This is the third in a series of newsletters reporting on the status of the Eagle County Airport Interchange Environmental Assessment (EA). This newsletter provides a summary of the Level 1 and 2 Screening Results and recommendations, agency and public comments, and the status of where we currently are in the EA process.

Project Background

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Region 3, is currently conducting an environmental assessment (EA) to address the proposed construction of a new interchange on Interstate 70 (I-70) as a connector road to the Eagle County Regional Airport between Eagle and Gypsum. The purpose of this project is to provide a direct access to Eagle County Airport.

Public Involvement Program

Scoping 
Scoping is an open public process initiated at the beginning of an EA to help identify agency and public concerns and to assist in identifying possible alternatives. The Public Involvement Program, which is ongoing throughout the EA, provides opportunities for public participation in refining the range of alternatives to be considered and the issues to be addressed. CDOT has provided and will continue to provide, a wide range of forums to encourage agency and public involvement throughout the EA.

Alternative Analysis
Alternatives proposed through the scoping process were screened to determine how well each meets the project's Purpose and Need. In addition, evaluation criteria developed through EA scoping were used to screen the alternatives. Alternatives examined during the Alternatives Analysis stage are screened out or advanced to the Environmental Analysis stage of the EA.

Environmental Analysis
Alternatives advanced through the Alternatives Analysis process will be studied at an appropriate level, relative to the environmental issues and according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

EA Document Preparation & FONSI
The EA Document Preparation will begin upon completion of the Environmental Analysis and will include the Purpose and Need for the project, Alternatives Analysis, Environmental Analysis and the selection of a Preferred Alternative. The EA document will be made available at local public facilities for a 30-day period for agency and public review and comments, a notice of availability will be posted in local newspapers and on the Project website. A public hearing may be held upon request during this time frame. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as Lead Agency may determine a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on findings and the recommendations proposed by the EA. A FONSI indicates that the proposed alternative has no significant impact on the environment.

Summary of Public and Agency Meetings

• A second Agency Status Meeting was held on May 3, 2001, at the Gypsum Town Hall. Seventeen representatives from various federal, state and local agencies were present at this meeting including: FHWA, CDOT-R3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Eagle County, Colorado Department of Wildlife, the Town of Gypsum, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the Town of Eagle.
  

• On June 5 and June 6, 2001, Small Group Meetings were held with 28 people in attendance. Invitees included; airport operators, business owners and local land owners. The purpose of these meetings was to present the Level 1 and Level 2 Screening processes and the alternatives that are to be carried into the EA, and to solicit input from the participants.
  

• A second Open House was held on June 21, 2001, at the Gypsum Town Hall with various local citizens and agencies in attendance. At the Open House, attendees were provided with the background on the EA, alternative concepts, and Level 1 and Level 2 Screening processes and recommendations on alternatives to be carried forward into the EA. Input from the public was solicited through discussion, comment forms, and a court reporter who recorded verbal comments. 

Summary of Comments

The participants of the Small Group Meetings and Open House expressed various comments and concerns that are summarized under the following categories:

• Environmental - comments and concerns focused on wetland impacts and mitigation, the inclusion of a trail, water quality, aesthetics, bald eagle nesting, and potential wildlife habitat loss.
  

• Alternatives - attendees were interested in the recently added alternatives (L, L1, M), the types of bridges that might be used at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and US 6, new intersections, the possibility of a rail connection to I-70, access, and potential changes to traffic patterns. Concern was expressed over the practicability of taking construction equipment into the valley and possible resulting disruptions. Property owners had questions about potential property takes, land donations, and land value losses.
  

• Project Schedule and EA Process - comments and concerns centered on the EA document review process and the proposed time frame, including when funding would become available and when construction would begin.
  

• Public Involvement - participants expressed support for continued coordination with property owners and the public. It was suggested that the team also coordinate with area real estate agencies and developing communities.