US 550 at US 160 South Connection Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS)
About the Project
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the US 550 South Connection to US 160 project, completing the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process. The federal agency, which oversees work on the national highway system (and roadway projects receiving federal funding), also signed the revised Section 4(f)* Analysis and the SEIS re-evaluation for the connection project on the same day.
The SEIS reevaluated a portion of the original 2006 US 160 Durango to Bayfield EIS project, and looked at both previous and new alternatives developed to reduce impact to historic properties, including the Webb Ranch, identified after the completion of the previous ROD. During the SEIS process several new alternatives were suggested by the public, which were evaluated by an independent team of engineers and planners. In addition, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation participated in the resolution of adverse effects to historic properties.
The independent team refined the original SEIS Preferred Alternative (Revised G Modified or RGM) to a design variation located further west, called Revised G Modified 6 (RGM6). The RGM6 alternative is the Preferred Alternative. The independent engineering firm also helped with a preliminary assessment of the environmental impacts. Additional items such as cost, logistics and constructability were considered, which is consistent with screening criteria utilized in the SEIS. This work also included collection of updated data and outreach to La Plata County, the City of Durango, the Growth Fund Real Estate Group and property owners in the area.
In December 2014, CDOT hosted an open house to enable the public to view details of the newly refined US 550 connection to US 160 Preferred Alternative, as well as other alternatives that were developed by an independent team over the past year.
The Notice of Availability of the ROD was placed in the Federal Register May 15, 2015.
*Section 4(f) is an FHWA regulation that governs the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public or private historic sites for Federal highway projects. The Section 4(f) evaluation requires two findings that must be demonstrated through coordination with FHWA and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): (1) That there is no feasible and prudent alternative that completely avoids the use of Section 4(f) property; and (2) That the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property resulting from the transportation use (see 23 CFR 774.3[a]).
History and Background
- The US Highway 160 from Durango to Bayfield Record of Decision (ROD) was signed November 2006. The Selected Alternative included an interchange 0.6 miles east of the current US 160/US 550 intersection.
- In February 2008, the first construction phase of the interchange was advertised and construction began in July. This $34.4 million project included a second westbound lane, 4 major bridge structures and ramps.
- In September 2007, CDOT began detailed design work on the next phase of the interchange that included the US 550 connection. During this work, it was discovered that there was a gas well within the alignment selected in the ROD. The US 550 connection was redesigned to avoid this gas well.
- This alignment shift required revisiting the environmental process. As part of this process, the Webb Ranch was evaluated under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), CDOT determined that a portion of the Webb Ranch is eligible for listing on the NRHP and that the preferred alternative would result in an adverse effect to the ranch, as defined in 36 CFR 800.5.
- In July 2008, FHWA received a letter from the owners of the Webb Ranch identifying potential archeological sites not identified in the US 160 FEIS. This necessitates an additional evaluation under the Section 106 process to determine if these archaeological sites are eligible to the NRHP.
- The NRHP eligibility of a portion of the Webb Ranch and the determination that the proposed action will result in an adverse effect has also necessitated an evaluation of that property under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The Section 4(f) evaluation process requires FHWA and CDOT to evaluate alignments that avoid the NRHP-eligible portion of the Webb Ranch.
- The results of the Section 4(f), Section 106, and NEPA re-evaluation processes will determine the alignment of US 550 and where it will connect to US 160.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q. Why is the US 550 connection being reconsidered?
A. In 2007, CDOT began design of the US 550 connection to US 160, as called for in the 2006 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (US 160 EIS). During design, CDOT discovered a gas well had been constructed in the selected alignment since final EIS surveys had been completed. CDOT designed a new alignment that avoided the gas well. In reviewing this alignment, CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, determined that a portion of the ranch where US 550 was to cross is eligible for the "National Register of Historic Places,” as were three other ranches on the mesa.
Q. Was this historic ranch considered in the initial study?
A. As part of the original EIS process, this area had been surveyed for individual historic structures. Since then, the national trend in historic preservation is to consider landscapes—such as ranches and farms as a whole—in addition to individual architectural structures. So while CDOT and FHWA met all of the existing requirements during the EIS process, the approach taken to identify historic sites had changed since the Record of Decision was signed, requiring new analysis. There are four historic landscapes on the mesa.
