HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.105-25RESOLUTION # 105
(Series of 2025)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER TO THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND JACOB S ENGINEERING GROUP
INC., AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a change order
contract for consultant services related to an EIS Reevaluation for the Entrance to
Aspen, between the City of Aspen and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. a true and
accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that a change
order contract for consultant services related to an EIS Reevaluation for the
Entrance to Aspen, between the City of Aspen and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby
authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 221 day of July 2025.
Rachael Richa Mayor
to
r�
I, Mike Sear, duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that
the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held July 22th, 2025.
Mike Sear, City Clerk
Docusign Envelope ID: E5682F46-37EB-49E9-83A6-3C63ACD4155C
104
0
CITY OF ASPEN
General Information
Vendor
Change Order Number
Date of Issuance
Project Name
Project Number
Project Completion Date
Project Manager
COA Account Code
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Change Order Form
6
07/10/2025
Change Order 6 New Castle Creek Bridge Investigative Study
2023-018.06 2023-018 (original) 2024-063 and 2024-135
(approving COs)
07-31-2027
Carly McGowan
000.3 27.81200.5 2199.51578
Project Information
Description Of Service Change Order #6
Description Of Change . NEPA re-evaluation of EIS ROD, including public outreach and
Order consideration of modifications to PA.
i
Contract Information
Original Contract Amount
1$541,840.00
Previous Change Order(s)
I $1,013,384.25
Change Order Amount
$2,544,155.00
(If Over $100k Change
Order To Be Presented To
Council For Approval)
Final Contract Amount
$4,099,379.25
(Including All Change
Orders)
Revised Completion Date
07/31/2027
Page 1 of 2
Docusign Envelope ID: E5682F46-37EB-49E9-83A6-3C63ACD4155C
Jigndiure
1. Contractor (Required) DocuSignedby:
2.
Project Manager
Signed by:
(Required)
fi C,"Sf bff
3.
Department Head
E 4424C17B4433...
--Signed by:
(Required)
4.
Procurement Officer
C318 A9CE 6478...
ocuignedby:
(Required)
5.
City Attorney (Required
466F766D8A5B4E6...
Based On Value Of��,�
DocuSignedby:
132737E149ED5457...
Thresholds)
6.
City Manager (Required
Signed by:
Based On Value Of
NG 5v
Thresholds)
7753E0500940430...
7/16/2025 1 11:02:32 AM PDT
7/16/2025 1 1:18:41 PM MDT
7/16/2025 1 3:05:49 PM MDT
7/16/2025 1 12:26:04 PM MDT
Page 2 of 2
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
City of Aspen
SH 82 – Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation
July 10, 2025
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 i
Contents
1. Project Background and Fee ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Project Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Pre-NEPA .......................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Analysis of PA Modifications..................................................................................................................................3
2.3 Conceptual Design .....................................................................................................................................................4
2.4 Reevaluation ................................................................................................................................................................4
2.5 Project Schedule .........................................................................................................................................................5
2.6 Assumptions and Exclusions .................................................................................................................................5
3. Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Project Management ................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.1 Task 1: Determine Activities .....................................................................................................................6
3.1.2 Task 2: Project Management ....................................................................................................................6
3.2 Project Meetings .........................................................................................................................................................7
3.2.1 Task 1: Kick-Off Meeting ............................................................................................................................7
3.2.2 Task 2: Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings ......................................................................7
3.2.3 Task 3: Project Leadership Team (PLT) Meetings ............................................................................8
3.2.4 Task 4: Issue Task Forces (ITF) Meetings .............................................................................................8
3.2.5 Task 5: PM One-On-One Check-In Meetings with Client PM .......................................................9
3.2.6 Task 6: Small Project Team Coordination Meetings with City Staff ..........................................9
3.2.7 Task 7: Consultant Internal Coordination Meetings ........................................................................9
3.2.8 Task 8: Present Information to City Council and EOTC ............................................................... 10
3.3 Document Control .................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.3.1 Task 1: SharePoint Documents and Template Management ................................................... 10
3.3.2 Task 2: Administrative Records ............................................................................................................ 10
3.4 Pre NEPA Activities ................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.4.1 Task 1: Existing Traffic Safety Data Analysis ................................................................................... 11
3.4.2 Task 2: Traffic Model Development and Existing/Future Build Operations Analysis
(Jacobs, Mead & Hunt (M&H)) .............................................................................................................. 12
3.4.3 Task 3: Identify Infrastructure Needs ................................................................................................. 13
3.4.4 Task 4: Emergency Service/Redundancy Study ............................................................................. 13
3.4.5 Task 5: Evaluation of Transit Operations .......................................................................................... 14
3.4.6 Task 6: Traffic Origin and Destination Study ................................................................................... 14
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 ii
3.4.7 Task 7: Refine and Validate the Previously Developed Draft Purpose & Need Statement
14
3.5 Public and Stakeholder Outreach (Trulove Communication and Jacobs) ........................................ 15
3.5.1 Task 1: Public Involvement Plan .......................................................................................................... 15
3.5.2 Task 2: Public Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.5.3 Task 3: Stakeholder Outreach ............................................................................................................... 17
3.5.4 Task 4: Public Website and Email Account ...................................................................................... 17
3.6 Development of Modifications to the PA ...................................................................................................... 18
3.6.1 Task 1: EIS Alternatives Evaluation Summary ................................................................................ 18
3.6.2 Task 2: Develop Modifications and Screening Criteria ................................................................ 18
3.7 Conceptual Design .................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.7.1 Task 1: Engineering Survey .................................................................................................................... 19
3.7.2 Task 2: Conceptual Right of Way and Utilities ................................................................................ 20
3.7.3 Task 3: Conceptual Structures Layout Design ................................................................................ 20
3.7.4 Task 4: Conceptual Highway and Roadway Design ...................................................................... 21
3.7.5 Task 5: Predictive Safety Analysis........................................................................................................ 22
3.8 Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.8.1 Task 6: Concept Alternatives Estimates ............................................................................................ 22
3.9 Monitor and Support Funding Opportunities .............................................................................................. 22
3.9.1 Task 7: Grant Program Monitoring and Project Screening ........................................................ 23
3.9.2 Task 8: Prepare and Produce Grant Applications .......................................................................... 23
3.9.3 Task 9: Prepare Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) ................................................................................... 23
3.10 NEPA Re-Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 24
3.10.1 Task 1: Permission to Enter Property ............................................................................................ 25
3.10.2 Task 2: Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................................................... 25
3.10.3 Task 3: Greenhouse Gas ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.10.4 Task 4: Geologic Resource, Soils, Geohazards ........................................................................... 26
3.10.5 Task 5: Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 26
3.10.6 Task 6: Floodplain ................................................................................................................................. 27
3.10.7 Task 7: Wetlands/Waters of U.S. ..................................................................................................... 27
3.10.8 Task 8: Vegetation and Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................... 28
3.10.9 Task 9: Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.10.10 Task 10: Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 29
3.10.11 Task 11: Historic Resources (Mead & Hunt) ............................................................................. 29
3.10.12 Task 18: Archeological Resources ............................................................................................... 31
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 iii
3.10.13 Task 13: Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................... 32
3.10.14 Task 14: Land Use, Social and Economic Resources ............................................................ 33
3.10.15 Task 15: Transportation Resources ............................................................................................. 34
3.10.16 Task 16: Residential/Business/Right-of-Way Relocations ................................................ 34
3.10.17 Task 17: Utilities Impacts................................................................................................................. 34
3.10.18 Task 18: Section 4(f) Evaluation ................................................................................................... 35
3.10.19 Task 19: Section 6(f) Evaluation ................................................................................................... 35
3.10.20 Task 20: Farmlands ............................................................................................................................ 36
3.10.21 Task 21: Traffic Noise Analysis ...................................................................................................... 36
3.10.22 Task 22: Visual Resource ................................................................................................................. 37
3.10.23 Task 23: Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................ 38
3.10.24 Task 24: Complete CDOT Form 1399 and Supporting Report ......................................... 38
3.11 Finalize Alignment and Grade ............................................................................................................................ 39
3.11.1 Task 1: Finalize Conceptual Alignment and Grade .................................................................. 39
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 1
1. Project Background and Fee
In the 1990s, the City of Aspen (City) was facing heavy traffic congestion issues and deteriorating air
quality. In response, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and the City of Aspen (the City) worked together on an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Entrance to Aspen which included transportation improvements along State
Highway (SH) 82 from Brush Creek Road to Rubey Park in downtown Aspen. The EIS culminated in a
Record of Decision (ROD) in 1998 with a Preferred Alternative (PA) for the SH 82/Entrance to Aspen (ETA)
project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This PA would drive the
implementation of transportation improvements along the Highway 82 corridor between Buttermilk Ski
Area and Aspen.
The PA is a combination of highway and intersection improvements, a transit system, and an incremental
transportation management (TM) program. The transit component includes a light-rail transit element
and also allows for a phased option that includes exclusive bus lanes operating along with two general-
purpose lanes in the corridor. The purpose of the incremental TMP is to help achieve the goal of
maintaining the 1993 traffic volume in 2015. A Reevaluation completed in 2007 found that the goal of
maintaining the 1993 traffic volume in 2015 remained valid for the PA selected in the 1998 ROD and the
main objective of maintaining 2015 traffic levels at the level experienced in 1993/1994 (LOS of E or F)
remained unchanged in 2005 due to restricted parking in Aspen and improvements to valley-wide transit
as well as economic downturn. Based on updated technical studies and consultations with resource
agencies and local jurisdictions, the 2007 reevaluation concluded that decisions made in the 1998 ROD
were valid.
Over the past 25 years, CDOT, the City and other regional partners have increased transit connectivity,
implemented transportation management measures including paid parking, constructed the Maroon
Creek Bridge and the roundabout, and realigned Owl Creek Road. The major remaining pieces of the 1998
ROD that have not been implemented are the realignment of SH 82 and construction of a new Castle
Creek Bridge and improvements to SH 82 from the new bridge to Rubey Park. The PA recommended
construction of a new bridge over Castle Creek on an offset alignment while keeping the existing bridge
for local access as well as a backup for emergency evacuation route. Any change or deviation from the PA
would require close coordination and agreement from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). It also would require coordination with other corridor
stakeholders and interests. As FHWA is the federal lead agency for the ETA Reevaluation, it will have final
decision-making authority for the NEPA process.
An existing Memorandum of Agreement between CDOT, FHWA and the City signed following the 1998
ROD says that in addition to funding the construction of the PA for Castle Creek Bridge, CDOT will inspect
and maintain the existing Castle Creek bridge as a non-load posted structure for a period of 25 years after
the construction of the new bridge on the new alignment. In addition, CDOT has already completed all
mitigations for the proposed impacts on the Marolt-Thomas open space.
This Reevaluation scope of work will cover the extent from Service Center Road (west of Buttermilk) to
Rubey Park Transit center in Aspen. Design for this project is limited to conceptual design (15%) to
support the requirements of the Reevaluation, and preliminary design (30%) for the new Preferred
Alternative will be completed under a separate task order. For this project, the assumed implementation
year is 2030 and the design year is 2050. In downtown Aspen (east of Castle Creek), these improvements
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 2
are assumed to be limited to laneage and pavement improvements within curblines, up to the Rubey Park
Transit Center.
For this scope of work the fee is estimated at $2,544,155.00. The attached fee summary reflects the total
cost of labor and direct expenses to execute each major scope element. This scope of work will be a new
task order under the current contract with the City. Services under this scope will be billed on a time and
materials basis up to the budgeted amount. The consultant will not exceed the budgeted amount without
written approval from the City. The detailed scope of work with assumptions and exclusions follows.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 3
2. Project Approach
The following text provides an overview of the proposed project approach. The detailed scope is under the
Work Scope heading.
2.1 Pre-NEPA
The current purpose and need (P&N) in the 1998 ROD is to have a solution which will meet the following:
1. Community based planning
2. Address Transportation Capacity
3. Address Safety
4. Environmentally sound
5. Meet Community acceptability
6. Financial Limitation.
7. Clean Air requirement
8. Improve Emergency Access.
9. Livable communities
10. Phasing
The needs identified during the pre-NEPA data analysis work revolve around; Mobility, Emergency
Response and Evacuation and Safety. The Reevaluation work will include further analysis of existing
conditions. A meeting will be held with CDOT and FHWA to confirm whether the original P&N for the
project can be refined and updated to reflect additional safety, redundancy, and mobility issues and
community goals.
