Chapter 2: Alternatives

Transcription

1 Chapter 2: Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the alternatives that were considered for meeting the purpose of the State Route (S.R.) 30 Project as described in Section 1.2.1, Purpose of the Project. This chapter describes the alternatives that were developed during the scoping process, reviews the alternatives that were eliminated from further study through the alternatives-screening process, describes the No-Action Alternative and the action alternatives that were carried forward for further study in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the No-Action and action alternatives. 2.2 Alternatives-Development and Screening Process Figure presents an overview of the Figure Overview of the S.R. 30 EIS Alternativesalternatives-development and screening Development and Screening Process process. As shown in the figure, the project s purpose and need are the foundation of the process. More details about the alternatives-development and screening process are provided in the Alternatives- Development and Screening Report (UDOT 2017e; see Appendix F, Alternatives-Development and Screening Report). The alternatives-development and screening process is designed to be dynamic throughout the EIS process. If a new alternative or refinement of an alternative is developed or arises later in the process, it will be subject to the same screening process as all of the other alternatives, as described in this chapter. Utah Department of Transportation 2-1

2 2.2.1 Range of Alternatives To Be Evaluated in This EIS The preliminary alternatives were developed based on previous planning studies and through the EIS agency and public scoping process. These alternatives were developed with input from existing land use and transportation plans, the public, local municipal government personnel, and resource agency personnel. The input was collected during the EIS public scoping period (August 18 to October 21, 2016), at agency scoping meetings (September 13 and 14, 2016), in stakeholder interviews, and at a Stakeholder Working Group meeting (October 19, 2016). In addition, a report describing the screening process that would be used (Alternatives-Development and Screening Methodology Report) was placed on the project website (on October 7, 2016) and sent to cooperating and participating agencies (on the same date) for a 30-day public comment period. For a summary of comments received during the comment period, see Section , Review of and Comments on the Alternatives-Screening and Development Report. Table lists the preliminary alternatives that emerged from the scoping process to be considered in the screening process for this EIS Consideration of a Mass Transit Alternative What is scoping? Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. Mass transit includes reasonable and feasible transit options such as bus service and rail systems. A key component of transit use is the density of development required to make transit use practical. A study (Pushkarev and Zupan 1977) of data regarding transit use in relationship to housing density was conducted for six metropolitan areas ranging in population from 531,000 to 16,300,000. The transit study concluded that housing densities of 2 to 7 dwellings per acre produced only marginal use of public transportation. Densities of 7 to 30 dwellings per acre were necessary to sustain transit use in the range of 5% to 40%. This study also determined what transit modes would work best based on the dwellingunit densities. The study concluded that local bus service would work with densities of 4 to 7 dwellings per acre, but rail service would require a minimum of 9 dwellings per acre. The rail service would further require a downtown area of 35 to 50 million square feet in a metropolitan area of more than 750,000 people with a large workday peak trip to the downtown area. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) looked at areas along S.R. 30 and the towns in western Cache County. None of the areas have the densities or population stated in the transit study as supporting a bus or rail transit system (the current densities are about 0.5 to 1 household per acre). Even if a bus route were provided to Mendon and other towns in western Cache County, it wouldn t decrease traffic volumes on S.R. 30 enough to eliminate the need to increase the roadway capacity and wouldn t address the current safety issues with S.R. 30. However, the design of each alternative does assume that the projects listed in the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization s (Cache MPO) Cache County, Utah, Regional Transportation Plan 2040, including transit projects in Logan, have been constructed. Lastly, the Cache Valley Transit District has a transit system and evaluates the need for new routes based on ridership. The District doesn t have any routes on S.R Utah Department of Transportation

3 Table Preliminary Alternatives Evaluated in the Screening Process Alternative No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative 2 Off-Corridor Improvements Alternative 3 Three-lane highway with safety improvements Alternative 4 Four-lane highway with safety improvements Alternative 5 Five-lane highway with safety improvements Alternative 6 Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 7 Reversible lanes with safety improvements Alternative 8 Bridge with safety improvements Description With this alternative, no improvements would be made to S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to 1000 West except for routine maintenance. Projects identified in the Cache MPO s Cache County, Utah, Regional Transportation Plan 2040 except for the S.R. 30 Project are assumed to have been constructed as part of the No-Action Alternative. Maintain the current two-lane highway but add shoulders and left- and right-turn lanes to improve safety. Provide a center median from 1000 West to 1900 West. Add capacity on either Mendon Road/600 South (south of S.R. 30) or 3000 North/Airport Road (north of S.R. 30) to alleviate congestion on S.R. 30. Safety improvements would still be made on S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to 1000 West and would include shoulders and left- and right-turn lanes. Add passing lanes to the existing two-lane highway to have a continuous three-lane roadway from S.R. 23 to 1000 West. Add a center median, shoulders, and left- and right-turn lanes to improve safety. Provide two travel lanes in each direction on S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to 1000 West. Add shoulders and left- and right-turn lanes to improve safety. This alternative doesn t include a center median. Provide two travel lanes in each direction plus a center median/turn lane on S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to 1000 West. Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety. Provide the minimum number of lanes to meet the project s purpose and provide a combination of two and three travel lanes from S.R. 23 to 1900 West. The alternative would include five lanes from 1900 West to 1000 West. The alternative would include a center median, shoulders, and leftand right-turn lanes to improve safety. Provide three travel lanes and reverse the travel direction in one lane during the AM and PM peak periods from S.R. 23 to 1900 West. Add shoulders and turn lanes to improve safety. In order to function, the reversible lanes concept can t include a center median. The alternative would include five lanes from 1900 West to 1000 West. Maintain the current two-lane highway from S.R. 23 to 3200 West but add shoulders and turn lanes to improve safety. Add a new two-lane highway on a bridge to avoid wetlands starting at about 3200 West across Cutler Marsh. Provide two travel lanes plus a westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Provide five lanes from 1900 West to 1000 West. Add a center median, shoulders, and turn lanes to improve safety. Utah Department of Transportation 2-3

4 2.2.2 Screening of Alternatives UDOT evaluated the preliminary alternatives identified during the process described in Section 2.2.1, Range of Alternatives To Be Evaluated in This EIS, using a two-step screening process to determine which alternatives were reasonable and practicable and should be considered for further study in this EIS. Level 1 screening examined roadway and transportation management strategy alternatives that focused on improving the capacity on S.R. 30. Level 1 screening quantitatively evaluated the range of preliminary alternatives to determine which alternatives would meet the project s purpose. Alternatives that passed Level 1 screening were then evaluated using the Level 2 screening process. Level 2 screening involved a primarily quantitative analysis to identify the reasonable alternatives to be studied further in this EIS. In part, Level 2 screening considered alternatives impacts to the natural and built environment. The impact numbers developed during Level 2 screening were based on preliminary alignments developed using geographic information systems (GIS) software. Because the preliminary alignments were developed conservatively, the impact numbers used during Level 2 screening are different than the impacts described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures, for the engineered alternatives that passed both Level 1 and Level 2 screening. UDOT received the following comments on the Alternatives-Development and Screening Methodology Report and modified the screening process to incorporate these comments: The level of service on S.R. 30 should be evaluated separately for rural and urban segments of the highway to determine required capacity improvements for each segment. Consider the requirements of Section 404(b)(1) practicability in alternatives screening [for more information, see Section , Screening Considerations under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act]. Level 2 screening should consider the linear feet of irrigation canals affected. Summary of Travel Demand Modeling for the Alternatives Screening To determine whether each alternative met the Level 1 screening criteria, UDOT evaluated it using a travel demand model. The model results showed whether an alternative met the level of service (LOS) criterion of LOS C for Level 1 screening (Table 2.2-2). The Cache MPO is the designated metropolitan planning organization that works in partnership with UDOT and other stakeholders to develop a regional transportation plan for the communities within its jurisdiction in Cache Valley. The Cache MPO maintains a travel demand model, which is a state-ofthe-practice tool that allows transportation analysts to input various land use and growth scenarios to test road networks with the expected traffic What is a travel demand model? A travel demand model is a computer model that predicts the number of transportation trips (travel demand) in an area at a given time. The travel demand model used for the S.R. 30 Project is maintained by the Cache MPO. for each scenario. The travel demand model used for the S.R. 30 Project includes all roadway and transit projects identified in the Cache MPO s regional transportation plan to Utah Department of Transportation