Q. What has happened to address a US 550 connection so far?
A. In 2009, FHWA and CDOT began a reevaluation process to look at US 550 alignments that avoid or minimize impacts to the four historic landscapes and other cultural sites. Five alternatives for a US 550/US 160 connection were reexamined through a federal Section 4(f) process. In spring 2011, this process resulted in a draft document (available on CDOT’s web site) showing that the alignment identified in the original 2006 Record of Decision (modified to avoid a gas well) is still the least impactful to historic and archaeological sites. Then, CDOT and FHWA initiated the development of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS). The SDEIS revisits only the US 550 south connection to US 160, not the entire US 160 corridor. CDOT and FHWA are supplementing the existing 2006 EIS to address the newly identified impacts to historic and archaeological sites and any other changes related to the connection of US 550—both natural and manmade, including regulatory. The SDEIS is available for review and public comment through November 28, 2011. This draft document evaluates three reasonable alternatives for a US 550 connection based on whether they meet purpose and need requirements for highway improvements (capacity, safety and access), as well as cost and logistical factors.
Q. What are the US 550 connections being considered?
A. The alternatives evaluated in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) are: 1) Revised G Modified, the 2006 Record of Decision Preferred Alternative (with a slight alignment shift), which would realign US 550 to connect at the current interchange; 2) Revised F Modified, which connects at Three Springs Blvd.; and 3) Eastern Realignment, which also connects at Three Springs Blvd. Alternatives can be viewed here.)
Q. Which connection is the Preferred Alternative in the SDEIS?
A. Revised G Modified, the 2006 Record of Decision Preferred alternative (with a slight alignment shift to avoid a gas well), which would realign US 550 to connect at the current interchange. This alternative is shown in the draft document to have the least impacts to residents and businesses, to irrigated farmland, to wildlife habitat, to wetlands and to historic sites (see map)
Q. Which alignments were not evaluated in the SDEIS?
A. Alternatives not evaluated in detail in the SDEIS include a western realignment, and several alternatives utilizing the existing US 550 alignment and its current connection with US 160 (known locally as Farmington Hill). It was determined that these alternatives do not meet the purpose and need requirements (capacity, safety, access) or other screening criteria (cost, logistics). Additionally, a ‘No Action’ alternative was analyzed that would keep US 550 on its current alignment, where poor geometry, low design speeds and two-lane capacity on a north-facing steep grade presents both capacity and safety issues This alternative is evaluated in the SDEIS to provide a benchmark for comparison of the environmental impacts.
Q. Where can I get more information on the draft document?
A. The document is available to the public at Durango, Bayfield and Ignacio public libraries, San Juan Public Lands Center, City of Durango, La Plata County and CDOT’s main Durango office at 3803 N. Main Avenue.
Q. How can I make comments on the document?
A. Formal comments on the SDEIS are no longer being accepted. The 45-day public comment period began on October 14, 2011 and ended on November 28, 2011. After the Draft SEIS was prepared, a public hearing was held on November 2, 2011, at Escalante Middle School in Durango. The public was able to comment at the hearing, and could also send comments via mail or the web site through the November 28, 2011 deadline.
Q. When will a final decision about a US 550 connection be made?
A. Following incorporation of public comments, a Final EIS will be prepared, and the Federal Highway Administration will produce a Record of Decision on a US 550/US 160 in late 2012.
Q. Is an interchange needed if US 550 does not connect there?
A. Yes. Not one, but three interchanges are actually called for in the 2006 EIS Record of Decision (posted on CDOT’s web site). Traffic modeling and area development projections for the original EIS were completed in coordination with the City of Durango and La Plata County, using—among other resources—the city’s “2004 Grandview Area Plan.” Traffic studies show a traffic signal on this section of highway would fail by 2025—or at full planned development build-out.
In 2009 on peak travel days, an average of 27,875 vehicles traveled this stretch of highway through Grandview. Traffic projections show that by 2030, 44,478 vehicles will travel US 160 on peak travel days near the interchange; factoring in future development laid out in the Grandview Area Plan, this number is 85,910 vehicles per day in 2030 during peak season travel (these numbers are conservative, and consider the current economic downturn)..
Section 106
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is a procedural law that requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) an opportunity to comment on Federal projects before implementation. The goal of the Section 106 process is to identify historic properties, assess effects to those properties, and minimize or mitigate adverse effects to properties. An important element of the Section 106 process involves consultation with various parties interested in historic properties, including the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native American Tribes, and other parties. The Section 106 regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties," and provide guidance on requirements Federal agencies must meet to comply with the law. For more information about the Section 106 process, please visit: http://www.achp.gov/.