2.2 Analysis of PA Modifications
The following design items are specified in the Castle Creek section in the PA.
Cut and cover tunnel length of no less than 400 ft across Marolt Thomas property.
Maximum platform width (outside to outside of curb/barrier) for:
- Maroon Creek Road to 7th/Main 93.5 ft except the sections identified below
- Cut and Cover Tunnel 78.5 ft (includes maintenance access for LRT and for adequate width for bus
lanes during phasing)
- Castle Creek Bridge 73 ft
Maximum total Right-of-Way width for:
- Maroon Creek to 7th/Main 130 ft
- Cut and Cover Tunnel 200 ft
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 4
- Castle Creek Bridge 90 ft
The initial configuration for this section will consist of two general-purpose lanes (one in each direction)
and two exclusive bus lanes, one on the outside of the general-purpose lane in either direction. The
ultimate configuration of the PA will include a wide, grassy median, wide emergency shoulders, two
general-purpose lanes (one in each direction), and could include a future Light Rail Transit (LRT) or other
transit system running parallel to the highway .
The conceptual design across the Marolt-Thomas open space property, described in the 1998 ROD,
includes a median varying from 12 feet wide with grass and landscaping, to a textured concrete median 7
feet wide through a cut-and-cover tunnel. A future single-track LRT is proposed through this section. The
cut and cover tunnel were part of the PA solution for the mitigation of impacts to Section 4(f) across the
Marolt-Thomas open space. With input from stakeholders and the public, Jacobs will develop design
refinements or options which will keep the intent of the PA in the 1998 ROD and the updated P&N,
develop screening criteria and screen design options from a list of up to six (6) modifications to the PA
that will then advance up to three (3) modifications to the PA plus the PA for detailed comparative
evaluation. Jacobs will complete conceptual design up to 15% to determine estimated construction costs
of the modifications and the PA and traffic projections to complete the detailed evaluation and identify
the PA version to move forward for 30% design (separate task). Jacobs will complete resources studies,
impact assessments and any additional mitigation, if needed, for the re-evaluation of the refined PA.
For the purpose of estimating costs, this scope of work is limited to the following:
After screening up to six, a maximum of three (3) modifications in addition to the PA will be evaluated.
The resources studies will be performed only for the selected proposed design.
Any additional modifications that are identified during the stakeholder involvement or elsewhere will
be outside of this scope of work and contracted separately.
In addition to the impacts for the ultimate design, the impacts associated with the phasing of the proposed
facility will be assessed for applicable topic areas such as traffic impacts, socio-economic impacts and land
use impacts. The evaluation process and the results of the evaluation will be documented in the
reevaluation document.
2.3 Conceptual Design
The proposed alternative will be designed to the level necessary to complete the reevaluation process
(assumed to be 15%). Phasing of alternatives will be considered in the conceptual design for the selected
alternative.
2.4 Reevaluation
The reevaluation is intended to encompass the same project limits as the original environmental
document and focuses on the validity of the ROD or project decision with respect to the current phase of
the project. CDOT Form 1399 (Attachment A) will be used for completing the reevaluation.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 5
2.5 Project Schedule
As consultation with several agencies is needed, the timeline for a reevaluation is expected to take 15
months following the formal meeting with CDOT and FHWA. The estimated time frame for completion is
as follows:
1. Refinement of Purpose and Need and Supplemental Goals (6 months)
2. PA Design Options and Resource Studies (6 months)
3. Reevaluation preparation and approval (3 months)
The Scope of Services described herein is based on a 15-month schedule, from the Notice to Proceed
through approval of reevaluation. The timeline is based on completing NEPA through CDOT and the
timely reviews from CDOT, FHWA and other regulatory agencies.
2.6 Assumptions and Exclusions
This Scope of Work is based on certain assumptions and exclusions, which may be listed in this section or
under applicable tasks. If any assumption or exclusion proves not to be true, Jacobs reserves the right to
renegotiate the affected portions of the Scope, including tasks, schedule and/or fee, as applicable.
General assumptions and exclusions are as follows:
1. Certain Jacobs services are based on information provided by others, such as utility companies or local
agencies. Jacobs has the right to reasonably rely on such information and is not liable for any errors
or omissions contained therein.
2. Cost estimates and other opinions of cost and schedule are conceptual planning estimates only and
may be affected by a number of items outside Jacobs’ control, including, but not limited to the
following: a) the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others; b) Jacobs’
methods of determining prices over competitive bidding or over market conditions; c) unknown or
latent conditions of existing or future equipment or structures that may affect operation or
maintenance costs, competitive bidding procedures and market conditions; d) time or quality of
performance by third parties; e) quality, type, management, or direction of operating personnel; and f)
other economic and operational factors that may materially affect the ultimate project costs or
schedule. Therefore, Jacobs makes no warranty that the actual project costs, financial aspects,
economic feasibility, or schedules will not vary from Jacobs’ opinions, analyses, projections or
estimates.
Wage rates will be adjusted annually for multi-year task orders/contracts at a rate of 4% per year. Jacobs
team includes the following subconsultants: Design Workshop (Landscape/visual aesthetics), Mead &
Hunt (traffic analysis and cultural resources) and Trulove Communications (public involvement). Specific
mention of a subconsultant within the work scope is to acknowledge the expected participation of the
noted subconsultant but does not preclude Jacobs from managing the work as Jacobs deems appropriate
and does not restrict Jacobs from assisting or replacing a subconsultant or completing the services in
place of a subconsultant.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 6
3. Scope of Work
The following tasks will be undertaken by the Jacobs Team. The scope of work for the reevaluation will be
developed in close coordination with CDOT and FHWA and coordinated through CDOT for all agency
consultations.
3.1 Project Management
Jacobs will provide a Project Manager to coordinate activities, staff the project, assist with
communications, participate in meetings, oversee the tasks, and advise the City on progress. Jacobs will
provide staff planning and resources requirements to meet schedule commitments, including highway,
structural, drainage, utilities, traffic engineers, NEPA professionals and support staff required to perform
the oversight and independent quality assurance reviews.
3.1.1 Task 1: Determine Activities
1. Develop detailed work scope and schedule based on coordination with CDOT and FHWA.
3.1.2 Task 2: Project Management
This scope includes completion of the following activities for a duration of 15 months.
1. Develop project schedule, assign tasks, and track progress of deliverables against the developed
schedule. Update schedule as needed. Project schedule for scope of work is assumed to be 15 months.
2. Schedule Updates/management and deliverables tracking
3. Staff and resource management
4. Internal Project Controls - Establish and ensure internal project controls are being followed.
5. Internal Project Reviews with management (monthly)
6. Task/Action item tracking – Action Item and Register
7. Monthly Progress Reports/Invoices- Progress reports will match the invoice period and may not
correspond with the calendar month
8. A Project Execution Plan (PEP) for administering the project will document the procedures and
processes that are in effect to provide timely information to the project’s decision makers to
effectively manage the scope, risks, costs, schedules, and quality and the role of the decision makers in
the timely delivery. The PEP is a working document and will be updated as appropriate during project
development. Address one consolidated round of comments from City staff to finalize plan
9. Quality Management Plan– Quality control and assurance reviews will be performed on all
deliverables, documents and processes necessary to complete the work on this project.
10. A change management plan for tracking changes to the scope of work will also be developed, tracked
and reviewed with the client monthly. Address one consolidated round of comments from City staff to
finalize plan.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 7
3.1.2.1 Deliverables
1. Project Execution Plan
2. Project Schedule
3. Quality Management Plan
4. Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices
5. Change Management Plan
3.2 Project Meetings
The following meetings are outside of the public and stakeholder engagement meetings and the meetings
to prepare for them, which are discussed in public outreach.
3.2.1 Task 1: Kick-Off Meeting
The meeting will be held in person and up to five (5) Jacobs staff and select subconsultants will attend. A
virtual option will be provided for additional participants.
3.2.1.1 Assumptions
1. Kickoff meeting assumes a full travel day and 4-hour meeting (12-hrs – each person). Prep time for
kickoff meeting and travel expenses are also included.
2. 2 members from the Trulove communications team will attend.
3.2.2 Task 2: Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
Project Management Team (PMT) consisting of multidisciplinary members from Jacobs, technical
representatives from CDOT, FHWA, the City and Pitkin County will meet biweekly to execute process,
review progress, direct technical analyses and document decisions and concurrences.
1. Virtual Meetings
a. Monthly meetings for the first 9 months
b. Bi-monthly thereafter
2. In Person meetings (every 4th meeting) only during the first 9 months
3.2.2.1 Assumptions
1. 2-hrs virtual meetings (6 people from Jacobs and 2 people from Trulove , 10 meetings)
2. Every fourth meeting in person (4 people from Jacobs and 1 person from Trulove, 2 meetings)
3. Jacobs will coordinate agendas with the City and document meeting minutes and track action items
4. In person meetings will be held on the same day as other in person meetings when possible.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 8
3.2.3 Task 3: Project Leadership Team (PLT) Meetings
Project Leadership Team (PLT) consisting of multidisciplinary members from Jacobs, and community
representatives in planning, design, landscape, environment, public process, and communication will meet
bimonthly to champion Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), identify actions and decisions to establish goals,
enable and facilitate decision-making, implement steps needed to resolve issues.
1. Virtual Meetings
a. Monthly for first 9 months
b. Bi-monthly thereafter
2. In Person meetings (every 4th meeting) only during the first 9 months
3.2.3.1 Assumptions
1. 2-hour virtual meetings (6 people from Jacobs and 2 people from Trulove)
2. Every fourth meeting in person (4 people from Jacobs and 1 person from Trulove,
3. Jacobs will coordinate agendas with the City and document meeting minutes and track action items
4. In person meetings will be held on the same day as other in person meetings when possible
3.2.4 Task 4: Issue Task Forces (ITF) Meetings
Issue Task Forces (ITF) will be identified as needed to address specific issues (e.g., open
space/landscape/visual impacts, business impacts, cultural resources, roadway/structures,
traffic/transit/travel demand and others) and will consist of multidisciplinary team members from Jacobs
and affected stakeholders and technical experts.
1. Open Space/Landscape/Visual ITF (Jacobs and Design Workshop)
a. 2 Virtual Meetings
b. 1 In Person meeting
2. Business Impacts ITF (Jacobs & Trulove)
a. 1 Virtual Meetings
b. 1 In-person meeting
3. Cultural Resources (Jacobs & M&H)
a. 2 Virtual Meetings
b. 1 In-person meeting
4. Roadway/Structures ITF
a. 2 Virtual Meetings
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 9
b. 1 In-person meeting
5. Traffic/Transit/Travel Demand ITF (Jacobs & M&H)
a. 3 Virtual Meetings
b. 1 In-person meeting
6. Other/Misc ITF
a. 2 Virtual Meetings
3.2.4.1 Assumptions
1. 2-hr virtual meetings per ITF (3 people from Jacobs and subconsultants as needed, 6 meetings)
2. In person per ITF meetings (3 people from Jacobs, 3-hrs including prep time)
3. Jacobs will coordinate agendas with the City and document meeting minutes and track action items
4. In person meetings will be held on the same day as other in person meetings when possible.
3.2.5 Task 5: PM One-On-One Check-In Meetings with Client PM
Jacobs PM will meet with Client PM for general project coordination on scope, schedule, and budget.
3.2.5.1 Assumptions
1. 1 person 2 hours a month
2. Phone or virtual
3.2.5.2 Exclusions
1. Meeting minutes not required
3.2.6 Task 6: Small Project Team Coordination Meetings with City Staff
The Jacobs team will meet with City staff for ongoing coordination on status and execution of project
tasks..
3.2.6.1 Assumptions
1. In-person Meetings -2 meetings will be held at City offices and 4 people from Jacobs.
2. Virtual Meetings- 15 meetings. Up to 5 people from Jacobs (subconsultant attendance budgeted for 3
meetings Trulove Communications)
3.2.7 Task 7: Consultant Internal Coordination Meetings
Consultant task leads will meet internally to coordinate project tasks for the duration of the reevaluation.