5 Therefore, any planned improvement between 2015 and 2040 in the regional transportation plan is included in the travel demand model and considered in the traffic analysis for the S.R. 30 Project s screening process. The model output was used to determine the traffic need for the S.R. 30 Project in 2040 as well as how each action alternative would improve traffic conditions on S.R. 30. The travel demand model was the tool used to screen the project alternatives by determining how well they met the purpose of the project Level 1 Screening The purpose of Level 1 screening was to identify alternatives that would meet the purpose of the project. Alternatives that UDOT determined wouldn t meet the purpose of the project were considered unreasonable for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes and not practicable under the Clean Water Act and weren t carried forward for further analysis in Level 2 screening. Level 1 screening was the first major decision point at which alternatives were eliminated based on specific screening criteria. During Level 1 screening, the preliminary alternatives were screened against level of service and safety criteria (Table 2.2-2). To accommodate Level 1 screening, the preliminary alternatives were developed in enough detail to allow UDOT to use the travel demand model to forecast future traffic for the roadway alternatives. Table Level 1 Screening Criteria (Purpose and Need) What was the purpose of Level 1 screening? The purpose of Level 1 screening was to identify alternatives that would meet the purpose of the project. Criterion Reduce delay and improve capacity (improve regional mobility) Improve safety on S.R. 30 Measure Meet level of service C on the S.R. 30 roadway. Meet level of service C at intersections on S.R. 30. Meet UDOT s safety standards (such as lane and shoulder widths, access, and sight distance) for all roadway users including passenger and freight vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and recreational users during all weather conditions. Provide vehicle access in accordance with safety standards. Level of Service Criterion For the level of service screening analysis that was conducted for all the alternatives identified above in Table 2.2-1, Preliminary Alternatives Evaluated in the Screening Process, UDOT divided S.R. 30 into three segments: S.R. 23 to 3200 West, 3200 West to 1900 West, and 1900 West to 1000 West. Because the objective of Alternative 6 was to provide the minimum number of lanes needed to meet the project s purpose, UDOT evaluated four different Alternative 6 options featuring a combination of lanes to determine the minimum number of lanes needed to meet a level of service of LOS C along S.R. 30 (the first screening criterion in Table above). What is level of service? Level of service is a measure of the operating conditions on a road or at an intersection. Level of service is represented by a letter grade ranging from A (free-flowing traffic and little delay) to F (extremely congested, stop-and-go traffic and excessive delay). Table below shows the four alternatives that were evaluated using the travel demand model. For all four alternatives, UDOT determined that five lanes were needed from 1900 West to 1000 West to meet the level of service criterion of LOS C. Utah Department of Transportation 2-5

6 Table Four Options Evaluated for Alternative 6 (Combination of Lanes) Alternative Alternative 6A Alternative 6B Alternative 6C Alternative 6D Description Five lanes from 1000 West to 1900 West Westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Westbound passing lane from mileposts to 103 Eastbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23 Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety Five lanes from 1000 West to 1900 West Westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Westbound passing lane from 3200 West to milepost Eastbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23 Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety Five lanes from 1000 West to 1900 West Westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Eastbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23 Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety Five lanes from 1000 West to 1900 West Westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Westbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23 Eastbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23 Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety Table shows the travel demand modeling analysis for each preliminary alternative that was evaluated during Level 1 screening. Only Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8 met the level of service goal of LOS C for all three segments of S.R. 30. The analysis showed that some type of expanded capacity (additional travel lanes) is needed to meet the level of service criterion of LOS C. Since Alternatives 1 and 2 didn t include expanded capacity, neither alternative met this criterion for any segment. In addition, the analysis showed that adding passing lanes for the entire project length from S.R. 23 to 1000 West (Alternative 3) wouldn t meet the level of service criterion in all segments, but a combination of passing lanes in the rural segments from S.R. 23 to 1900 West along with a five-lane arterial from 1900 West to 1000 West (Alternatives 6A, 6B, and 6C) would meet the level of service criterion. 2-6 Utah Department of Transportation

7 Table Travel Demand Modeling Analysis for Level 1 Screening by Segment Level of Service by Segment (Criterion for Passing Level 1 Screening Is LOS A C) Alternative S.R. 23 to 3200 West 3200 West to 1900 West 1900 West to 1000 West No-Action Alternative D D F Alternative 1 Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management D D F Alternative 2 Off-Corridor Improvements D D F Alternative 3 Three-lane highway with safety improvements C C F Alternative 4 Four-lane highway with safety improvements A A D Alternative 5 Five-lane highway with safety improvements A A C Alternative 6A Combination of lanes with safety improvements C C C Alternative 6B Combination of lanes with safety improvements C C C Alternative 6C Combination of lanes with safety improvements C C C Alternative 6D Combination of lanes with safety improvements D C C Alternative 7 Reversible lanes with safety improvements D D C Alternative 8 Bridge with safety improvements A C C Green shading and bold = Meets level of service goal of LOS C Red shading and not bold = Doesn t meet level of service goal of LOS C Safety Criterion For all of the preliminary alternatives, UDOT assumed that the S.R. 30 roadway could be designed to meet UDOT s safety and access standards [the second screening criterion listed above in Table 2.2-2, Level 1 Screening Criteria (Purpose and Need)] except with the four-lane alternative (Alternative 4). To meet UDOT s safety standards, the four-lane alternative would require a center median, thereby duplicating Alternative 5, a five-lane alternative. Utah Department of Transportation 2-7

8 Interim Level 1 Screening Results Table shows the results of the Level 1 screening analysis by alternative. As shown in the table, only Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8 met both of the Level 1 screening criteria. Table Level 1 Screening Results Alternative Provides LOS C on S.R. 30 and at Intersections Level 1 Screening Criteria Meets UDOT Safety and Access Standards Recommended for Further Analysis in Level 2 Screening No-Action Alternative No No No Alternative 1 Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management No Yes No Alternative 2 Off-Corridor Improvements No Yes No Alternative 3 Three-lane highway with safety improvements Alternative 4 Four-lane highway with safety improvements a Alternative 5 Five-lane highway with safety improvements Alternative 6A Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 6B Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 6C Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 6D Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 7 Reversible lanes with safety improvements No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Alternative 8 Bridge with safety improvements Yes Yes Yes LOS = level of service a For the four-lane alternative (Alternative 4) to meet UDOT s safety and access standards, it would need a center median. If a center median were added to the four-lane alternative, it would be the same as Alternative 5, a five-lane alternative. 2-8 Utah Department of Transportation