Summary of Steps in the Section 106 Process
-
Initiation of the Section 106 process: : The Federal agency identifies consulting parties and invites them to participate in the Section 106 process. The main parties typically involved in consultation include the appropriate SHPO, federally recognized Native American tribes and other parties who have a specific interest in the historic properties within the project corridor, such as local preservation commissions and historical societies.
For this project: During the EIS development, three Native American tribes were identified as consulting parties. Subsequent to the discovery that the portion of the Webb Ranch on the mesa is a National Register eligible resource, the La Plata County Historical Society was offered an opportunity to participate in the Section 106 process and did not comment on this project. The owners of the Webb Ranch requested consulting party status and are involved in the Section 106 evaluation process. -
Identification of Historic Properties and Assessment of Effects:Once the project scope is understood, the agency identifies properties in the project area and determines if they are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Only NRHP-eligible properties are evaluated for project effects. Under Section 106, there are findings of no historic properties affected, no adverse effect, and adverse effect. If it is determined that an undertaking results in a finding of no historic properties affected or no adverse effect, the Section 106 process for a particular property is complete.
For this project: During the EIS development, 76 properties were identified in the cultural resources survey. Of these, ten properties were determined National Register eligible and were assessed for project effects. During the EIS process, the ten eligible resources were evaluated for project effects. In consultation with SHPO, it was determined that the project would result in no adverse effect to the historic resources, and the potential for an adverse effect to one prehistoric archaeological site.
During the development of the EIS,efforts were made to avoid the residence, barn, and other structures on the Webb Ranch property, which is located north of and adjacent to County Road 220 east of US 550. As part of the recent re-evaluation effort, a portion of the Webb Ranch was determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. The historic boundary for the ranch property includes the complex of ranch buildings, but also extends beyond the immediate buildings and encompasses open land on Florida Mesa that contributes to the significance of the ranch property. FHWA and CDOT determined that the preferred alternative identified in the EIS and ROD would have an adverse effect on the portion of the Webb Ranch property determined to be eligible for NRHP listing. Although that alternative would avoid the ranch buildings, it would extend through the historic boundary of the property. CDOT and FHWA will evaluate other historic and archaeological properties within the potential US 550 alignments to determine their NRHP eligibility as well. -
Resolution of Adverse Effects: When a project results in an adverse effect, the agency must consult with SHPO and the other consulting parties to consider alternatives or modifications that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effect to the historic property. The agency must also notify the Council and provide it an opportunity to review the details of the adverse effect finding and participate in the Section 106 consultation. The agency will consult with SHPO, the Council (if participating) and other consulting parties to develop minimization and mitigation strategies and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that outlines those measures. Once the MOA is signed, the Section 106 process is complete.
For this project: During the EIS process, an MOA outlining mitigation for one prehistoric archaeological site was executed. As part of the Section 106 consultation on the Webb Ranch, the FHWA submitted the "Documentation for Finding of Adverse Effect" for the ranch to the Council on June 19, 2008. The Council has chosen to participate in the Section 106 consultation.
CDOT and FHWA are currently looking at options to avoid, minimize, or mitigate effects to the Webb Ranch as well as other historic properties that may be affected by the project
SFEIS 4f Evaluation
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Regulations at 23 CFR Part 774)
Section 4(f) was created when the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) was formed in 1966. It was initially codified in Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 which is where it got its name. Section 4(f) prohibits the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state or local significance unless FHWA determines that there is no "feasible and prudent" avoidance alternative and that all possible planning to minimize harm has occurred. Section 4(f) only applies to actions of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and applies to Colorado Department of Transportation activities through federal funding or USDOT approval of transportation projects. In order for Section 4(f) to apply to a property, there must be a "use" of the property. A direct use occurs when land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility or when there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse to a 4(f) resource.
Section 4(f) properties that are historic are identified through the Section 106 process. The portion of the Webb Ranch on the mesa top was determined a historic property and therefore was subject to evaluation under Section 4(f). Other historic Section 4(f) resources in the US 550 south connection area include numerous historic ranches, the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad and several historic ditches.