(10 people for 1 hour a month, 15 meetings). Subconsultants (Trulove Communications, Design
Workshop, and Mead & Hunt (M&H) will also participate in internal coordination meetings.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 10
3.2.8 Task 8: Present Information to City Council and EOTC
The Jacobs team will prepare City Council and EOTC presentations on project status and decision-points
that warrant input from elected officials. Presentation materials will be reviewed with City staff and revised
to address comments. The Jacobs team will attend meetings to present materials developed in
coordination with City staff.
3.2.8.1 Assumptions
1. Three (3) presentations at Aspen facilities
2. Materials prepared are related to this scope of work.
3. Up to 3 Jacobs staff participated in presentations.
4. Visual aids will primarily be in the form of plan sheets at conceptual level, 3-D sketches or PowerPoint
slides used at presentations.
3.2.8.2 Exclusions
1. Visual simulations using CAD design modeling are not included in the visual aids for the presentations.
3.2.8.3 Deliverables
1. Presentation materials as specified above
3.3 Document Control
Jacobs will develop and maintain a Project management website (SharePoint) for the purpose of storing
and transferring Project files throughout the life of the Project. The website will include, but not be limited
to, all Project documentation including meeting minutes, design calculations, electronic files,
correspondence, email, etc., including scanning of all hard copies not transmitted electronically. Provisions
will also be made to archive this data. A file backup process will also be developed.
3.3.1 Task 1: SharePoint Documents and Template Management
1. Maintain and manage the SharePoint Site
2. Regular document control filing
3. Develop project templates for agendas, meeting minutes, memos, reports, color palette, etc.
3.3.2 Task 2: Administrative Records
1. As part of this task, Jacobs will prepare an Administrative Record for the project which will include:
a. NEPA documents. The standalone reevaluation supporting document and CDOT Form 1399.
b. References. Documents cited in the DEIS, FEIS, and ROD.
c. Technical Reports. Technical reports including the qualifications of the experts involved in
preparing it.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 11
d. Meeting Summaries. Meeting summaries including copies of meeting handouts and sign-in sheets
along with the meeting summary.
e. Telephone Memos. Telephone conversations for the purpose of gathering substantive information
for the NEPA study will be included in the record.
f. Correspondence with Agencies and Stakeholders. Correspondence from resource agencies and
key stakeholders will be kept in the record.
g. Public Information. Press releases, Newsletters, displays.
h. Comment/Response Matrices. Comments received from agencies will be compiled in a comment/
response matrix that tracks all of the comments and demonstrate how they have been addressed
and retained in the record.
i. An electronic version of the archive will be provided to the City and CDOT within ninety days of
getting the reevaluation approval.
3.4 Pre NEPA Activities
Jacobs will update the Pre-NEPA analysis of existing conditions including safety data, infrastructure needs,
existing community plan review, emergency service/redundancy needs, evaluation of transit, and
refinements of a traffic origin and destination study from Brush Creek to Aspen will update the analysis of
existing conditions conducted under an existing task order. This work will evaluate the validity of the
ROD/PA. The work will also include the development of a new traffic model for the project.
3.4.1 Task 1: Existing Traffic Safety Data Analysis
1. Expand and refresh the with the most recent 5-year period of crash (accident) data collected for the
Pre-NEPA work (under a separate task order – AABC to Rubey Park Transit Center) to include data
from Brush Creek Road to AABC. Reconfirm and update accident data along McLain Flats road. Data
sources are from Colorado Department of Transportation, Pitkin County and the City.
2. Using the latest version of the Highway Safety Manual, particularly Part B, conduct and document
safety analyses based on accident data collected from local emergency services, Colorado State
Patrol, and the CDOT Traffic Analysis Unit; evaluate traffic safety patterns and trends; produce Level of
Service of Safety assessments; and document safety issues and possible treatments.
3. Develop an existing condition safety analysis report with appendices to summarize and document the
analysis.
3.4.1.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Traffic Safety Report for Existing Conditions
3.4.1.2 Assumptions
1. Assume one round of comments each from the City, CDOT and FHWA.
2. Intersection and segment analysis of crash rates and types.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 12
3.4.2 Task 2: Traffic Model Development and Existing/Future Build
Operations Analysis (Jacobs, Mead & Hunt (M&H))
1. Enhance and extend the 2024 VISSIM traffic model to include 54 intersections from SH 82/Service
Center Road to SH 82/Cooper Rd intersection as follows:
a. Verify any changes in roadway geometry and traffic controls since the 2024 studies.
b. Update and input 2025 traffic volumes provided by the City (Rekor count data) supplemented by
traffic counts collected in July which will be representative of the summer peak traffic,
c. Calibrate the VISSIM model based on field observations, travel time measurements (developed
under a separate task), to ensure it replicates peak summer season peak hour conditions.
i. Review the models for correctness and suggested revisions to inputs (Jacobs).
ii. Re-report out MOEs for adjusted inputs (M&H)
2. Determine traffic growth rate for future traffic models. Evaluate land use and area growth projections
to determine reasonable growth assumptions. Growth rates will be developed in accordance with
NEPA and through coordination with CDOT, FHWA and vetted with key stakeholders (Jacobs lead &
M&H support).
3. Document approach and prepare a Traffic Growth Memo summarizing findings.
4. Develop a future year 2050 VISSIM No Action Model for summary of AM and PM peak hours based on
agreed upon growth rates while considering ROD traffic volume thresholds (M&H lead & Jacobs
support).
5. Incorporate approved projects that impact transportation infrastructure in the study network. For
example: Smith Way intersection at SH 82.
a. Report MOEs which may include traffic demand, level of service, delay, queue length, travel time,
speed, emissions, and person throughput.
i. Utilize RFTA forecasts to estimate bus occupancy.
ii. Develop methods of determining future vehicle occupancy.
6. Traffic Modeling Analysis of PA and Modified PA options (M&H PA + Exist. Condition & Jacobs 3 PA
Mods)
a. Using the traffic model network and VISSIM application, develop up to four (4) models (PA, PA
Mod 1, PA Mod 2 and PA Mod 3) for comparative analysis. Include interim solution and the
ultimate solution for all alternatives, if applicable.
i. Analysis is for weekday AM and PM peak hours only.
ii. Analyze peak hour transit times from Brush Creek intersection to Rubey Transit Center.
iii. Analysis will be completed in accordance with the latest edition of the Highway Capacity
Manual or similar methodology
7. Develop a Traffic Analysis report summarizing the modeled alternatives and results (Jacobs lead &
M&H support)
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 13
3.4.2.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Traffic Analysis Report
2. Traffic Growth Assumptions Memo
3. VISSIM Files
3.4.2.2 Assumptions
1. Assume one round of comments each from the City, CDOT and FHWA for each report and memo.
2. VISSIM Models will be developed for PA, Modified PA (1 & 2), Existing Conditions and No Action
option.
3. Mode shift will be considered based on characteristics of the four concepts analyzed.
4. Analyze peak hour transit times from Brush Creek intersection to Rubey Transit Center.
5. No input on model assumptions from outside stakeholders .
6. Weekday Peak Periods
a. 7:30 to 9:30 AM
b. 3:30 to 5:30 PM
3.4.2.3 Exclusions
1. Mesoscopic modeling.
2. Development of new long-term traffic forecasts using a regional or statewide travel model.
3.4.3 Task 3: Identify Infrastructure Needs
1. Collect and review existing infrastructure data for SH 82 corridor and intersections. This will
supplement previously completed studies to cover additional project extents.
2. Develop Infrastructure Deficiencies technical memorandum
3. Identify Deficiencies: The assessment of deficiencies will be used to validate the PA.
3.4.3.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final technical memo of infrastructure deficiencies
3.4.4 Task 4: Emergency Service/Redundancy Study
1. Update and refresh the emergency service data for the expanded corridor to Brush Creek Road.
2. Identify critical emergency service and evacuation routes and critical structures.
3. Develop Emergency Services and Redundancy report. The information will be used to validate the PA.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 14
3.4.4.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Emergency Services and Redundancy report
3.4.5 Task 5: Evaluation of Transit Operations
1. Research and update the existing Bus, shuttle and micro-transit operations and capacity issues to
understand the deficiencies as well as safety concerns.
2. Research and evaluate the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) parking infrastructure from a
capacity standpoint to see where additional needs are required to serve the commuters.
3. Research transit options which will address the deficiencies in transit operations as well as safety, is
environmentally sound, meet community acceptability and financial limitations, clean air requirement,
and incorporate phasing
4. The information will be used to validate the PA.
3.4.5.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Transit Operations technical memo
3.4.5.2 Assumptions
1. Parking infrastructure will be evaluated along SH 82 from Glenwood Springs to Aspen
3.4.6 Task 6: Traffic Origin and Destination Study
1. Update and refresh the previous origin/destination studies (completed under a separate work order)
with new or supplemental data.
2. Expand the origin and destination study to evaluate travel times in the corridor
3. The information will be used to validate the PA
3.4.6.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Origin and Destination technical memo
3.4.7 Task 7: Refine and Validate the Previously Developed Draft Purpose &
Need Statement
1. Refine and validate the Draft Purpose and Need statement, as necessary, to address additional and
new information collected on the project during data collection, transportation analysis, and public
and agency scoping and involvement. Review previously prepared studies to help direct Purpose and
Need information as appropriate (e.g., local planning studies, engineering feasibility studies, etc.). The
project purpose statement is a broad statement of the primary intended transportation result and
other related objectives to be achieved by a proposed transportation improvement. The need for the
project is a more detailed explanation, with supporting data, of the specific transportation problems,
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 15
deficiencies, or opportunities that exist, or are expected to exist in the future that justify the Proposed
Action.
2. Submit the refined Purpose and Need for review and approval by CDOT and FHWA. Address CDOT’s
comments on the letter
3. Finalize statement
3.4.7.1 Deliverables
1. Updated Purpose & Need Statement
3.5 Public and Stakeholder Outreach (Trulove Communication and
Jacobs)
3.5.1 Task 1: Public Involvement Plan
1. Prepare and continually update a Public Involvement Plan (PIP). The plan will specify all activities to
be performed during public outreach. The plan will discuss outreach strategies for both the general
public and stakeholders.
2. Update and maintain a Project Mailing List database of names/addresses to be utilized in distributing
project information. The database will be in digital form with sorting capability and will be updated at
project milestones during the course of the project.
3.5.1.1 Deliverables
1. Public Involvement Plan and Updates
3.5.1.2 Assumptions
1. Trulove will modify and finalize for this project the draft PIP provided by Jacobs
2. Trulove will update and maintain the PIP
3.5.2 Task 2: Public Meetings
1. Plan, advertise, secure the venue, provide support staff, and write a post-meeting report for the public
meetings. Planning for each meeting will include ongoing updates, as well as the pre-public meeting
organizational meeting intended to review progress on the meeting materials, venue, mail
notifications, advertisements, and logistics for each session. The number of public meetings will be as
specified in various tasks in this scope.
2. Design and prepare Public Meeting notices to be sent out to the public, adjacent property owners,
local and State government and public officials, agency staff, community representatives, special
interest associations, and media. Send out Public Meeting notices for general local delivery to occur
concurrently with the initial advertisement in Aspen Daily News and other newspapers (Basalt,
Glenwood Springs).
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 16
3. Design, schedule and pay for all required newspaper publications and media advertising for the public
meetings. Place meeting notices in area community facilities and businesses and will disseminate
meeting information to stakeholder groups.
4. Secure the meeting venues, secure the necessary presentation equipment, seating for attendees, and
display mounts.
5. Provide Spanish Translation for all public meetings and material.
6. All meeting material will be 508 compliant. The City will be responsible for providing a sign language
provider if needed.
7. Hold two (2) Open House Public Meeting. The first meeting will be to determine which three (3)
modifications should be pursued in the reevaluation process. The draft Purpose and Need and Goals
will also be presented. The following meeting will be to present the detailed analysis and related
aspects of the viable alternatives/alignments schematics and any related geometry, environmental,
etc. results associated with the same. Results from this engagement will provide information in order
to discern issues and aid in selection of Preferred Alignment and conceptual plan completion.