9 Travel Time Study for Alternative 2, Off-Corridor Improvements All of the alternatives were screened using the Cache MPO s travel demand model except for Alternative 2, Off-Corridor Improvements. For this alternative, UDOT conducted a travel time study to determine whether the alternative would meet the level of service criterion for Level 1 screening. With this alternative, either Mendon Road/600 South (south of S.R. 30) or 3000 North/Airport Road (north of S.R. 30) would be improved to reduce congestion on S.R. 30 so that no capacity improvements would be required. This alternative would still require that safety improvements, such as adding shoulders and turn lanes, be implemented on S.R. 30. With the substantial wetland complexes in Cache Valley, any improvements to Mendon Road/600 South or 3000 North/Airport Road would result in wetland impacts, so Alternative 2 wouldn t be a wetland avoidance alternative. S.R. 30 is the only east-west arterial that functions as a primary arterial into Cache Valley. As such, S.R. 30 provides an important direct connection to other major transportation systems throughout the region, including Interstate 15, U.S. Highway 89, and U.S. Highway 91. An origin-destination survey conducted for the S.R West to Main Corridor Study (UDOT 2010) showed that 33% of the traffic on S.R. 30 is traveling east-west toward Main Street in Logan and Utah State University, 33% is heading south of S.R. 30 to destinations in Logan, and 33% is heading north of S.R. 30 to destinations in Logan. The survey demonstrates that S.R. 30 provides a central connection for traffic to disperse throughout Logan. For Alternative 2, UDOT conducted a travel time study to determine whether traffic would use either Mendon Road/600 South or 3000 North/Airport Road instead of S.R. 30 to access Logan. As shown in Figure 2.2-2, travel on Mendon Road/600 South would take 8 minutes longer and would require 3.4 additional miles to reach the intersection of S.R. 30 and 1000 West. Travel on 3000 North/Airport Road would take 14 minutes longer and 6.7 additional miles. The additional mileage to access Logan from Mendon Road/600 South or 3000 North/Airport Road would require substantial out-of-direction travel for the majority of traffic accessing Logan and would result in increased air pollutant emissions from vehicles. Even with congested conditions on S.R. 30, traffic would likely continue to use the highway to access Logan because it would provide a more direct access with shorter travel times. Therefore, improvements to Mendon Road/600 South or 3000 North/Airport Road wouldn t reduce traffic congestion on S.R. 30 enough to meet the project purpose of LOS C or better. Final Level 1 Screening Results As a result of Level 1 screening, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6D, and 7 were eliminated from further consideration for not meeting the LOS C criterion on S.R. 30. In addition, Alternative 4 doesn t meet safety standards because it doesn t include a center median. Based on the analysis from Level 1 screening, five alternatives (Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8) met the LOS C and safety criteria and therefore were advanced to Level 2 screening. Utah Department of Transportation 2-9

10 Figure Alternative 2, Off-Corridor Improvements 2-10 Utah Department of Transportation

11 Level 2 Screening As a result of Level 1 screening, five action alternatives (Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8) were determined to meet the LOS C and safety criteria and therefore were advanced to Level 2 screening (Table 2.2-6). These alternatives are illustrated in Figure 2.2-3, Figure 2.2-4, and Figure Table Action Alternatives Evaluated in Level 2 Screening Alternative Alternative 5 Five-lane highway with safety improvements Alternative 6A Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 6B Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 6C Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 8 Bridge with safety improvements Description Provide two travel lanes in each direction plus center median/turn lane on S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to 1000 West. Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety. Five lanes from 1000 West to 1900 West. Westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Westbound passing lane from mileposts to 103. Eastbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23. Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety. Five lanes from 1000 West to 1900 West. Westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Westbound passing lane from 3200 West to milepost Eastbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23. Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety. Five lanes from 1000 West to 1900 West. Westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Eastbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23. Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety. Maintain current two-lane highway from S.R. 23 to 3200 West but add shoulders and turn lanes to improve safety. Add new two-lane highway on a bridge to avoid wetlands starting at about 3200 West across Cutler Marsh. Provide two travel lanes plus westbound passing lane from 1900 West to milepost Provide five lanes from 1900 West to 1000 West. Add center median, shoulders, and turn lanes to improve safety. Utah Department of Transportation 2-11

12 Figure Alternatives 5 and 6A 2-12 Utah Department of Transportation

13 Figure Alternatives 6B and 6C Utah Department of Transportation 2-13

14 Figure Alternatives 6E and Utah Department of Transportation

15 Level 2 Screening Methodology The purpose of Level 2 screening was to determine which alternatives are reasonable for NEPA purposes and practicable under the Clean Water Act. During Level 2 screening, UDOT collectively evaluated the alternatives that passed Level 1 screening against criteria that focus on how well each alternative meets the purpose of and need for the project, the alternative s impacts to the natural and built environment, estimated project costs, logistical considerations, and overall feasibility. For more information, see the Alternatives-Development and Screening Methodology Report (UDOT 2017d). UDOT published the screening methodology report in October 2016 for a 30-day agency and public review. The screening process was revised based on comments received during this review. In preparation for Level 2 screening, UDOT used GIS software to estimate how each alternative that passed Level 1 screening might affect resources such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, farmland, parks and trail systems, cultural resources, property, and community facilities (such as schools, senior centers, fire stations, and community gathering places). Table lists the Level 2 screening criteria. The amount of impacts to each resource was determined by estimating the right-of-way needed for each alternative that passed Level 1 screening. Right-of-way widths were based on UDOT design standards as described in the technical report Proposed Right-of-Way Dimensions (UDOT 2017a). New Alternative Added to the Level 2 Screening Process In addition to the five action alternatives that passed Level 1 screening, UDOT developed a new action alternative that combined Alternative 6C and Alternative 6D, which was eliminated in Level 1 screening for not meeting the project purpose criteria. This new alternative (Alternative 6E) is the same as Alternative 6C except that an additional westbound passing lane from Alternative 6D was added from milepost to S.R. 23 (see Figure 2.2-5, Alternatives 6E and 8, above), and the eastern end of the westbound passing lane was moved west to about 3200 West. Because Alternative 6E is the same as Alternative 6C with the addition of one more passing lane, Alternative 6E would pass Level 1 screening. Alternative 6E is described as follows: Five lanes from 1000 West to 1900 West Westbound passing lane from 1900 West to 3200 West Eastbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23 Westbound passing lane from milepost to S.R. 23 Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety What was the purpose of Level 2 screening? The purpose of Level 2 screening was to determine which alternatives are reasonable for NEPA purposes and practicable under the Clean Water Act. Utah Department of Transportation 2-15