The first step in a Section 4(f) process is to identify the Section 4(f) properties and the alternatives that avoid them, and determine if they are feasible and/or prudent. Alternatives were evaluated for whether they met purpose and need as defined in the US 160 FEIS, safety and operational issues, social, economic, or environmental impacts, disruption to communities, construction, maintenance and operational costs, and any other unique problems or unusual factors.
Since it was determined that there are no prudent and/or feasible alternatives that avoid all Section 4(f) properties, a least harm analysis was prepared including all possible planning to minimize harm. The least overall harm is determined by balancing a number of factors such as how the impacts can be mitigated, how much the property will still be harmed even after mitigation, the views of the State Historic Preservation Office, the degree to which the alternative meets purpose and need for the project, the magnitude of impact to other environmental resources, and cost.
During the Supplemental Final EIS, the independent engineering firm helped with a preliminary assessment of the environmental impacts of the design variations being studied (alternatives proposed by the Webb Ranch and Revised G Modified 6 (RGM6), now the Preferred Alternative. These have been included in the Revised Section 4(f) Analysis.
For more information about Section 4(f), please see http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/4f/index.asp.
Click here to view the Section 4(f) Documents for the US 550 at US 160 South Connection SFEIS.
Alternative RGM6
- Less visual impact
- Less impact to irrigated farmland
- Less noise impact
- Less right-of-way required
- Impacts to fewer acres of the two historic ranches
NEPA Re-evaluation
FHWA and CDOT will re-evaluate the FEIS in light of the new information discovered and developed since the ROD in order to determine if additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation is required. The re-evaluation will analyze both the changes in the environmental setting (new gas well, previously unidentified cultural resources, etc.) as well as changes to the proposed action and the effect those will have on various environmental resources. If there are new significant environmental impacts, a Supplemental EIS will be prepared. If there are no new significant environmental impacts, a written report documenting the re-evaluation will be prepared.
TNM Noise runs area available electronically upon request.
Grandview Interchange
Moving Forward with Construction: A fully functional US 160 interchange is being constructed without a US 550 connection; the US 550 connection may or may not be located at this interchange in the future, pending the outcome of reevaluations required under various federal environmental statutes. The completed interchange accommodates future projected traffic volumes (of 87,000 vehicles a day), facilitates east-west travel and provides safe and direct access to current and future development north and south (onto a frontage road) of US 160. The interchange has three construction phases and is scheduled for completion by fall 2011. Planned completion for Phases I and II (interchange bridges, construction of an eastbound off-ramp and ramp work on the north side) is late summer 2010. Phase III begins in 2011 and completes the interchange with bridge tie-ins and paving.
FHWA and CDOT will re-evaluate the FEIS in light of the new information discovered and developed since the ROD in order to determine if additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation is required. The re-evaluation will analyze both the changes in the environmental setting (new gas well, previously unidentified cultural resources, etc.) as well as changes to the proposed action and the effect those will have on various environmental resources. If there are new significant environmental impacts, a Supplemental EIS will be prepared. If there are no new significant environmental impacts, a written report documenting the re-evaluation will be prepared.
TNM Noise runs area available electronically upon request.
Grandview Interchange
Moving Forward with Construction: A fully functional US 160 interchange is being constructed without a US 550 connection; the US 550 connection may or may not be located at this interchange in the future, pending the outcome of reevaluations required under various federal environmental statutes. The completed interchange accommodates future projected traffic volumes (of 87,000 vehicles a day), facilitates east-west travel and provides safe and direct access to current and future development north and south (onto a frontage road) of US 160. The interchange has three construction phases and is scheduled for completion by fall 2011. Planned completion for Phases I and II (interchange bridges, construction of an eastbound off-ramp and ramp work on the north side) is late summer 2010. Phase III begins in 2011 and completes the interchange with bridge tie-ins and paving.
TNM Noise runs area available electronically upon request.
Moving Forward with Construction: A fully functional US 160 interchange is being constructed without a US 550 connection; the US 550 connection may or may not be located at this interchange in the future, pending the outcome of reevaluations required under various federal environmental statutes. The completed interchange accommodates future projected traffic volumes (of 87,000 vehicles a day), facilitates east-west travel and provides safe and direct access to current and future development north and south (onto a frontage road) of US 160. The interchange has three construction phases and is scheduled for completion by fall 2011. Planned completion for Phases I and II (interchange bridges, construction of an eastbound off-ramp and ramp work on the north side) is late summer 2010. Phase III begins in 2011 and completes the interchange with bridge tie-ins and paving.