8. The Consultant shall prepare two (2) online open houses that shall be timed to coincide with the in-
person open houses. Each online meeting shall be available for a minimum period of two (2) weeks
and shall be linked to the project webpage. The online meetings shall present the same information as
the in-person meetings and have the following features:
9. Information “stations” similar to in-person meetings.
10. Opportunities to provide feedback.
a. Interactive map of the project area
b. Opportunity to be added to the mailing list
11. Prepare meeting summaries.
3.5.2.1 Deliverables
1. Public Meeting Notices (In English and Spanish)
2. Public Meeting Material (In English and Spanish)
3. Virtual Public Meeting site
4. Public Meeting Summaries
3.5.2.2 Assumptions
1. Jacobs to provide Spanish material translations
2. Jacobs to provide resources and platform for all virtual meetings
3. City to provide sign language interpreter if needed
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 17
3.5.3 Task 3: Stakeholder Outreach
1. Prepare for and plan small group, stakeholder outreach meetings to resolve issues as needed (assume
6 meetings). These meetings could include business owners, community organizations, public
officials, agency officials, chambers of commerce, schools, first responders and other affected
members of the community.
2. Organize the meetings, manage and supply meeting graphics, and document the meeting. Prepare
exhibits and meeting materials for each stakeholder meeting tailored to the issues important to the
individual group or partnering agency. The details of the exhibit will represent project development to
date and no additional engineering would be necessary for the graphics.
3. Participate in meetings. Update and maintain a Project Mailing List database of names/addresses to
be utilized in distributing project information. The database will be in digital form with sorting
capability and will be updated at project milestones during the course of the project.
4. Support the City’s responses to property owner inquiries and informational requests.
5. Prepare summaries of meetings.
3.5.3.1 Deliverables
1. Stakeholder Meeting Agenda and Exhibits
2. Stakeholder Meeting Summaries
3.5.4 Task 4: Public Website and Email Account
1. Develop materials for a public website for the duration of this contract. The site will contain updated
project information and schedule. The website will be 508 compliant. Spanish translations will be
provided.
2. Provide a project email address and account for use during the reevaluation duration. Check for
project emails biweekly and summarize in a spreadsheet for comment tracking.
3. Catalogue public comments received for tasks 1 and 2 in a public comment database. Database will
be categorized by topic area and monitored to determine if responses are warranted.
4. Respond to public comments as needed (scope assumes providing up to 100 specific responses).
5. Develop FAQs as needed to respond to public comment themes and post on project website
3.5.4.1 Deliverables
1. Public Project Website
2. Project email address
3. Database of Public Comments and Responses
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 18
3.6 Development of Modifications to the PA
With input from stakeholders and the public, Jacobs will develop modifications to the PA, develop
screening criteria, and screen the modifications to advance up to 3 different modifications. The objective
of the screening will be to eliminate from further consideration any modifications with potential
engineering or environmental fatal flaws, and to identify the optimal performing modifications to be
carried forward for re-evaluation.
3.6.1 Task 1: EIS Alternatives Evaluation Summary
1. Develop a document that clearly depicts the 43 alternatives studied in the 1998 EIS and summarizes
the comparison of the ten community goals and alternatives reviewed to develop the Preferred
Alternative. The document and accompanying graphics would be understandable to the general
public.
2. Provide document to City staff for review and respond to comments;
3. Prepare final document. Make this available on the project website.
3.6.1.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final EIS Alternatives Summary Document
3.6.2 Task 2: Develop Modifications and Screening Criteria
1. Develop modifications to the PA and screening criteria to identify which will meet the P&N and project
goals, with input from stakeholders.
2. Evaluate and screen design options in CSS meetings.
3. Draft Modifications Selection Technical Memorandum; submit for PMT review
4. Address comments and finalize memo.
3.6.2.1 Deliverables
1. List of potential PA modifications
2. Screening criteria
3. Modifications Selection Technical Memorandum
3.7 Conceptual Design
The PA and modified PA alternatives will be developed to the same level of detail covering the limits of
the project. The preliminary modifications will be developed to the 15% level of detail that identifies limits
of cut and fill for each alternative. To facilitate this effort an engineering survey is part of the scope of
work.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 19
3.7.1 Task 1: Engineering Survey
1. Conduct topographic Lidar surveys for the section of SH 82 from milepost 37.0 (Service Center
Road/SH 82 intersection) to end of project near milepost 41.6 (SH 82/Cooper Ave.) and survey the
Rubey Park Transit Center in Aspen. An extra-wide area will be covered for the section from Maroon
Creek roundabout to the Main Street/7th Street to cover wide range of alternatives. The methods of
data extraction will use a combination of aerial photogrammetry, mobile Lidar and supplemental
ground surveys. The following are the major task elements:
a. Set and level primary control (approx. 4)
b. Generate a Project Control Diagram
c. Traffic control (1 day)
d. Set control panels for a fixed wing flight from SH 82 MP 37.0 to MP 40.2
e. Collect aerial imagery and 3d terrain for ground modeling (Civil 3d terrain)
i. Limits of aerial/3d terrain MP 37.0 (Service Center Rd) to MP 39.18 (west end of Maroon
Creek Bridge) – 200 foot each side of the highway
ii. Limits of aerial/3d terrain MP 39.18 to MP 40.2 (variable width – see Maroon to Castle.Kmz)
f. Mobile LiDAR Scan roadway network from MP 40.2 (East end of Castle Creek bridge) to MP 41.6
(Original Street/Cooper Ave)
i. Set control for Mobile LiDAR Scan and level through them
ii. Traffic control (1 day)
iii. Limits of 3d terrain from scan MP 40.2 (East end of Castle Creek Bridge) to MP 41.3 (Galena
St) – i.e. not entire scan
g. Mobile LiDAR Scan Rubey Park Transit Center
i. Limits of 3d terrain (see Rubey Park Transit Center.kmz)
3.7.1.1 Assumptions
1. Survey accuracy shall follow CDOT standards for horizontal and vertical design requirements.
2. No boundary/ROW survey
3. No culverts, storm or sanitary systems need to be surveyed.
4. A subsurface utility engineering survey will not be performed
5. No more than 10 Right-Of-Entry (ROE) permissions are needed.
6. ROE letters prepared by Jacobs, and sent to homeowners by City, City to reach out to homeowners to
assist in right-of-entry approval in a timely manner.
3.7.1.2 Deliverables
1. Civil 3D topo file and surface
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 20
2. Aerial imagery of the project limits
3.7.2 Task 2: Conceptual Right of Way and Utilities
1. Identify ownerships adjacent to the preliminary alternatives to be evaluated in this scope assumes a
maximum of 4 alternatives. The owners will be identified based on information on the county GIS
website, upon which Jacobs may reasonably rely. The project budget is based on a maximum of 50
owners. The ownership information will be catalogued by Township, Range and Section. Because of
the scale of the project, the information will not be parceled or individually tied to a right-of-way
maps.
2. For each alternative identify permanent and temporary right-of-way acquisitions based on conceptual
design limits and impacts. A formal relocation study (availability of suitable replacement housing,
relocation costs, etc.) will not be completed. This task is limited to development of conceptual ROW. A
web-based search of the local real estate market will be undertaken to develop unit cost assumptions.
Set estimated ROW lines in a CAD file for each alternative. A table will be developed summarizing the
landowners, areas of acquisition and estimated costs of right-of-way.
3. Utility providers will be contacted to obtain information on service line locations for each alternative
alignment. A meeting with each utility will not be conducted. Utility locations will be shown for the
corridor based on atlas map information obtained from the utility owners. No field locates will be
completed during this stage of the project.
4. For each alternative identify utility impacts and potential relocations based on the conceptual design.
A utility matrix will be developed identifying owners, utilities and potential impacts.
3.7.2.1 Deliverables
1. Ownership and Areas of Acquisition Table
2. Location of known utilities (atlas maps only)
3. Utility Matrix
3.7.3 Task 3: Conceptual Structures Layout Design
1. Develop bridge type selection report for the conceptual PA alternatives with modifications to evaluate
alternative structures. The report will be based on the general characteristics of the locations and
anticipated roadway alignments rather than individual layouts. The scope of work includes
consideration of a maximum of three (3) individual cases including the one from the PA with site-
specific bridge layouts crossing Castle Creek. Evaluate the need and potential for bridge aesthetics and
document potential applications and additional costs. (Jacobs and DW)
2. Conceptual bridge layouts will be developed showing only the plan view limits of the structure, typical
section and bridge end locations and skew. Elevation views will be developed to depict substructure
elements and pier locations. A contour grading plan will not be developed.
3. Cost estimating will be completed by development of unit price (square foot) construction costs for
each type of bridge considered. This information will be included in the Bridge Selection Report
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 21
4. Assume a cut and cover tunnel for only 2 alternatives. Generate a concept plan, typical section and
elevation view for each location.
5. Evaluate tunnel requirements (electrical, ventilation, drainage, etc..), methods of construction,
temporary impacts, aesthetics and estimate conceptual costs for each location. Develop up to 4
visualizations of the tunnel for each alternative. Develop a cut & cover technical memo. (Jacobs &
DW)
3.7.3.1 Deliverables
1. Bridge Selection Report
2. Conceptual Bridge Layouts (4 alternatives crossing Castle Creek)
3. Cost Estimates for the bridge
4. Cut and cover tunnel general layout with typical section (2 alternatives)
5. Cut and cover tunnel technical memo and costs
3.7.4 Task 4: Conceptual Highway and Roadway Design
1. Prepare draft design criteria memorandum documenting the design criteria for the proposed
modifications and present to City and CDOT for review and comments. The evaluation will include
preliminary geometrics evaluation which meet the PA.
2. Prepare the final design criteria memorandum.
3. Develop a description of the No Action alternative. Include all planned transportation improvements
external to this project that is applicable.
4. Develop up to three (3) conceptual designs in addition to the PA (1) including plan, profile, and
typical sections. Design files would include; intersections, roundabouts, roadway widths, sidewalks,
medians, trails, curb & gutter, barriers, walls and construction limits. See Task 2 for setting right-of-
way limits.
5. Prepare alternatives maps to be used for public and stakeholder involvement.
6. Export alternative figures to GIS for resource impacts analysis and Reevaluation documentation.
3.7.4.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Design Criteria Memorandum
2. Description of the No Action alternative
3. Conceptual Alignment and Grade (4 alternatives)
4. Maps for public and stakeholder presentations
5. GIS figures (4 alternatives)
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 22
3.7.5 Task 5: Predictive Safety Analysis
1. Establish methods and criteria metrics for predictive analysis in evaluating the safety aspect of the
alternatives along SH 82. Consider the potential reduction of diversion traffic on McLain Flats road
and anticipated safety benefits.
2. Evaluate each of the four (4) alternatives against the predictive safety metrics. Prepare analysis that
documents each alternative’s benefits.
3. Summarize the results of the analysis and prepare a Predicitve Safety Technical Memorandum.
3.7.5.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Predictive Safety Technical Memorandum
3.8 Cost Estimates
Jacobs will prepare reasonably reliable and accurate construction cost estimates for comparative
estimates for the alternatives analysis as part of the NEPA phase of the project. It is understood that the
accuracy of the estimates will be commensurate with the detail of the design developed at the time of the
estimate. Initial concept estimates will be order of magnitude for comparative purposes only and should in
no case be used for programming purposes.
3.8.1 Task 6: Concept Alternatives Estimates
1. Conceptual construction, right-of-way, engineering and utility cost estimates will be prepared for the
four alternatives considered in the reevaluation. The estimates will have an accuracy consistent with
the level of design detail developed at the time. The opinions of alternative construction cost
estimates, and any resulting conclusions on project financial or economic feasibility or funding
requirements, would be prepared for guidance with project alternative construction cost evaluation
and implementation from the information available at the time the opinion was prepared. The final
costs of the project and resulting feasibility will depend on actual labor and material costs,
competitive market conditions, actual site conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule,
continuity of personnel and engineering, delivery method and other variable factors. As a result, the
final project costs will vary from the alternative construction cost opinions presented in the
reevaluation.
3.8.1.1 Deliverables
1. Conceptual Cost estimates (4 alternatives – Preferred alternative from 1998 ROD + 3 modifications)
3.9 Monitor and Support Funding Opportunities
Jacobs will monitor federal and other funding opportunities and assist the City with grant application
development for an estimated two (2) grant applications.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 23
3.9.1 Task 7: Grant Program Monitoring and Project Screening
1. Jacobs will assist the City with federal and state grant program monitoring and project screening
activities in advance of subsequent grant application development tasks. Activities included in this
task may include the development of grant program fact sheets, analysis of project competitiveness,
workshops with city staff to review project suitability and competitiveness against grant program
criteria, and other related analyses.