16 Table Level 2 Screening Criteria (Impacts to Resources) Criterion Measure Compatibility with local plans Provides trail connections Cost, technology, and logistics Impacts to natural resources Impacts to the built environment Alternative s consistency with local and regional land use and transportation plans a Number of trails that would be connected Estimated project cost (general) Constructability given available technology Logistical considerations Acres and types of wetlands and other waters of the United States affected b Acres and types of sensitive habitat affected Acres of irrigated prime or unique farmland affected Acres of floodplain affected Number and area of parks and trails affected Number of linear feet of canal affected Number of community facilities affected Number of potential property acquisitions including residential, business, and utility acquisitions Number of Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) uses c Potential for impacts to low-income or minority populations (environmental justice populations) Number of cultural resources affected (for example, historic and archaeological resources) a This criterion wasn t used to determine whether an alternative is reasonable or practicable but was used to make minor shifts to alternatives alignments. b Based on Clean Water Act requirements, an alternative with a substantially greater number of wetland impacts could be eliminated from detailed study in this EIS. c Based on the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, an alternative with a substantially greater number of Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) impacts could be eliminated from detailed study in this EIS Utah Department of Transportation

17 Level 2 Screening Evaluation Table shows the results of Level 2 screening. A discussion of the alternatives follows the table. Table Resource Impacts by S.R. 30 Action Alternative Alternative Impact Category Natural Environment a Unit 5 6A 6B 6C 6E 8 Total wetlands Acres Wetlands Acres b Wetland ditches Acres Open water Acres Potential sensitive habitat (ULT) c Acres Prime or unique farmland Acres Floodplains Acres Built Environment a Compatible with local plans Yes/no Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recreation sites Number Agricultural canals Linear feet 1,109 1,105 1, Community facilities Number Residential relocations Number Business relocations Number Section 4(f) properties Number Historic properties Number Cost of alternative in 2017 d Dollars (millions) $51.3 $45.7 $45.5 $45.0 $45.0 $182.8 a The acreage or number of impacts is based on a screening-level design. The actual impacts could decrease or increase based on moredetailed design conducted for the alternatives that pass Level 2 screening. b Constructing the bridge for Alternative 8, including bridge supports, would temporarily but severely damage over 1 additional acre of wetlands, so Alternative 8 would likely have about 5.1 acres of wetland impacts. c There were no observations of Ute ladies -tresses (ULT; Spiranthes diluvialis) plants in the project area during the 2016 survey. One significant observation from the ULT survey was that seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima), a plant associated with known ULT populations, was absent from the project area. It isn t likely that the habitat supports ULT; however, ULT was included in this impact table as having potential habitat. d Cost is in 2017 dollars. Utah Department of Transportation 2-17

18 Alternative 5 (Five-Lane Alternative) Alternative 5 would include a five-lane S.R. 30 from 1000 West to S.R. 23. This alternative would have the greatest impacts to the natural environment and would have similar impacts to the built environment as Alternatives 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6E. Alternative 5 would affect about 10.8 acres of wetlands and 2.5 acres of sensitive habitat. Compared to Alternatives 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6E, Alternative 5 would affect between 1.2 and 1.9 acres more wetlands and 0.8 to 1.5 acres more sensitive habitat. In addition, Alternative 5 would have the most impacts to prime and unique farmland and floodplains. Because Alternative 5 would have the greatest impacts to the natural environment, including up to 1.9 acres more wetland impacts compared to the other action alternatives, UDOT eliminated this alternative in accordance with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines because there are other practicable and reasonable alternatives available that would have less adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem. 1 Alternatives 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6E (Passing Lane Alternatives) Alternatives 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6E are similar concepts that would provide passing lanes on S.R. 30 from 1900 West to S.R. 23 to achieve the level of service goal of LOS C. All of these alternatives include a five-lane urban segment from 1000 West to 1900 West. Although these alternatives would provide similar transportation performance, there are subtle differences in their impacts to the natural environment and in their design. Alternatives 6A and 6B Both Alternatives 6A and 6B would have about 0.7 acre more wetland impacts and greater impacts to Ute ladies -tresses habitat, open water, floodplains, and agricultural canals compared to Alternatives 6C and 6E. Alternatives 6A and 6B would have the same impacts as Alternatives 6C and 6E to recreation sites, residential and business relocations, Section 4(f) properties, and historic properties. Alternative 6A is the only passing lane alternative that includes an additional travel lane (three travel lanes in total) across Cutler Marsh, whereas Alternatives 6B, 6C, and 6E have two travel lanes across the marsh. Because of the wider right-of-way across Cutler Marsh, Alternative 6A would affect more acreage of recreation areas and wildlife habitat associated with Cutler Marsh. What is Section 4(f)? Section 4(f) is part of a Federal Highway Administration regulation that requires a project to avoid the use of eligible or potentially eligible historic properties and recreation and wildlife areas unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use. Even then, all measures must be taken to minimize harm to these properties. Alternative 6B has two westbound passing lanes that have only a 0.5-mile gap between the end of the first passing lane and the start of the second westbound passing lane. Passing lanes require a merge transition from the passing lane segment to the two-lane segment. The 0.5-mile gap 1 The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines are regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 230). The Guidelines establish standards that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must apply when issuing permits for dredging or filling wetlands or other waters of the United States. One of the key requirements in the Guidelines is that a Section 404 permit can t be issued if there is another practicable alternative that would cause less adverse impact to aquatic resources so long as that alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. This requirement is commonly known as the requirement to select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative Utah Department of Transportation

19 between passing lanes doesn t meet design standards for the transition. Once the transitions are applied to Alternative 6B, the 0.5-mile gap doesn t provide enough distance and would require that the passing lane extend through the gap. Thus Alternative 6B becomes the same as Alternative 6C but with a passing lane that s longer than necessary (by 0.3 mile). Because Alternatives 6A and 6B would provide similar transportation performance as Alternatives 6C and 6E while causing greater impacts to the natural environment, and because Alternative 6B s passing lane transition doesn t meet design standards, UDOT eliminated Alternatives 6A and 6B from further study in this EIS. Alternatives 6C and 6E Alternatives 6C and 6E would have the same impacts to the natural environment except that Alternative 6E would affect 0.5 acre more prime farmland in the segment between Cutler Marsh and S.R. 23. Both alternatives would have the same impact to the built environment, including Section 4(f) properties and historic properties. However, Alternative 6E would provide an additional 1 mile of westbound passing lane between the west end of Cutler Marsh and S.R. 23. With an eastbound passing lane in the same highway segment, Alternative 6E provides a five-lane segment from Cutler Marsh to S.R. 23. This five-lane segment results in better transportation performance as a result of the two additional travel lanes and matches the two westbound travel lanes immediately west of S.R. 23. Because Alternative 6C would have similar impacts to the natural and built environment as Alternative 6E but would provide less transportation performance benefits, UDOT eliminated Alternative 6C and evaluated Alternative 6E further in this EIS. Alternative 8 (Bridge Alternative) Alternative 8 would have the least impact to the natural environment, with about 0.9 fewer acre of wetland impacts 2 and 0.4 fewer acre of sensitive habitat impacts than Alternative 6E, which had the next-lowest impacts to wetlands and sensitive habitat. However, the bridge would be associated with additional safety risks (due to icing), snow removal concerns, water quality impacts, and worse transportation performance (due to out-of-direction travel). The proposed bridge over the Cutler Marsh wetlands would be about 2 miles long (one segment of 3,000 feet and another segment of 7,400 feet). It would be possible to build a bridge over Cutler Marsh to avoid wetlands; however, compared to other bridges, this bridge would have several additional constraints because of the bridge length, high liquefaction potential, foggy weather conditions, surrounding environment, and recreation accesses. The bridge would be in an area with a high liquefaction potential, so it would require special design considerations and construction techniques, which could substantially affect wetlands during construction. The total amount of wetlands affected would be greater than the impacts from the other alternatives being considered. In addition, because construction would occur in a high-liquefaction area, the construction cost would be greater than for a similar bridge in an area without a risk of liquefaction. What is liquefaction? Liquefaction is the sudden loss of strength and stiffness in soil during strong earthquake shaking. 2 Constructing the bridge for Alternative 8, including bridge supports, would temporarily but severely damage over 1 additional acre of wetlands, so Alternative 8 would have similar wetland impacts as Alternative 6E. Utah Department of Transportation 2-19

