FHWA standards for each of the routes. Residences were calculated in a 66 decibel (dBA) range and commercial businesses in a 71 dBA range. A count was then made of businesses/residences within this boundary that is shown in the matrix. A recommendation was made to analyze the noise impacts on the wildlife in the area. Chuck responded by stating that studies conducted on cattle have disproved this theory.

Air Quality/Historical
Air quality was analyzed using the outputs from the traffic model and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions provided by the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment. The Federal Highway Administration standard for CO is 8 parts per million for an eight hour period. Additional CO on route, CO on existing SH 14 after relocation, additional diesel on route, and diesel on existing SH 14 after relocation can be found in the matrix for each alternative. The clarification was made that more pollution is emitted if a vehicle is idling at an intersection.

Some other comments (not necessarily statements of fact):

• Have air quality measurements been made on College between Mountain and Jefferson?
• How does tons reduced in Ft. Collins relate to the air quality analysis?

Historical resource impacts were found from the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO). The impacts listed in the matrix include registered or potentially eligible site impacts and possibly significant resource impacts.

Right if Way (ROW)/Relocations
A standard 200 foot section of right of way was used for each of the routes. Any business/residence within this right of way was assumed to be a relocation. This 200 feet is a planning process estimate for amount of right of way. The actual right of way purchased for a new road could vary. R.A. clarified that for this analysis the centerline of the existing road was used and the 100 foot buffer was placed around it. He also noted that during the design process the route can be adjusted to the north or south to miss some of the structures. The actual number of relocations after the design process might be substantially less than that listed in the matrix. The relocations were also separated into farming and businesses based upon sight visits and aerial photography. R.A. noted that the aerial photos were taken last year so they are fairly up to date. Some of the relocations include full takes. Partial or full takes were determined from sight visits and aerial photography. The cost estimates take into account full and partial takes, as well as the cost of relocating structures. The edge of the actual roadway may up to 50 feet from the edge of the right of way.

Some other comments (not necessarily statements of fact):

• Certain stuff/properties seem invaluable
  
• Criteria is skewed due to only buildings are being considered relocations, when the road could be within 50 feet of a home and that the owner would rather be relocated

Directly Affected Properties
The clarification was made that all of the directly affected properties would have some sort of direct access to the proposed route. Properties with direct access are existing properties, not future projections. These properties are shown in the matrix broken down by residential, business, and farming/ranching properties.

Community Planning/Land Use
Maps describing community planning and land use were distributed to the group. County and regional planned transportation improvements were found from the Larimer County Transportation Plan, in the regional paving projects section. Zoning and public lands was obtained from Larimer County and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The land use information was obtained from Larimer County GIS. The matrix shows county and regional planning improvements and percentage of total land use along each route. Maps showing planned paving projects, zoning and public lands, and parcel land use are attached to these notes.

Length of Route
R.A. clarified the calculations for all of the numbers contained the matrix including total length of route, length of proposed route compared to existing route, total length of proposed route, length of route compared to other routes, length of alternative, proposed route lane miles, and additional CDOT lane miles. Some of the numbers correspond to the length versus the other routes while some of the numbers correspond to the length of the route versus the existing route.

Overall comments (not necessarily statements of fact):

• Reference the history of Wellington within the study
  
• Is this the appropriate level of detail for a decision to be made?

IV.   Other Business

Additional members were added to the Stakeholders Committee representing the Waverly area, and the gun club near Owl Canyon. The next Stakeholder Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, Sep 20th at 6:00 p.m. at the Streets Building, 625 9th Street, in Fort Collins.

V.   Open Forum
Presentations were made by Mike McNeil, Gladys Russell and Jane Clark. Mike McNeal circulated a handout detailing some ideas for non-route strategies that is attached to these notes. Gladys Russell informed the group about the Northern Larimer County Alliance, which is a group of homeowners that live on the proposed alternate routes and are opposed to all alternate routes. Anyone interesting in joining this group should contact:

Peggy Arevalos
Northern Larimer County Alliance
P.O. Box 1433
Wellington, CO 80549
970-568-7252 (home)
N_Lar_Co_Alliance@Yahoo.com or bookpiglet@hotmail.com