3.9.2 Task 8: Prepare and Produce Grant Applications
1. Under this scope of work, Jacobs will develop grant applications for federal or state funding programs
from agencies such as USDOT, CDOT, and FEMA. The City will be a critical partner to ensure the
application appropriately reflects project conditions. Specifically, it is expected that the client will
make available any project information necessary for Jacobs to “make the case” for the project. This
task includes the development of complete grant application narratives, including project
management and any required maps and graphics, and demographic analyses. For most grant
program applications, sections of the grant application narrative include:
a. Project Description: Information on the expected users of the project, a description of the
challenges that the project aims to address, and how the project will address these challenges. It
would also include a detailed statement of work that focuses on the technical and engineering
aspects of the project, the current design status of the project, and describes in detail the project
to be constructed.
b. Project Location: Information about the project location, including a detailed geographical
description of the proposed project, a map of the project’s location, and description of
connections to existing infrastructure.
c. Grant Funds and Sources / Uses of Project Funds: Information about the amount of grant funding
requested, the availability and commitment of funds sources, total project costs, and other
relevant funding information. The budget details should sufficiently demonstrate that the project
satisfies any statutory cost-sharing requirements.
d. Merit Criteria: Information on how this project will demonstrate how the project aligns with the
criteria for evaluation.
e. Project Readiness: Information on project readiness will be explicitly assessed based on a
Technical Assessment, Financial Completeness Assessment, and Environmental Risk Assessment.
3.9.3 Task 9: Prepare Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA)
1. This task includes the following services: calculations, estimates and narrative necessary to prepare
the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for the grant application(s), using Jacobs’ excel-based BCA tool. The
analysis will include quantitative and qualitative discussions of benefits that would arise as a result of
project construction, including (where applicable, and not limited to):
a. Travel Time savings
b. Operating cost savings
c. Valuation of safety benefits
d. Valuation of any emissions reduction benefits
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 24
e. Reduced maintenance costs
f. Economic development benefits
g. Public health benefits
h. Other benefits as discussed with the client
i. Data Needs
2. To conduct the BCA, Jacobs will require several data inputs, which will need to be provided by or
obtained by the City. The following is a list of common data points based on anticipated benefits of
project implementation and is not considered a comprehensive list. Data needs will vary based on the
nature of the project and its impacts.
a. Capital cost data for the project (total, and as expended by quarter) in current dollars
b. Project O&M and any major rehabilitation costs by year through project life
c. No Build O&M and any major rehabilitation costs by year through project life
d. Emissions reductions
e. Quantified safety benefits
3.10 NEPA Re-Evaluation
Before implementation of a project that received NEPA approval, CDOT must consult with FHWA before
requesting any major approvals to establish whether the approved EIS remains valid. If circumstances have
changed, FHWA may require a Reevaluation to determine what changes have occurred and whether new
documentation or a supplemental EIS is necessary.
According to the CDOT NEPA Manual, the reevaluation is for the same limits as the original environmental
document. The reevaluation would consider the entire project but focus on the validity of the EIS and/or
project decision as related to the phase to be developed. Previously completed phases would be
referenced as previous actions and summarized as background information. The current phase would be
discussed in more detail, but only to the extent that there have been changes to the project or Affected
Environment. Future phases could be mentioned and discussed, but the details could be delayed until
approval is needed to proceed with the future phase. There is no requirement to modify phases already
built or reconsider previous designs when the next phase is being built. If the reevaluation process
determines that the approved environmental document is no longer adequate, then supplemental
environmental documentation is needed to fully analyze the changes that have occurred. A separate
scope and schedule will be developed for the supplemental document.
CDOT Form 1399 will be used when completing a Reevaluation. The form with the supporting studies will
help determine whether a supplemental EIS (SEIS) is needed. A SEIS will be required if the changes to the
proposed action will result in significant impacts not evaluated in the original EIS or if the new information
or circumstances will result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the original EIS or if the
proposed design is not identified as the preferred alternative. The SEIS is outside the scope of this task
order. A supplemental scope and schedule will be developed if a SEIS is needed.
The following resource studies will not be included in the reevaluation per the 2025 federal guidance:
Environmental Justice and Equity, and Cumulative Impacts.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 25
3.10.1 Task 1: Permission to Enter Property
1. Obtain written permission from each landowner, lease holder, or their representative prior to entering
property for the purpose of conducting environmental investigation activities. CDOT Form 730,
Permission to Enter Property, shall be used for this purpose. When complete, copies of the signed
forms shall be submitted to CDOT, the City and Pitkin County. A contact list of property owners shall
be prepared and will include phone and email addresses.
3.10.1.1 Deliverables
1. CDOT Form 730 Permit to Enter Property signed by property owner/owner’s representative/lessee
2. List of property owners with contact information
3.10.2 Task 2: Air Quality Analysis
1. Coordinate with CDOT and follow the guidance on evaluation and documentation of air quality in the
2019 CDOT Air Quality Project-Level Analysis Guidance (AQ-PLAG) document (CDOT 2019). The air
quality analysis will also be completed based on the requirements of NEPA, EPA transportation
conformity rule, and FHWA MSAT guidance. The project is located in Aspen, Pitkin County which is
designated as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants. As of November 18, 2023, the
Transportation Conformity requirements do not apply for this area. Therefore, CO and PM hotspot
analyses are not required. A Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) analysis will be required for the
reevaluation.
2. The reevaluation would not be subject to the CRS 43-1-128. However, an emissions inventory of
criteria pollutants would still be required under the AQ-PLAG.
3. Conduct MOVES modeling for criteria pollutants and MSATs.
4. Submit draft air quality report for CDOT and FHWA review and incorporate their comments to finalize
the report
3.10.2.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Air Quality Analysis Reports
3.10.3 Task 3: Greenhouse Gas
1. Coordinate with CDOT to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and follow CDOT NEPA Manual.
2. The reevaluation would not be subject to the CRS 43-1-128.
3.10.3.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Greenhouse Gas Analysis
3.10.3.2 Assumptions
1. This scope assumes a GHG Tech Report will not be required since the project is not subject to CRS 43-
1-128.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 26
2. This scope assumes a general discussion of GHGs in the EIS.
3.10.4 Task 4: Geologic Resource, Soils, Geohazards
1. Review NRCS soil survey reports, U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) or Colorado Geologic Survey reports of
geologic investigations, existing Geotechnical reports prepared for the project, any assessments of
mineral and energy resource to identify any geological or soils issues or geohazards for alternatives
under consideration.
2. Identify Extreme topography, Unique geologic features, engineering properties of soil and geologic
formations (e.g., expanding or erodible soils, slope stability, rockfall activity), faults and seismic
activity, resources that result from the geology/soils in the project area, for example, minerals (coal),
energy (petroleum or natural gas), sand and gravel, etc. , snow avalanche potential, potential
visual/aesthetic values of geologic features can be acknowledged in the Geologic/Soil Resources .
3. Identify mitigations
4. Prepare Geologic Resources, Soils, and Geohazards Technical Memorandum. Address once
consolidated set of comments and revise memorandum.
3.10.4.1 Deliverables
1. Geologic Resources, Soils, and Geohazards Technical Memorandum
3.10.5 Task 5: Water Quality
1. Identify sensitive surface water, groundwater, and/or drinking water supplies. Assess potential permit
requirements and mitigation measures for the project impact within the study area.
2. Follow CDOT’s NEPA Manual for compliance with CDOT’s 2017 Environmental Stewardship Guide,
which ensures that the statewide transportation system is constructed and maintained in an
environmentally responsible, sustainable, and compliant manner.
3. Investigate and document the impacts of the project on water resource and quality impacts of the
project during and following construction. Determined by considering the project location and design
concepts in relation to existing water resources including groundwater or alluvial waters or aquifers
(particularly sole source), drainage ditches and other State Waters as defined by CDPHE Water Quality
Control Division, aquatic as well as riparian habitat, and Sensitive Waters (Class 1 Aquatic Life,
Recreation 1, and Water Supply, 303[d] listed, etc.).
4. Identify mitigations such as permanent water quality measures and construction water quality
measures.
5. Prepare Water Quality Technical Memorandum. Address once consolidated set of comments and
revise memorandum.
3.10.5.1 Deliverables
1. Water Quality Technical Memorandum
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 27
3.10.5.2 Exclusions
1. No water-quality modelling will be conducted.
3.10.6 Task 6: Floodplain
1. Determine whether the project has the potential to affect floodplains. Determine the adverse impacts
of each alternative with respect to the base flood elevation (BFE), floodway boundary, and local
drainage. This must include the impacts of construction and other “temporary” activities.
2. Qualitative evaluation will be included based on any previous CDOT or the city studies or FEMA
floodplain analysis. The permit evaluation based on conceptual level of design will be included in the
Reevaluation document. No permits will be prepared under this task.
3. If an alternative encroaches on a regulatory floodway/floodplain, indicate if it would require revision
to the regulatory floodway.
4. Prepare Floodplains Technical Memorandum. Address once consolidated set of comments and revise
memorandum.
3.10.6.1 Deliverables
1. Floodplain Technical Memorandum
3.10.7 Task 7: Wetlands/Waters of U.S.
1. Perform a literature review and field reconnaissance to identify wetlands, rivers, streams, and other
water resources located in the project corridor. Sources include Colorado Natural Heritage Program’s
(CNHP) Colorado Wetland Inventory (planning level), CDOT’s OTIS, Topographic maps, Aerial
photographs of the project area, USGS National Hydrography Dataset, and conversations with local
agency personnel and adjacent landowners familiar with the wetland project area.
2. Describe the location, size, characteristics and the relative functions of wetlands, rivers, streams, and
other water resources that may be affected. Identify and map these waters.
3. Conduct a field evaluation for the presence of wetlands. Global Positioning System (GPS) will be used
for this activity.
4. Delineate the boundaries of anticipated jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional wetlands and waters of
the US within agreed upon environmental survey boundary using United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) guidance.
5. Develop overlay mapping of the wetland areas and other water resource with the project footprint and
aerial photography. Estimate potential impacts to wetlands and other water resources resulting from
the project.
6. Make a preliminary jurisdictional determination, or presentation of related data, of the delineated
wetlands and waters of the U.S. in coordination with the CDOT Biologist. If necessary, one field review
with regulatory agency personnel will be scheduled.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 28
7. Prepare a Wetland Finding Report. The Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) will be
used, as appropriate according to current CDOT procedures. Conduct a wetland assessment based on
the NEPA document addressing the amount of permanent and temporary wetlands impacts. Evaluate
mitigation sites for availability and suitability for wetland habitat. If avoidance is not feasible, identify
and discuss potential on-site, generally explore project specific wetland mitigation sites and/or
mitigation banks as directed by the CDOT District Biologist. Include mitigation and monitoring
requirements if needed.
3.10.7.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Wetlands Findings Reports
3.10.7.2 Exclusions
1. Scope does not include wetland mitigation design
3.10.8 Task 8: Vegetation and Noxious Weeds
1. Investigate vegetation habitat and noxious weeds for the purposes of describing the existing
conditions within entire agreed upon environmental survey boundary. Plot major vegetation
zones/ecosystems and weed locations and densities on a map. Field work will be conducted in
conjunction with wetland delineation.
2. Draft report sections. Recommend appropriate vegetation habitat and noxious weed mitigation
measures, as necessary.
3.10.8.1 Deliverables
1. Vegetation and Noxious Weeds section of Biological Resources Report
3.10.9 Task 9: Fish and Wildlife
1. Perform a literature review and field reconnaissance to identify general wildlife and fish in the project
corridor.
2. Request information from pertinent agencies that have a management or regulatory interest in the
general wildlife, fish, critical habitats, rare plants, wetlands, rivers and streams, which may be affected
by the project.
3. Prepare a written assessment of the general wildlife, fish, critical habitats, rare plants, wetland, river,
stream, and other water resources located or potentially located in the project corridor in accordance
with CDOT NEPA Manual. The assessment will include an analysis and discussion, including
suggestions for the avoidance and/or minimization of impacts on fish, wildlife, and critical habitats.