20 The location of the potential bridge is frequently foggy in winter, which would lead to icy conditions on the roadway surface of the bridge. Frequent fog and icing in winter would require additional applications of salt on the roadway compared to other similar bridges. The salt would run off the roadway in snowmelt and would enter Cutler Marsh, which could reduce the water quality in Cutler Marsh and adjacent wetlands. According to one study (Agent and Deen 1976), the number of accidents on bridges during icy or snowy conditions was 16 percentage points higher than the number of accidents on roads. This accident risk could be even higher with a bridge on S.R. 30 as a result of frequent fog during the winter (October to April) and the 2-mile length of the bridge (one segment of 3,000 feet and another segment of 7,400 feet). Snow couldn t be left on the bridge because snowmelt could freeze into ice on the roadway and because it would prevent vehicles from being able to pull out of traffic onto the shoulder. Snow would have to be pushed off the bridge into the marsh below. The bridge would bypass and not allow westbound access to two PacifiCorp recreation sites. This configuration would require vehicles to travel out of direction about 1.1 miles and 0.52 mile to access the recreation sites. The bridge would add a new visual obstruction into the scenic Cutler Marsh area, which is a popular recreation and bird-watching location. One of the purposes of the S.R. 30 Project is to meet UDOT s safety standards (such as lane and shoulder widths, access, and sight distance) for all roadway users including passenger and freight vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians during all weather conditions. Alternative 8 would meet UDOT s safety standards in that it would have acceptable lane and shoulder widths, access, and sight distance, but accident rates could increase substantially during the winter as a result of icing. In addition, the frequent fog during the winter on S.R. 30 would further increase this risk compared to other bridges in Utah and in many parts of the United States (most long bridges in the United States are in warmer climates), thereby making the Alternative 8 bridge concept not practicable. For these reasons, UDOT determined that Alternative 8 isn t reasonable or practicable because of the highliquefaction area, higher construction and maintenance costs compared to similar bridges, increased safety risk compared to other similar bridges as a result of the icing from frequent fog associated with Cutler Marsh, and the increase in salt use and water quality concerns regarding Cutler Marsh. In addition, UDOT determined that this alternative isn t reasonable because the out-of-direction travel caused by the one-way road over Cutler Mash would reduce transportation performance. Therefore, Alternative 8 was eliminated from detailed study in this EIS. For more information regarding why Alternative 8 was eliminated from further study, see the Alternatives- Development and Screening Report (UDOT 2017e; see Appendix F, Alternatives-Development and Screening Report) Utah Department of Transportation

21 Level 2 Screening Results UDOT evaluated six action alternatives in the Level 2 screening process: Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, 6E, and 8. Table summarizes this evaluation. Based on the Level 2 screening results, UDOT eliminated Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8 from further study in this EIS. Table Level 2 Screening Results Alternative Alternative 5 Five-lane highway with safety improvements Alternative 6A Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 6B Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 6C Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 6E Combination of two through five lanes with safety improvements Alternative 8 Bridge with safety improvements Level 2 Screening Results Eliminated. Alternative 5 would have the greatest impacts to wetlands and the natural environment of any alternative considered. Eliminated. Of the passing lane alternatives, Alternative 6A would have greater impacts to the natural environment without providing any additional transportation performance. Eliminated. Of the passing lane alternatives, Alternative B would have greater impacts to the natural environment and doesn t meet design standards for passing lane transitions. Eliminated. Alternative 6C would have similar impacts to the natural and built environment as Alternative 6E but would provide less transportation performance. Carried Forward. Alternative 6E was carried forward for detailed study in this EIS. The alternative would have the least impact to wetlands and the natural environment and would provide the best transportation performance of the passing lane alternatives. Eliminated. Alternative 8 was eliminated because of construction in a high-liquefaction area, potentially greater wetland impacts compared to other alternatives being considered, increased safety risk caused by the potential for frequent icing, and water quality concerns. In addition, Alternative 8 was eliminated because snow removal could harm wetlands below the bridge and because the out-of-direction travel caused by the one-way road over Cutler Mash would reduce transportation performance Screening Considerations under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that no discharge of dredged or fill material [to Section 404 regulated waters] shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (a)]. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers makes official determinations under the Clean Water Act, UDOT considered the requirements of the Clean Water Act during the alternatives-development process. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, also states that agencies are directed to avoid new construction in wetlands unless an agency determines that there are no practicable alternatives to such construction. Based on Level 1 screening, there were no practicable alternatives to construction in wetlands. Section 2.3.2, Avoidance and Minimization Process, describes the efforts UDOT undertook to further avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands. Five action alternatives passed Level 1 screening (Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8), and a sixth action alternative was added prior to Level 2 screening (Alternative 6E). These six alternatives were evaluated in Utah Department of Transportation 2-21

22 Level 2 screening to determine whether they were reasonable for NEPA purposes and practicable under the Clean Water Act. All six alternatives would affect similar-quality wetlands along S.R. 30. To determine whether these six alternatives were practicable, UDOT evaluated them according to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Of these six alternatives, UDOT determined that Alternative 8 wasn t practicable under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines because of construction in a high-liquefaction area, increased safety risk from icing compared to similar bridges, and environmental concerns. In addition, although Alternative 8 would have the least wetland impacts by about 1 acre compared to Alternative 6E based on right-of-way requirements, constructing the bridge, including bridge supports, would temporarily but severely damage over 1 additional acre of wetlands, so Alternative 8 would likely have more overall wetland impacts than Alternative 6E. The Alternative 8 bridge would also be constructed over the wetland marsh associated with Cutler Reservoir, potentially causing additional shade impacts to some wetland plants, and the additional salt application required for the bridge could cause additional water quality impacts to adjacent wetlands. Of the remaining five practicable and reasonable alternatives (Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6E) that were evaluated according to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines during Level 2 screening, Alternative 6E would have the least impact to aquatic resources because it would affect the fewest wetlands and would avoid adding an additional travel lane in the marsh associated with Cutler Reservoir. There were no available practicable alternatives that would have less impact to the aquatic ecosystem. Alternative 6E passed Level 2 screening and was evaluated further in this EIS Review of and Comments on the Alternatives-Screening and Development Report UDOT prepared the Alternatives-Development and Screening Report (UDOT 2017e; see Appendix F, Alternatives-Development and Screening Report), which described the S.R. 30 alternatives-screening process. The report was released to the public and agencies for a 30-day review in March The comments to the report included that UDOT should consider a separate pedestrian and bicycle facility, that the five-lane alternative should be considered even though it would have more wetland impacts, that Alternative 8 might have less wetland impacts and therefore should not be eliminated, and the alternatives should consider separate right- and left-turn lanes. UDOT considered the comments and provided responses on the project website, stating that a separate bike path alternative would be considered in the EIS and that the alternatives would be designed to include appropriate right- and left-turn lanes. UDOT also stated that a five-lane alternative (Alternative 5) was evaluated in the EIS process; although the alternative met the project s purpose for safety and transportation performance, it would have more wetland and other natural environment impacts and therefore would not likely be permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concurred with eliminating Alternative 5 because it wouldn t be permittable under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and found that the logistical and cost constraints related to earthquake (liquefaction) potential at the site could render Alternative 8 not practicable (see Appendix B, Pertinent Correspondence). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that adequate detail was provided for eliminating Alternative 5 as not permittable and Alternative 8 as not practicable, and supported advancing Alternative 6E (UDOT 2017i). Based on the comments, UDOT didn t change the screening process results Utah Department of Transportation

23 Cache County and Logan City representatives continued to request that UDOT consider Alternative 5 in more detail. The County and City requested that UDOT update the February 2016 traffic counts to verify whether Alternative 5 was warranted. In October 2017, UDOT conducted additional traffic counts on S.R. 30 between S.R. 23 and 1000 West to verify traffic volumes and to determine whether volumes had changed enough to alter the results of the alternatives screening. The 2017 traffic counts showed that traffic volumes at the two traffic count locations had increased compared to 2016, from 8,110 vehicles per day (vpd) to 9,070 vpd and from 8,420 vpd to 9,770 vpd. UDOT re-evaluated the screening results using the 2017 traffic counts and found that the 2017 traffic counts didn t change the screening results. The re-evaluation showed that Alternative 6E would still meet the LOS C goal beyond 2040 to 2060; with the 2016 traffic counts, Alternative 6E would meet the LOS C goal to 2065 (Parametrix 2017) Summary of the Results of the Alternatives-Development and Screening Process Based on the results of the alternatives-development and screening process, UDOT advanced the following alternatives for further study in this EIS: No-Action Alternative Alternative 6E Level 2 Screening Sensitivity Analysis of Resource Impacts UDOT determined the Level 2 screening impacts to each resource by estimating the right-of-way needed for each alternative. The right-of-way widths were based on UDOT s design standards as described in the technical report Proposed Right-of-Way Dimensions (UDOT 2017a). The screening-level design accounted for the right-of-way only and didn t include items such as drainage, fill, and some roadway access requirements. Those elements are typically designed only for the alternatives that pass the screening process because of the extensive effort and time required to engineer an alternative. Alternative 6E was the only action alternative to pass the screening process, so UDOT developed a moredetailed engineered design to improve the accuracy of the impact analysis for that alternative in this EIS. As a result of the more-detailed engineering for Alternative 6E, the wetland impacts increased from 8.9 acres during the screening process to 11.9 acres during the detailed analysis. Any of the alternatives evaluated in Level 2 screening would have greater wetland impacts if the alternative were designed to the same level as Alternative 6E. Because UDOT received several comments suggesting that Alternative 5 should be evaluated in more detail, UDOT decided to design this alternative to a similar level as Alternative 6E to verify that its wetland impacts would increase at a similar level. The more-detailed design for Alternative 5 showed that it would fill about 13.1 acres of wetlands, or about 1.15 acres more than Alternative 6E at the same level of design. Therefore, the analysis of Alternative 5 showed that developing a more-detailed design for screening would increase the impacts for all alternatives at a similar level and therefore wouldn t have changed the Level 2 screening results. Utah Department of Transportation 2-23

24 2.2.3 Consideration of Bicycle and Pedestrian Options During the EIS scoping process, UDOT received numerous comments about providing bicycle and pedestrian options as part of the S.R. 30 Project from S.R. 23 to 1000 West. Both Logan City s and Cache County s planning documents show a trail along S.R. 30. After reviewing public input, planning documents, and input from stakeholders, and considering UDOT s goal of considering active transportation as part of project development, UDOT is considering the following bicycle and pedestrian options as part of the S.R. 30 Project: Bike Path within the S.R. 30 Shoulder Alternative. Bicycles would use the 12-foot-wide highway shoulder that would be included with the S.R. 30 improvements for all action alternatives. Separate Pedestrian and Bike Path Alternative. A separate 12-foot-wide trail would parallel the south side of S.R. 30 from 1000 West to S.R. 23. The trail would be outside the UDOT clear zone except in areas constrained by wetlands and potential impacts to structures. In these areas, the trail would be at the base of the clear zone. UDOT decided to carry forward each of the above options as sub-alternatives to the roadway alternative that passed Level 2 screening. For more information about the bicycle and pedestrian options, see Section 2.4.3, Pedestrian and Bike Path Action Alternatives. 2.3 Alternatives-Refinement Process The purposes of the alternatives-refinement process were to further refine and develop the alternatives and to develop a construction footprint for evaluating the impacts of these alternatives. The alternativesrefinement process was conducted to avoid and minimize impacts to communities and the natural environment. Input from stakeholders during the scoping process, Stakeholder Working Group meetings, and stakeholder interviews were used when refining the alternative alignments. The input included: Avoid wetlands along S.R. 30. Avoid or minimize impacts to private properties. Avoid or minimize impacts to recreation areas. Avoid impacts to irrigation canals Preliminary Roadway Design UDOT prepared a Proposed Right-of-Way Dimensions report to document the right-of-way dimensions to be used for the S.R. 30 Project (UDOT 2017a). The right-of-way dimensions used for the S.R. 30 design are based on the roadway geometric standards in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO; AASHTO 2011a) and on UDOT s standards, including UDOT s 2017 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (UDOT 2017b). UDOT uses these standards in planning roadway projects to ensure that safety standards are met. For the S.R. 30 Project, the highway was divided into two segments: a rural segment and an urban segment Utah Department of Transportation