4. Evaluate impacts to wildlife connectivity and provide recommendations to reconnect wildlife habitat.
5. Prepare sections of biological report. Address one set of coordinated CDOT/FHWA comments on draft
biological resources report and prepare final biological resources report to submit to CDOT.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 29
3.10.9.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Biological Resources Report section
3.10.10 Task 10: Threatened and Endangered Species
1. Conduct Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species evaluations in accordance with CDOT process.
Species lists will be requested for the project area through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s (USFWS)
Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) feature for federally listed species and through the
Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) and Colorado Natural Heritage Program for state and county specific
species. The data obtained through IPaC will be used to formally ascertain if potential exists for T&E
species or critical habitat to be present in the project area.
2. Review documented records of species occurrence within the influence of the project, determine
whether or not there is potential occupied habitat and, evaluate potential project impacts on T&E
species, their habitat, and any designated critical habit.
3. Consult with CDOT to determine whether informal or formal consultation is required will be made in
accordance. This scope does not include species surveys. A biological assessment for a formal
consultation cannot be completed until a preferred alternative is selected. Biological Assessment for
formal consultation is outside this scope.
3.10.10.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Biological Resources Report Section
3.10.11 Task 11: Historic Resources (Mead & Hunt)
1. Follow CDOT’s process described in the 2018 CDOT Archaeology and History Analysis and
Documentation Procedures for cultural resources studies. Coordinate with CDOT to identify any
interested or consulting parties, such as members of certified local governments, local historical
societies, museums, historic preservation commissions, or other knowledgeable groups/individuals.
2. Identify interested Section 106 consulting parties.
3. Hold two (2) virtual public meetings with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) SHPO and
consulting parties provide meeting minutes
4. In coordination with CDOT, determine whether any resources that may be affected by an undertaking
have the potential to be eligible for listing on the National or State Registers of Historic Places.
5. Review conceptual designs to avoid minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts to historic properties
6. Coordination with CDOT historian and project team to review conceptual designs. Assumes up to four
focus group meetings.
7. Determining Undertaking’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). Defined as: SH 82 from Service Center
Road to Rubey Park Transit center in Aspen via SH 82/Main Street/Monarch Street/Durant Avenue.
Assume that additional right-of-way acquisitions or easements may require surveys near the AABC
Road or the Inn at Aspen, but all other work will remain within existing right-of-way.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 30
8. Update Compass search.
9. Delineate APE for Preferred Alternative and any other identified alternatives.
10. Revise APE up to three times based on City, CDOT, and FHWA reviews, project changes.
11. Determinations of Eligibility for National or State Register
12. Research and literature review including research in Aspen.
13. Survey setup and planning.
14. Field Survey of up to 20 historic resources built in 1980 or earlier including reevaluation of previously
eligible historic properties as needed. Field survey has already taken place for some of the properties
in 2024 and confirm that no changes have been made to these properties.
15. Determine with CDOT which properties should be documented based on proposed effects.
16. Assume up to 15 OAHP 1403 Architectural Inventory Site forms and attachments.
17. Assume 17 OAHP 1405 Re-evaluation Forms and attachments for previously eligible historic
properties from 2007 Re-evaluation, including one for Main Street Historic District.
18. Assume 1 OAHP 1404 Historic Landscape Form for the Aspen Golf Course on SH 82.
19. Prepare Draft Survey Report
20. Revisions of survey report and site forms (up to 2 Revisions) based on City, CDOT, and FHWA reviews,
updated alternatives, and other project changes.
21. Prepare Final Survey Report and Site Forms
22. Evaluate the criteria of adverse effect to any eligible or listed historic properties within the APE for an
effect finding and consult with SHPO through CDOT or FHWA. There are three kinds of effects findings
- No Historic Properties Affected, No Adverse Effect, or Adverse Effect
23. Prepare effects section of report summarizing effects of Preferred Alternative to historic properties
including detailed graphics.
24. Summarize changes between EIS/ROD and 2007 Reevaluation with summary tables and mitigation
measures. Assume effects will be prepared for up to 20 eligible historic properties.
25. Assist with historic properties sections of Reevaluation as needed.
26. Revise survey report and effects report as needed (up to 2 revisions) based on CDOT and FHWA
reviews, updated alternatives, and other project changes.
27. In consultation with SHPO and consulting parties through CDOT, develop strategies that avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to historic properties but also meet the basic objectives of all
interested stakeholders.
28. Adverse effect coordination to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to up to five eligible
historic properties.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 31
29. Assumes one two-day trip to Aspen to assess effects on historic properties and update historic survey,
as necessary.
30. Revise effects report based on CDOT and team comments (up to 2 revisions)
31. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) may be required to mitigate adverse effects. The execution and
implementation of the stipulations in an MOA is outside the scope of this reevaluation.
32. If a Section 4(f) coordination is required for a property listed or eligible to be listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), it will be coordinated and discussed under Section 4(f).
3.10.11.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Cultural Resource Inventory Reports
2. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Inventory Forms
3. Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) effect determinations
4. Draft and Final Correspondence between CDOT and SHPO summarizing Section 106 eligibility and
effect determinations.
3.10.11.2 Assumptions
1. Field survey or individual evaluations for properties built in 1980 or earlier within Main Street Historic
District that have not been previously surveyed.
2. Additional historic survey, site forms, or effect determinations outside of project area defined under
APE. .
3. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
4. Mitigation measures outlined in MOA
5. Section 4(f) evaluations for historic properties
3.10.12 Task 18: Archeological Resources
1. Identify archaeological resources and complete consultation in accordance with CDOT NEPA Manual.
Review would include a literature survey, on the ground reconnaissance, and an update to the 2007
Reevaluation Technical Report.
2. A review of historic Sanborn Fire Insurance maps and other appropriate archival sources to determine
if the area may contain significant archaeological sites or features.
3. Conduct an intensive field survey of the project corridor(s) and undertake site-specific test
excavations, as necessary and appropriate, to determine NRHP eligibility. The Consultant shall not
undertake test excavations before consulting with CDOT.
4. Begin laboratory analyses of all collected artifacts and ancillary specimens.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 32
5. Assess all identified fossil localities’ scientific significance and provide recommendation for further
paleontological investigation prior to NEPA clearance or clearance to proceed to project construction,
commence proposed maintenance work, or initiate materials excavation.
3.10.12.1 Deliverables
1. Archaeological Resources Report
3.10.12.2 Assumptions
1. Pedestrian Survey of approximately 133 acres of the approximately 207-acre project area in up to 3,
10-hour days by one Jacobs archaeologist.
2. Fieldwork will be conducted in one mobilization.
3. Survey acreage may be reduced if areas have been fully and adequately surveyed within the past five
years or are covered in hardscape.
4. Up to five archaeological sites will be identified during survey.
5. Identified archaeological sites and isolates can be avoided. If sites or isolates cannot be avoided by at
least 50 feet, additional work may be necessary to delineate site boundaries or complete an
evaluation of the resources against the NRHP criteria for evaluating site significance.
6. No artifacts will be collected during field investigations. Artifact collection would require curation of
the artifact assemblage at an appropriate curational facility.
7. Subsurface testing to delineate the boundaries of sites or confirm the status of archaeological isolates
is not included in this scope.
8. This scope assumes no Historic Properties of Religious and Cultural Significance to Indian Tribes
(HPRCSITs) or Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs).
9. Consultation with SHPO and Tribes is not included in this scope
3.10.13 Task 13: Paleontological Resources
1. Perform a literature and museum fossil database search and field assessment
2. Determine the presence or absence of paleontological resources.
3. Conduct analysis to determine the scientific significance (research and/or educational value) of the
resource.
4. Write the paleontological technical report, including mitigation proposals, if necessary. The
assessment report will be provided to the project team for inclusion in the NEPA document.
5. Coordinate the mitigation plan with the EPB Staff Paleontologist.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 33
3.10.13.1 Deliverables
1. Paleontological Resources Report
3.10.14 Task 14: Land Use, Social and Economic Resources
1. Collect available land use and/or zoning information from applicable city, county, and regional
jurisdictions and describe existing land use from available land use data sources and aerial photo
interpretation of the study area.
2. Analyze the project’s potential impacts to existing land and future use and evaluate the consistency of
the alternatives with land use plans. Changes will be described in terms of uses, e.g., agricultural to low
density residential, relocations, timing (short-term vs. long-term), impacts on agricultural operations,
and the geopolitical jurisdictions affected.
3. Collect available information on social resources that may affect quality of life for a population such as
changes in neighborhoods or community cohesion, underrepresented populations, community
resources such as schools, churches, parks, shopping, emergency services, etc., community vision and
values, community transportation resources (alternative modes, etc.), community mixed-use
developments, and transit oriented development for le communities within and immediately
surrounding the proposed project area. Sources of information include census data, community
planning documents, community groups, etc. This information will be used for public outreach as well
as the evaluation of project impacts. This scope assumes that, because a NEPA decision document
exists for the ETA, that compliance with Colorado Senate Bill SB 260 and House Bill HB 1266 is not
required.
4. Evaluate impacts on community cohesion, public services and facilities, mobility, and safety. Studies
performed during Pre NEPA will be used for this.
5. Collect information on economic resources such as employment and tax base affected by project
(retail sales, opportunity for development, tax revenues, relocation of employment centers, etc.), any
businesses affected by project or construction (detours, bypasses, circulation), housing, infrastructure
and public services and changes in property values. Sources of information include census data,
bureau of economic regional publications, local businesses, etc.
6. Evaluate changes in regional traffic (bypass impacts), changes in business and residential environment
(noise, air quality, visual resources, amenities, traffic volumes and traffic speed), access changes
(delivery, employee, customer), changes in customer and/or employee base (relocations),
compatibility with economic development plans, changes in parking availability, changes in
employment opportunities and retail shopping/services related to changes in businesses, conversion
of taxable property to public use and revenue losses and the effect on taxing authorities.
7. Evaluate mitigation options for impacts which cannot be avoided or minimized.
8. Prepare Community Understanding Technical Report.
3.10.14.1 Deliverables
1. Community Understanding Technical Report.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 34
3.10.15 Task 15: Transportation Resources
1. During the modifications development and evaluation process, the appropriate level of operations
analysis will also be conducted on the alternatives being considered. The results of the operations
analysis are documented in a Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum . Traffic tasks and scope
included in Section 7, 3. Design A.
2. Collect information on the existing transportation system from completed studies and planning
studies. The transportation system includes roadway, freight, transit, rail, aviation, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities and how the modes connect and interrelate to form the transportation network.
Information collected would include physical characteristics of the infrastructure, transportation
composition and operations, freight, transit and rail services, bicycles and pedestrians. The
information will be collected from studies already performed for this project.
3. Research and identify existing and future planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project area.
The necessary data will be collected from project design documents, community transportation plans,
local land developers, open space and park trails, or local governmental agency or community interest
groups to determine if any facilities will be impacted, and as a result what mitigation is necessary.
Coordinate with City and County pathway/open space staff.
4. Prepare Multimodal reports and evaluate mitigation for impacts.
3.10.15.1 Deliverables
1. Multimodal Report
3.10.16 Task 16: Residential/Business/Right-of-Way Relocations
1. Identify any potential residential, business, non-profit association, or farm operation relocations
associated with the proposed project.
2. Estimates of the number of people in the study area who are subject to relocation.
3. Determine if the potential displaces represent a disproportionate population using voluntarily
provided demographic information from the property owners and displaces.
4. Research market information on the availability of comparable replacement dwellings and business
location.
5. Complete a relocation summary report in accordance with CDOT NEPA Manual.
6. Include the information in the Community Understanding Report.
3.10.16.1 Deliverables
1. Section in Community Understanding Report
3.10.17 Task 17: Utilities Impacts
1. Evaluate impacts on utilities. Information from conceptual plans and alternative analysis will be used
for this.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 35
2. Summarize utility impacts for each alternative in the NEPA document. A technical memo will be
prepared.
3.10.17.1 Deliverables
1. Utilities Technical Memorandum
3.10.18 Task 18: Section 4(f) Evaluation
1. Identify Section 4(f) resources which may be affected by the proposed project. These include parks
and recreational areas of national, state, or local significance that are both publicly owned and open to
the public, publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that
are open to the public to the extent that public access does not interfere with the primary purpose of
the refuge and historic sites of national, state, or local significance in public or private ownership. To
the extent possible, the 4(f) analysis conducted for the 2007 Reevaluation will be used.