25 Rural Highway Segment Design Based on UDOT and AASHTO standards, UDOT recommends the cross-section components listed in Table for the rural segment of S.R. 30 (1900 West to S.R. 23). Figure and Figure below show typical two-lane, three-lane, and four-lane cross-sections that incorporate the UDOT and AASHTO standards listed in Table UDOT s standards show divided arterials such as S.R. 30 with a 30-foot-wide median. However, the standards also show a 14-foot-wide median with a concrete barrier, which might be acceptable if a 30-footwide median isn t possible as a result of roadside constraints (topography such as cliffs or large hill cuts). A 30-foot-wide median is the standard since it provides a greater safety benefit to the traveling public. However, in coordination with the resource agencies and in an effort to avoid and minimize wetland and property impacts, UDOT decided to implement the 14-foot-wide median with median barrier (a concrete or similar type of barrier that would allow the passage of a 100-year flood) for the S.R. 30 Project (UDOT 2017c). With the 14-foot-wide median, the S.R. 30 roadway width would be 110 feet with three travel lanes and 98 feet with two travel lanes. The highway cross-section includes a 30-foot-wide clear zone on each side of the roadway (which includes 12-foot-wide shoulders), two or three 12-foot-wide travel lanes, and a 14-footwide median. For a two-travel-lane highway, this roadway width would be reduced to 98 feet by eliminating two 12-foot-wide travel lanes. Table Cross-Section Components and Dimensions for a Three- or Five-Lane Rural Arterial Component Dimension Standard or Reference a Notes Clear zone b 30 feet AASHTO 2011a, 2011b UDOT 2017b Clear zone is the unobstructed area beyond the edge of the traveled way that allows drivers to regain control of errant vehicles. Area includes 12-foot-wide paved (outside) shoulder. 6:1 or flatter slope (horizontal:vertical). Based on design speed and average daily traffic. Shoulder 12 feet UDOT 2017b Included within the clear zone. Travel lane 12 feet AASHTO 2011a Lane width for general-purpose lanes. Median 30 feet or 14 feet UDOT 2017b UDOT s standard is to use a 30-foot-wide median since it provides the greatest safety benefit by providing greater separation of traffic. However, a 14-foot-wide median with a median barrier might be acceptable if a 30-foot-wide median isn t possible because of roadside constraints (topography such as cliffs or large hill cuts). a AASHTO 2011a: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets AASHTO 2011b: Roadside Design Guide UDOT 2017b: 2017 UDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction b A 30-foot-wide clear zone would be required for each side of the roadway, for a total of 60 feet. The clear zone includes the shoulder and side slope. Utah Department of Transportation 2-25

26 Figure Typical Sections in the Rural Segment (1900 West to S.R. 23) (1 of 2) 2-26 Utah Department of Transportation

27 Figure Typical Sections in the Rural Segment (1900 West to S.R. 23) (2 of 2) Utah Department of Transportation 2-27

28 Urban Highway Segment Design The S.R. 30 urban segment is from about 1900 West to 1000 West in Logan. Based on AASHTO and UDOT standards, UDOT recommends the cross-section components listed in Table for the urban segment of S.R. 30, which has a lower design speed and more access points than does the rural segment. These cross-section components will be applied to the urban segment for the S.R. 30 Project. What is a design speed? A design speed is a selected speed used to determine the various geometric features of a roadway. As shown in Figure 2.3-3, the overall width of the urban cross-section would be 119 feet. This width includes 12-foot-wide shoulders; 16.5 feet for curb, gutter, and sidewalk; four 12-foot-wide travel lanes; and a 14-foot-wide median without barrier. Table Cross-Section Components and Dimensions for a Five-Lane Urban Arterial Component Dimension Standard or Reference a Notes Clear zone b 20 feet AASHTO 2011a, 2011b Clear zone is the unobstructed area beyond the edge of the traveled way that allows drivers to regain control of errant vehicles. Area includes 12-foot-wide paved (outside) shoulder. 6:1 or flatter slope (horizontal:vertical). Based on design speed and average daily traffic. Clear zone can include park strip and sidewalk. Shoulder 12 feet UDOT 2017b 4-foot-wide bicycle lane can be included within the shoulder. Travel lane 12 feet AASHTO 2011a Lane width for general-purpose lanes. Median/center turn lane 14 feet AASHTO 2011a Curb and gutter 2.5 feet UDOT 2017b Standard UDOT curb and gutter type B1 used. Park strip 8 feet UDOT 2017b Logan City standard. Sidewalk 5 feet UDOT 2017b Minimum width. a AASHTO 2011a: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets AASHTO 2011b: Roadside Design Guide UDOT 2017b: 2017 UDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction b A 20-foot-wide clear zone would be required for each side of the roadway, for a total of 40 feet. The clear zone includes the shoulder, curb and gutter, and part of the park strip and sidewalk Utah Department of Transportation

29 Figure Typical Section in the Urban Segment (1000 West to 1900 West) Utah Department of Transportation 2-29

30 2.3.2 Avoidance and Minimization Process Wetlands During the design process, UDOT evaluated opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands as required by the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. These steps included: Conducting a wetland delineation at the start of the EIS process to ensure accurate wetland mapping for the design process. Using a 14-foot-wide median instead of UDOT s standard 30-foot-wide median in the rural segment of S.R. 30. This avoided about 2 acres of wetlands for a 20% reduction in total wetland impacts. Adding additional travel lanes to the minimum extent practicable to meet the purpose of the project. Widening the highway in non-wetland areas along the highway. Most wetlands are located on the north side of the highway, so UDOT widened the highway to the south side of S.R. 30. In wetland areas, placing the alignment of the proposed Separate Pedestrian and Bike Path Alternative within the UDOT clear zone so that there would be only 0.11 acre of additional wetland impacts. Evaluating each component of the right-of-way to determine whether a narrower right-of-way could be implemented to minimize wetland impacts while meeting safety requirements identified in Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for Action. The proposed right-of-way dimensions noted in Section 2.3.1, Preliminary Roadway Design, are the results of that analysis. More information about the right-ofway evaluation is provided in the technical memorandum Proposed Right-of-Way Dimensions, which documents the right-of-way dimensions to be used for the S.R. 30 Project (UDOT 2017a) Public and Private Property and Canals During the design process, UDOT took the following measures to minimize property and canal impacts: The primary agricultural canal is located on the north side of the highway. UDOT widened the highway to the south side of S.R. 30. UDOT considered input from private property owners during the design process. Most input involved providing safe access to properties. The S.R. 30 Project would provide access that meets design standards. UDOT coordinated with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources regarding potential impacts to the Fisheries Experiment Station on the north side of S.R. 30. The Division recommended widening to the south side of the highway, and this has been implemented as part of the project design. UDOT coordinated with PacifiCorp regarding minimizing impacts to recreation properties managed by PacifiCorp. As part of the project, UDOT would provide access that meets standards to these recreation properties and would provide mitigation for any impacts Utah Department of Transportation

31 2.4 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study The alternatives carried forward for detailed study in this EIS are the No-Action Alternative (to be used as a baseline), the Highway Action Alternative (Alternative 6E), and two pedestrian and bike path action alternatives that could be implemented with the Highway Action Alternative. This section provides a detailed description of each alternative. In order to conduct a detailed evaluation of these alternatives, UDOT developed preliminary engineering and cost estimates for all of the action alternatives No-Action Alternative NEPA requires an analysis of the No-Action Alternative. This alternative serves as a baseline so that decision-makers can compare the environmental effects of the action alternatives. If no action is taken on S.R. 30 between S.R. 23 and 1000 West, UDOT would continue to make minor maintenance improvements such as rehabilitating pavement and improving shoulders, turn lanes, sidewalks, and curb and gutter. Overall, the basic two-lane configuration of S.R. 30 wouldn t change with the No-Action Alternative Highway Action Alternative (Alternative 6E) Preferred Alternative The Highway Action Alternative would add roadway capacity and safety improvements to S.R. 30 from 1000 West to S.R. 23. This alternative consists of a combination of four-, three-, and two-travel-lane segments. Figure shows the lane configurations from 1000 West to S.R. 23. Appendix A, Roadway Plans and Profiles, provides the detailed design plans for the Highway Action Alternative, including improved access points, drainage and culvert locations, and changes to Cutler Marsh recreation access points Urban Segment 1000 West to 1900 West The urban segment would be from 1000 West to 1900 West and includes the S.R. 30 and 1000 West intersection. This segment would consist of the following: The segment would include four travel lanes with a 14-foot-wide center turn median, 12-foot-wide shoulders, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The shoulder would allow bicycle use, and the sidewalk would be for use by pedestrians. The segment would include single left-turn lane from S.R. 30 to northbound 1000 West. The segment would include single right-turn lane from S.R. 30 to southbound 1000 West. The S.R. 30 and 1000 West intersection would be improved as shown in Figure On S.R. 30 west of 1000 West, there would be single left- and right-turn lanes onto 1000 West. As part of the S.R. 30 Project, UDOT wouldn t construct a raised center median that would restrict left turns across the S.R. 30 travel lanes into businesses on S.R. 30 west of 1000 West. However, after the Highway Action Alternative is constructed, UDOT could make safety improvements, including adding a raised center median, if the improvements are warranted by traffic and safety data. The urban segment would include curb and gutter. Stormwater would be captured in this segment and directed to a water-treatment system (a hydrodynamic separator or vault system) before it s conveyed into adjacent waters, in accordance with UDOT s municipal stormwater requirements. Utah Department of Transportation 2-31

32 Figure Highway Action Alternative (Alternative 6E) 2-32 Utah Department of Transportation

33 Figure Design of S.R. 30 and 1000 West Intersection Utah Department of Transportation 2-33

34 Rural Segment 1900 West to S.R. 23 The rural segment would be from 1900 West to S.R. 23 and would include a 14-foot-wide median with median barrier (a concrete or similar type of barrier that would allow the passage of a 100-year flood) and 12-foot-wide shoulders that would allow bicycle use. There would be no median barrier where access to residential, commercial, or recreational access to S.R. 30 is required. In these locations, there would be a 14-foot-wide median without barrier for about 625 feet. This segment also includes the S.R. 30 and S.R. 23 intersection. Appendix A, Roadway Plans and Profiles, provides the detailed design plans for the Highway Action Alternative, including improved access points, drainage and culvert locations, and changes to Cutler Marsh recreation access points. This segment would consist of the following: A center median Three travel lanes from 1900 West to just west of 3200 West Two travel lanes from just west of 3200 West to milepost Four travel lanes from milepost to S.R. 23 What is a 100-year flood? A 100-year flood is a level of floodwater that has a 1% chance of occurring in a given location in any given year. Realignment of an unnamed drainage of Cutler Reservoir under S.R. 30 (Figure 2.4-3) Realignment of the PacifiCorp Lower Logan River Access recreation access site (Figure 2.4-3) The rural segment is in flat terrain with adjacent wetlands and open water associated with Cutler Marsh. The flat terrain limits the ability to convey stormwater captured along the highway via gravity to a detention system before it s released into receiving waters. To provide enough grade to convey stormwater to a detention system, the roadway would need to be placed higher on fill, resulting in more wetland impacts. In addition, any detention basins located near the highway would also affect adjacent wetlands and would not be possible in the open waters associated with Cutler Marsh. Therefore, the proposed stormwater treatment system in the rural segment is to sheet-flow stormwater across the 18-foot-wide vegetated clear zone on either side of the highway. The stormwater discharge would be in accordance with UDOT s municipal stormwater requirements. The realignment of the drainage in Figure is required because the highway widening eliminates the existing drainage connection under S.R. 30. The realignment of the drainage provides a more direct hydrologic connection. The drainage connection would be sized to accommodate a 100-year flood and would consist of a natural-bottom substrate culvert or a small bridge. UDOT would determine the drainage design once more-detailed hydraulic studies are conducted as part of the final design Utah Department of Transportation

35 Figure Realignments of Unnamed Drainage of Cutler Reservoir and Lower Logan River Recreation Access Utah Department of Transportation 2-35

36 Intersection of S.R. 30 and S.R. 23 The design for the intersection of S.R. 30 and S.R. 23 would depend on the funding available at the time of construction and a safety and traffic evaluation conducted during the final design process. As shown in Figure 2.4-4, UDOT is evaluating three intersection options that would meet design standards and level of service goals. For this EIS, the S.R. 23 bridge option was evaluated because it would have the greatest right-of-way impacts. However, any of the options below could be implemented by UDOT. Table summarizes the factors that UDOT would consider when making a final determination about the design of this intersection. Table Options for the Intersection of S.R. 30 and S.R. 23 Impact Standard Intersection S.R. 23 Bridge Divided Highway Crossing S.R. 30 (safety) Long crossing distance for S.R. 23 through vehicles and left turns onto S.R. 30. Eliminates all crossings on S.R. 30. U-turns placed on lower-speed and low-volume S.R. 23. Weaving None Weaving on low-speed S.R. 23 for U-turn access. Out-of-direction travel Railroad crossing impact Park-and-ride impact None Access to and from S.R. 23 diverted to U-turns. Median refuge creates two-stage maneuver for S.R. 23 through vehicles and left turns onto S.R. 30. None None Possible wider crossing from divided highway. Westbound left-turn acceleration lane requires relocating access. None Cost Low High Low Green = low impact; yellow = moderate impact; red = high impact None None Might need to continue divided highway to the access Utah Department of Transportation

37 Figure Design Concepts for S.R. 30 and S.R. 23 Intersection Utah Department of Transportation 2-37

38 2.4.3 Pedestrian and Bike Path Action Alternatives Two pedestrian and bike path action alternatives are being evaluated in this EIS in order to help UDOT make an informed decision regarding which pedestrian and bike path alternative should be implemented with the Highway Action Alternative Bike Path within the S.R. 30 Shoulder Alternative Logan City s and Cache County s plans show a trail on S.R. 30 from 1900 West to S.R. 23. With this alternative, UDOT would accommodate this trail within the roadway shoulder as part of the Highway Action Alternative (Figure 2.4-5). With this alternative, the highway shoulder along S.R. 30 from 1000 West to S.R. 23 would allow bicycle use. The 12-foot-wide shoulders that are part of the Highway Action Alternative would be constructed even if the Separate Pedestrian and Bike Path Alternative (discussed below) is selected Separate Pedestrian and Bike Path Alternative Preferred Alternative With this alternative, UDOT, in coordination with Logan City and Cache County, would provide a separate bicycle and pedestrian trail along S.R. 30 from 1900 West to S.R. 23 (Figure 2.4-6). This trail would be 12 feet wide and would be just outside the highway clear zone, or immediately inside the clear zone in areas where wetland or property impacts need to be avoided or minimized. The trail would be located on the south side of S.R. 30 to provide access to the PacifiCorp recreation areas adjacent to S.R. 30. If this alternative is selected, UDOT would work with Logan City and Cache County to fund the construction of the separate trail. Long-term maintenance of the trail would be the responsibility of Logan City and Cache County Utah Department of Transportation

39 Figure Bike Path within the S.R. 30 Shoulder Alternative Utah Department of Transportation 2-39

40 Figure Separate Pedestrian and Bike Path Alternative 2-40 Utah Department of Transportation