2. Determine and evaluate project impacts on Section 4(f) properties using preliminary design
information, and the necessary commitments for mitigation measures. Determine whether new
Section 4(f) impacts qualify under the “de minimis” 4(f) use. This scope assumes that preparation of
an Individual 4(f) analysis is required, including avoidance alternatives, discussion of prudent and
feasible, least harm (if necessary), minimization, and mitigation related to Section 4(f) properties. This
may include the development of a new alternative(s) as an avoidance alternative(s)
3. Identify any impacts and mitigation which have been completed as part of the original EIS and ROD.
4. Section 4(f) coordination is expected for impacts to historic Berger cabin and Marolt Thomas open
space. Complete Section 4(f) Coordination.
5. Complete a Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Report.
3.10.18.1 Deliverables
1. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) report
3.10.19 Task 19: Section 6(f) Evaluation
1. Identify Section 6(f) properties which may be affected by the proposed project. These are properties
which are purchased or improved with grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act.
A preliminary review indicates that a segment of the Aspen Trail System extending across the Marolt
Open Space would be Section 6(f) encumbered and require evaluation.
2. Identify impacts and any mitigation which have been completed as part of the original EIS and ROD.
3. Conduct Section 6(f) coordination with CDOT and Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff regarding impacts
from the preferred alternative.
4. Complete a draft and final Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Report
3.10.19.1 Deliverables
1. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) report
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 36
3.10.20 Task 20: Farmlands
1. Identify any impacts to any prime or unique farmlands and other significant farmlands protected
under federal or state regulations.
2. Identify whether conversion of farmland may occur. If so, coordinate with Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) – US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Evaluate alternatives to avoid
farmland, assess potential impacts to farmland and determine appropriate mitigations.
3.10.20.1 Deliverables
1. NRCS Coordination Documents
3.10.21 Task 21: Traffic Noise Analysis
This scope assumes the project is not considered multi-modal and will be subject to FHWA and CDOT
guidance. Early coordination will be conducted with FHWA and CDOT to confirm if the project or portions
of the project would be subject to FTA guidance.
1. Coordinate with CDOT and follow the guidance on evaluation and documentation of noise in the CDOT
Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines (CDOT NAAG 2020). This scope assumes a noise
reevaluation would be required based on Section 9 of the CDOT NAAG. A noise verification memo will
be prepared documenting the requirements and findings of the noise re-evaluation.
2. Prepare a technical noise assessment in accordance with the most recent CDOT Noise Analysis and
Abatement Guidelines (NAAG) and submit a Traffic Noise Technical Report using CDOT’s most recent
report template and submit to CDOT for review and acceptance. The following tasks will be
completed.
3. Conduct one site visit for the draft conceptual alternatives to identify land uses and potential noise-
sensitive receptor locations, such as residences, schools, churches, motels, parks, playgrounds, etc.,
within the project limits and within approximately 300 feet of the proposed centerlines for the
alignment alternatives.
4. Conduct ambient noise level measurements to determine the existing noise levels at representative
receptors adjacent to the alignment alternatives (up to four noise measurement locations). The
purpose of the noise measurements is to valid the noise model for prediction of existing and future
noise levels. During each measurement, audible noise sources and existing activities near the
receptors will be identified. Traffic counts will be collected simultaneously during the measurements
and recorded, if applicable.
5. Create traffic noise prediction models for the No Build and PA alternatives using TNM and preliminary
design drawings, which will include elevation, topography, and centerline data. Traffic projections for
the alternatives and the existing roadways in the area are required to complete the noise models,
including traffic volumes for each of the proposed alignments, traffic mix (i.e., number of autos,
medium trucks, and heavy trucks), truck percentages, average daily traffic (ADT), design hourly
volume (DHV), etc. The models will help determine the Existing Year and Design Year traffic noise
levels at the receptors for the No Build and PA Alternative. The noise levels at up to 15 noise sensitive
receiver areas will be analyzed.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 37
6. Determine if noise impacts will occur at the receptors in the design year by comparing the estimated
noise levels to the FHWA and CDOT traffic noise abatement criteria.
7. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, determine if noise abatement measures are reasonable and
feasible using the guidelines in CDOT’s NAAG.
8. Identify any permitted receptors on file with the city and/or county and include in the noise analysis
and modeling as applicable. The noise contours will be provided to CDOT in a GIS shape file for any
undeveloped lands.
9. Summarize the results of the noise analysis in preliminary draft and final versions of a Traffic Noise
Study report. The report will include information and data concerning the identified receptors, results
of the noise level measurements, the predicted existing year and design year traffic noise levels for the
No Build and PA Alternative, design year noise impacts, noise abatement analysis results, and traffic
noise contours, as applicable.
10. Summarize the noise reevaluation results in the noise verification memo.
3.10.21.1 Deliverables
1. Draft and Final Noise Reports
2. Draft and Final Noise Verification Memos
3.10.21.2 Assumptions
1. This scope assumes a new noise analysis will be required for the reevaluation.
2. Noise measurements will be collected at up to four locations.
3. Up to eight impacted locations will be analyzed for noise barrier.
3.10.21.3 Exclusions
1. Scope does not include FTA Noise Assessment for fixed rail or other transit modes requiring this
analysis.
3.10.22 Task 22: Visual Resource
1. Using desktop resources such as aerial maps, identifying distinct visual attributes and/or project
landscape units.
2. Identify potential Key Observation Points (KOPs) (assuming a maximum of 4 KOPs) and take up to 10
project area photos using 35mm camera for later VIA assessment.
3. Establish a baseline of the visual resources that would be affected by the proposed alignment. Review
topo maps to determine existing topography, site lines, landscape boundaries, natural features, and
general site character. Identify major human-made and natural visual features along the proposed
alternative alignments.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 38
4. Conduct a site survey to record a visual assessment inventory of existing conditions and document
landscape units with photographs (see above). The site survey will be limited to areas that are
accessible or visible from public roads, public facilities or lands, and residential areas.
5. Prepare three (3) photo realistic visual simulations using design files.
6. Assess effects on visual character, effects on visual quality, and effects on local viewer groups
(neighbors and travelers).
7. Identify feasible mitigation measures.
8. Prepare Visual Impact Assessment report consistent with 2020 CDOT VIA Guidelines. This scope
assumes a standard VIA is appropriate for this project.
9. Address one round of comments from CDOT.
10. Finalize VIA.
3.10.22.1 Deliverables
1. Visual Impact Assessment Report
3.10.23 Task 23: Hazardous Materials
1. Complete an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) in accordance with CDOT’s Hazardous Materials Guidance
Manual. Review will include standard environmental database (records) review, historical records
review, and detailed regulatory file review.
2. Visit project site for a visual reconnaissance. This scope assumes visual reconnaissance would be
conducted from ROW and public property. No access to private property would be requested.
3. Identify any environmental concerns. If further analysis of any property with a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA) or a Phase II remedial investigation is needed, the work will be supplemental to
this task.
4. Prepare Draft ISA and submit to CDOT for review.
5. Address one set of comments and prepare final ISA.
3.10.23.1 Deliverables
1. 1. Draft and Final Initial Site Assessment Report
3.10.24 Task 24: Complete CDOT Form 1399 and Supporting Report
1. Prepare a standalone document for the reevaluation as a supporting document for CDOT Form 1399
and complete the form. This document is assumed to a be a concise, reader-friendly summary of the
key findings of the Reevaluation technical analyses and public outreach.
2. Submit the draft Form 1399 with supporting document to CDOT.
3. Respond to one set of CDOT and FHWA comments
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 39
4. Meeting with CDOT and FHWA to determine whether a SEIS is needed.
5. If no SEIS is needed, complete reevaluation. If a SEIS is needed, a supplemental scope will be prepared
under a different scope of work.
3.11 Finalize Alignment and Grade
The Alignment and Grade will be finalized to a preliminary state (30%) only for the “preferred alternative”
initial configuration. The purpose of this task is to convey proper intent of the preferred alternative initial
phase and ultimate phase if applicable.
3.11.1 Task 1: Finalize Conceptual Alignment and Grade
1. Finalize major control design points
2. Finalize preliminary alignment and grade of the mainline for initial construction of the preferred
alternative, assuming that an ultimate design will be addressed under subsequent projects as funding
becomes available.
3. Finalize the preliminary subgrade template sections based on "worst case" typical section.
4. Submit plans with preliminary alignment and grade or widening proposal to general distribution and
requests comments by a specific date. The plans will contain the following items:
a. Alignment and grade
b. Typical sections for key roadway locations
c. Location and geometric layout for special features
d. Major drainage features
e. Preliminary layout of structures
f. Location of known utilities
g. Preliminary traffic elements as applicable
5. Refine the cost estimate.
3.11.1.1 Deliverables
1. Preliminary Alignment and Grade Plans
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 40
Appendix A. CDOT Form 1399 NEPA Re-Evaluation
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
REEVALUATION FORM
Original NEPA
Approval Date:
This is the date(s)
the original NEPA
decision
document(s) was
signed.
Reevaluation
Date:
Date this Form
1399 was
completed.
Project Code:
Should include all
subaccount numbers
and the federal
project number.
Project Name and Location:
• This should be the name of this Reevaluation, not the original NEPA document.
• Give a brief description of the project location. Make sure to include highway names, mileposts
and local jurisdiction (city, county, town).
• Include a map that shows project location and all roads and buildings that are discussed in the
text. Include the original project, completed phases of the project, and what is being proposed
today on the map.
NEPA Document Title:
• Use the official name of the original EA/FEIS and NEPA decision document and date.
• If possible, add link to where the document can be found on the web.
Region/Program/Residency:
Identify the appropriate CDOT Region that the Reevaluation occurs in.
Project Description:
Describe the whole project, not just the phase being reevaluated. If possible, this section should have an
approximate length of 2 paragraphs or less. Please make sure that all things mentioned in this section are
included on the map/figure(s).
Project Phasing Plan and Portions Completed (if warranted):
Concisely describe all construction phases (past, present, and future) of the project. Also identify which
phases have already been completed and the year completed. Suggest using a bulleted format to list all
project phases and then just adding a sentence or two describing each phase. Please do not say, “see
Chapter 1 of EIS”.
Portion of Project Currently Being Advanced:
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 41
Only talk about the current phase that is being reevaluated. This is really important for mitigation purposes.
Mitigation must be completed during the same project phase that the impacts occur. Talking about
additional phases here makes mitigation tracking confusing.
Date(s) of Prior Reevaluations: If appropriate, list all dates of prior Reevaluations.
A.1 Document Type
Identify the type of document that you are reevaluating. May have two boxes checked if it is an EA/FONSI
or EIS/ROD combination. For EAs check EA/FONSI, for EISs check FEIS/ROD.
☐ Non-programmatic Categorical Exclusion (CE)
☐ Environmental Assessment (EA)
☐ Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI)
☐ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
☐ Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
☐ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
☐ Record of Decision (ROD)
☐ Other (such as: local funding, etc.) ______________________________________
A.2 Reason for Reevaluation
☐ Project is proceeding to the next major approval or action [23 CFR 771.129(c)]
This box is almost always going to be checked because any project with a signed NEPA document needs to
be reevaluated prior to requesting an action or approval from FHWA to advance the project to the next
major approval or action (for example, final design, ROW acquisition, PS&E, next phase of construction).
☐ Project changes such as laws, policies, guidelines; design; environmental setting, impacts, or
mitigation
There are three types of changes that could have occurred since the original NEPA document approval
that would result in the need for a Reevaluation:
• Design Alterations: Sometimes the design that was originally approved changes during final
design and results in newly discovered or otherwise unaccounted for impacts outside the footprint or to
resources not initially evaluated in the NEPA document. The design change could also result in fewer
impacts to a resource, avoidance of a resource, and no (or less) mitigation required.
• Regulatory Changes: Changes in laws, regulations, or guidelines that have occurred since the
NEPA document was originally approved that are relevant to the project. Examples of this include
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 42
changes in the USFWS Threatened and Endangered species list, changes in Air or Water Quality limits, etc.
A relevant regulatory change only requires a new analysis if determined during scoping.
• Environmental Setting and Impacts: Changes to the environmental setting that could result in
changes to the project’s Purpose & Need, impacts or mitigation. For example, if there used to be a prairie
dog town, it would result in a reduction of impacts from the project. Or if a project has been shelved for a
while, more properties may have become greater than fifty years old.
☐ Greater than three years have elapsed since FHWA’s approval of the DEIS [23 CFR 771.129(a)] or
FHWA’s last major approval action for the FEIS [23 CFR 771.129(b)]
This box should only be checked if it is a DEIS or FEIS that is being reevaluated. According to FHWA
regulations, the shelf life of a DEIS and a FEIS is 3 years. If you are reevaluating an EA you should not
check this box.
☐ Other:
________________________________________________________________________________
The “Other” box should only be checked if the above reasons do not fit your project. Please use the area
below to explain what the reason is for your Reevaluation. Feel free to add additional lines if needed.
A.3 Evaluation
All Reevaluations need scoping to determine what level of Reevaluation needs to be competed and what
resources may be involved. This is typically done by the CDOT Region for Levels 1 and 2 and in
coordination with FHWA and EPB for Level 3.
☐ Level 1: There are no changes in project scope, environmental conditions, environmental impacts
or regulations and guidelines, or the reevaluation is for temporary easements (including EIS projects). All
decisions in the prior NEPA document remain valid. No FHWA concurrence is required. Note to file and to
distribution below.
These Reevaluations are completed at the CDOT Region level. EPB review is not required, but is available
upon request. FHWA concurrence is not required.
☐ Level 2: There are only minor changes in the project scope and/or updates or explanation needed
for one or more resource areas. FHWA concurrence is required.
These Reevaluations are completed at the CDOT Region level with EPB notification. EPB review is not
required, but is available upon request. FHWA review and concurrence is required.
☐ Level 3: Major changes in project scope or environmental commitments, or for EISs when greater
than three years have elapsed since the last major project action. Updates or new studies maybe required.
A Level 3 Reevaluation may require a separate document. FHWA concurrence is required.
This level of Reevaluation typically includes project changes that were not evaluated in the original
document. EPB will need to review. FHWA review and concurrence is required.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 1
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGAND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Use Scoping to determine which resource attachments are warranted (see attachment 1). Note: this list may be expanded or adjusted to
match the headings in the original environmental document reviewed.
● Select “yes” in the “Change in Design” Column if there have been any design changes relevant to this project or impact this
resource, otherwise select “no”.
● Select “yes” in the “Change in Regulation” Column if there have been any regulatory or regulatory guideline changes relevant to
this resource, otherwise select “no”..
● Select “yes” in the “Change in Environment or Setting” Column if there have been any changes to the human, socio economic, or
natural environment, otherwise select “no”..
● Select “yes” in the “Change in Environmental Impact” column if changes have occurred. These changes could either increase or
decrease impacts. Otherwise select “no”.
● Select “yes” in the “Mitigation” column if changes have occurred. These changes could either increase or decrease mitigation,
otherwise select “no”.
● Select “yes” or “no” in the “Is there an Attachment?” column.
● In the “Date Reviewed” column add the date that each resource was reviewed. Every line should have a date - even the resources
that have not changed. By adding the date you are acknowledging that there are no changes to that resource. The exception is for
ROW only reevaluations, you only need to provide a date for resources that were for that reevaluation.
● When “no” is checked for the “Change in Design” ”Change in Regulation” “Change in Environment or Setting” and the “Change
in Environmental Impact”, then an attachment for the resource is not needed. For this situation, brief documentation should be
included in the project file. Discussion in “impacts Assessment” below is only needed if you need to explain why something is a
“no.”
● When the “Change in Design” “Change in Regulation” and/or “Change in Environment or Setting” Columns are checked “yes”
but the “Change in Environmental Impact” column is checked “no” then this means the change in the affected environment did
not lead to a change in environmental impacts. For this situation include a description of why there is not an environmental impact,
or this can also be a brief memo (depending on the change). Example: If there is now a shopping center where there used to be a
prairie dog town, the project would result in less impacts to the prairie dog town than previously evaluated.
Setting/Resource/Circumst
ance
Change in
Design
Change in
Regulation
Change in
Environmen
t or Setting
Change in
Environmenta
l Impact
Change in
Mitigation
Date
Reviewed
Is there an
Attachment
?
Air Quality
Choose
an item. Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Geologic Resources and
Soils
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Water Quality
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Floodplains Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
Choose
an item.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 2
item.
Wetlands/Waters of U.S.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Vegetation and Noxious
Weeds
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Fish and Wildlife
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Threatened/Endangered
Species
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Historic Resources
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Archaeological Resources
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Paleontological Resources
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Land Use
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Social Resources
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Economic Resources
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Environmental Justice
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Right-of-Way Impacts Choose Choose Choose Choose Choose Choose
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 3
an item. an item. an item. an item. an
item.
an item.
Transportation Resources
(roadway, rail, bus, bike,
pedestrian, etc.)
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Utilities and Railroads
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Section 4(f)
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Section 6(f)
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Farmlands
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Noise
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Visual Resources/Aesthetics
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Hazardous Materials
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
Other(s) (i.e. Parks &
Recreation)
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an item.
Choose
an
item.
Choose
an item.
DESIGN ALTERATIONS:
Document changes to project scope and or design criteria:
Focus on changes to footprint or changes that result in the potential for environmental impacts
REGULATORY CHANGES:
Document changes to laws, regulations, and/or guidelines:
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 4
Only include changes that affect resource impacts to this project.
IMPACTS ASSESSMENT:
For impacts checked as yes above: assess the affected natural and socio-economic environment, impacts and new issues/concerns which
may now exist:
Add descriptive text for each resource impacted. A suggest format is:
Resource Name
Impact identified in the original NEPA document or previous reevaluation
Changes to Environmental setting or regulation or design as they affect this resource
Changes in Impact/updated impact to resource
Changes in Mitigation
MITIGATION:
☐ No mitigation commitment(s) were added, changed, or deleted as a result of this reevaluation. All mitigation
commitment(s) from the NEPA document or previous reevaluation remain the same (discuss status and compliance):
☐ Mitigation commitment(s) were added, changed or deleted as a result of this reevaluation. Provide information about the
revised mitigation commitment.
No matter which box is checked here, the CDOT Mitigation Tracking Spreadsheet from the most recent NEPA decision document or
reevaluation must be attached to the back of this form. At a minimum, the first six columns of the table should always be included. If
phases of the project have already been completed and mitigation has already occurred, the entire table may be included to show all
mitigation information. For deleted mitigation items, please show those using strikethrough rather than just removing form the table.
A.4 Public/Agency Involvement
If there has been any public/agency involvement for this phase of the project, list and provide dates in this
section. If there was no public/agency involvement necessary, write “N/A” or “None”. If one or more Native
American Tribes indicated a desire to participate as consulting tribal nations under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act during the initial NEPA documentation process, or if there are changes
to historic or archaeological properties, it will be necessary to re-engage those tribes during the
development of a reevaluation. Provide copies of all pertinent correspondence and/or action items
resulting from that process. If there were no participating tribes for a project and therefore no formal
consultations, document that fact by stating “No Consulting Native American Tribes.
A.5 Additional Studies
If it was determined that additional studies were required for the Proposed Action, please list them here. If
none were required, write “N/A” or “None”.
A.6 Additional Requirements for Proposed Action
If it was determined in this form that the environmental document or Catex designation is no longer valid,
then this section needs to indicate what the next level of appropriate analysis will be. If no additional
requirements are needed, please check the “None” box at the bottom of the list.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 5
☐ An SEIS is required, because the changes to the proposed action will result in significant impacts
not evaluated in the EIS.
☐ An SEIS is required, because new information or circumstances will result in significant
environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.
☐ FEIS but was not identified as the preferred alternative.
☐ Appropriate environmental study or an EA is required, because the significance of new impacts is
uncertain.
☐ A revised FONSI is required, because an alternative is recommended that was fully evaluated in an
approved EA but was not identified as the preferred alternative.
☐ Other_____________________________________
☐ None
A.7 Permits Updated
This section is only required when the next stage of a project is going to construction.
List permits:
This section needs to be completed when the next stage of the project is going to construction. Most
Reevaluations occur because the project is going into a construction phase. List the permits that have
already been obtained or that need to be obtained in this section. This section is only optional for projects
that are not going to construction. If appropriate, coordination letters with consulted agencies should also
be included.
A.8 Attachments Listed
List permits, studies, background data, etc.
Please do not include hard copies of technical reports when submitting Reevaluations. Submitting
electronically is preferred. Maps and the CDOT Mitigation Tracking Spreadsheet should be included within
the report.
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 1
A.9 Conclusion and Recommendations
☐ The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771.129 and it
was determined that no substantial changes have occurred in the social, economic, or environmental
impacts of the proposed action that would substantially impact the quality of the human, socio-economic,
or natural environment. Therefore, the original environmental document or Catex designation remains
valid for the proposed action. It is recommended that the identified project advance to the next phase of
project development. .
☐ The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771.129 and it
was determined that the environmental document or Catex designation is no longer valid or more
information is required.
_____________________________________ ___________
Regional Planning Environmental Manager or Designee Date
_____________________________________ ___________
Federal Highway Administration Division Administrator or Designee Date
Distribution: Upon completion (signature) of the Reevaluation, the original form (and attachments)
should be sent to the Region Planning and Environmental Manager (RPEM). Electronic copies should also
be sent to the following (indicated in footer of form):
CDOT Project Manager (save to project file)
Region Right of Way (if ROW required)
Environmental Programs Branch (to shared Reevaluation folder)
Federal Highway Administration
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 2
Appendix B. Scoping Tool: Resource Considerations
Air Quality Hotspot analysis - new traffic movements, new attainment area
Geologic Resources and Soils Unlikely
Water Quality Changes in MS4 boundaries, pollutants of concern, permanent water
quality
Floodplains Change in FEMA floodplain map or work within the floodplain
Wetlands/Waters of U.S. More than 5 years from wetland delineation; Changes in law or NWP
Vegetation and Noxious Weeds Unlikely (major noxious weeds invasion, or major tree harvesting/die off)
Fish and Wildlife (MBTA) Unlikely (major concern change in habitat, movement, population)
Threatened/Endangered Species
(or special status species) New listing, delisting, critical habitat, species movement
Historic Resource New potentially age-based eligible properties
Archaeological Resources Unlikely
Paleontological Resources Unlikely
Land Use Only include major changes, changes from original zoning, or changes
which cause change to traffic patterns
Social Resources Unlikely. Major background changes; i.e. factory or mine closure;
substantial new land development/population
Economic Resources Unlikely
Environmental Justice New census (every 10 years); use the EPA screening tool
Right-of-Way Impacts Change in acquisition.
Transportation Resources
(roadway, rail, bus, bike,
pedestrian, etc.)
New bus stop, park n ride; traffic model; mode
Utilities and Railroads Unlikely (fiber optic line)
Parks, Recreation, Open Space New resources
Section 4(f) Check recreation and historic
Section 6(f) New LWCF Funding (verify with OTIS mapping)
Farmlands Unlikely
Noise
New guidance does not trigger noise analysis; New development does not
trigger noise analysis; substantial design changes (increasing height 5ft,
decreasing distance from noise receptor) does trigger noise analysis
Visual Resources/Aesthetics New guidance does not trigger analysis, because it does not change
background or impacts
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
SH 82 - Entrance to Aspen
NEPA Reevaluation
Scope of Work
7-2-25 3
Energy Unlikely
Hazardous Materials New Form 881 if more than 180 days; new analysis required
Other(s)
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC
EIS/ROD Reevaluation – Major Fee Components
Reevaluation Total = $2,544,155.00
$- $100,000.00 $200,000.00 $300,000.00 $400,000.00 $500,000.00 $600,000.00
Finalize PA Alignment and Grade
NEPA Reevaluation
Monitor for Funding and Grant Support
Cost Estimates
Conceptual Design
Development of Modifications to PA
Public and Stakeholder Outreach
Pre-NEPA
Document Controls
Project Meetings
Project Management
Reeval Scope & Fee
$112,300.00
$445,400.00
$22,455.00
$399,400.00
$366,000.00
$58,600.00
$448,400.00
$22,400.00
$72,500.00
$547,900.00
$48,800.00
Attachment A - Jacobs Fee Summary
Docusign Envelope ID: E5693F11-7BBD-47A7-9196-50EA64A2B2CC