DRAFT Meeting Minutes

Agenda
Project: US 20; Ashton to 87 JCT PEL
Subject: Level 2

Location: ITD District 6 Office, Rigby ID & TEAMS

o Time: 9:00 AM – 2:00 PM

▪ Lunch (30 min)
o Meeting Format –
▪ Both in person and on-line.
o Agenda
▪ 9:00 – 9:10 Greeting and Introductions
▪ 9:10 – 9: 30 Introduction to the purpose of the meeting
• Access Management Strategy
• Multi-use Crossing Strategy
▪ 9:30 – 12:00 Presentation of each alternative south to north
• 2-minute review of the alternative – Mike
• Any additional traffic operations or approach considerations – Ben (only as
needed)
• Overview of screener findings - Micah
• Discussion of benefits/concerns/impacts – Jason Longsdorf
o Decision of the screening committee
o Synopsis of the PEL write-up
▪ 12:00 – 12:30 Lunch
▪ 12:30 – 1:00 Complete presentation of Alternatives
▪ 1:00 – 2:00 Wrap-up of screened alternatives moving forward

Introductions
▪ Kelly Hoopes – Consultant Project HE
▪ Micah Brown – ITD D6 Project Mgr
▪ Kurt Wald -(Env Lead) - HE
▪ Ben Burke - (Traffic and Safety lead) HE
▪ Blair Dance – County Commissioner
▪ Wendy Terlizzi – ITD ENV
▪ Karen Hiatt – ITD D6 Eng Mgr
▪ Drew Meppen – Eng Mgr
▪ Liz Davy – Forest Service
▪ Matt Pieron - IDFG
▪ Mike Worrall – HE
▪ Ryan Young - ITD
▪ Conner Mattingly - Ashton Mayor
▪ Curtis Calderwood -
▪ Jacob Gray – IDFG
 ▪ Wade Allen - ITD Traffic and Materials
▪ Mark Layton - ITD D6 ROW
▪ Stephanie Borders – HDR PI
▪ Brandon Harris - Fremont County Public Works.
▪ Jason Longsdorf - PEL process HDR
▪ Elizabeth Harvey - PC HE
▪ Justin Smith – ITD PI
▪ Michael Hartz - ITD D1 Env
▪ Shane Skaar – USACE
▪ Eric Verner - GIS HE
▪ Jason Minzghor District Engineer
▪ Brent Inghram - FHWA

Overview of the level 2 Screening process and status

• With the Screening process, we are in the planning stage.
• We have asked the Screening team to analyze a lot of information from their expert
perspectives over the past 2 to 3 weeks.
• Today, we will see that the collaborative effort is coming together, but we are still not
presenting complete or finalized alternatives.
• Today we will compare the input from the screeners to the purpose and need
parameters and make an educated decision on what alternatives meet the purpose and
needs and how they affect or do not affect the local communities, federal and state
highways, and agency stewardships.
• The roadway and traffic design team is working to ensure that the alternatives meet
standards, are constructible, and meet safety requirements as we move forward. We
have considered public input and will continue to do so as we adhere to environmental
compliance.
• With every screening phase, we will narrow down alternatives until we arrive at the
right solutions.

Study Area 1
SA1-A1
High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: The screening committee was
split half and half on this option.

Alternative Overview: This alternative would connect with the adjacent Chester to Ashton
project and remain on the existing alignment through the city of Ashton north to study area
two. It is two lanes in each direction. Maintaining access as needed. Crossings will remain at
grade.

Discussion:
• Chester to Ashton design is two lanes in each direction
• Does not change the configuration of signal with State Highway 47
 • Brings travelers directly through Ashton (possible economic benefit?)
• Cultural concerns could be mitigated if US-20 passes the city. However, the current road
will be left as a local access or business route.
• Concern about ROW for the increased lanes (it will be tight)
• Concerns about historic homes and buildings
• Noise has not been officially evaluated. Representatives from the city indicate that US-
20 noise is notable without additional lanes. Not enough receptors are currently in place
to make an official judgment on the noise
• Solutions to access challenges may not comply with IDAPA standards
• Businesses and homes would be right turn in and out only access to funnel up to the
traffic signal.
• Access road solution is complicated due to farm ground to the west behind the
businesses
• Alternative access is limited due to safety restrictions
• Road classification consideration that US-20 is moving toward freeway standard (access
strategy)
• Local representatives see the route through town as highly hazardous.
• Local representatives believe a reroute of US-20 to the West for safety but not past the
trailer court would meet the city's needs.
• Noted cities pond /sprinkler gray water needs
• Immediate needs vs. long-term needs will be weighed
• Consider aquatic impacts
• Consider conformity to standards and traffic study results
• The goal of the PEL is to achieve safety and mobility
• If this alternative moves through, need to address the LEDPA (Wetlands impact)

Results of discussion: This alternative will advance with access safety and overall mobility to be
reviewed in level 3 Screening
SA1-C1
High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: Most screeners would like to
see this alternative advanced. The few who had hesitations mentioned wetland impacts,
wastewater treatment facility impacts, and existing easements.

Alternative Overview: Connects with the adjacent Chester to Ashton project south of Ashton
and proceeds north on a new alignment west of Ashton. Will have an interchange at Hwy 47 for
access to the City of Ashton. Will continue north of Ashton and tie back into the existing US-20
alignment. Two-lane divided. Unknown what the connections will be where this new alignment
departs from and reconnects with the current US-20 alignment

Discussion:
• Constructability is a positive
• Opportunities to skirt or span the wetlands/easements (spans could serve as
wildlife/multi-use crossings)
• In consideration of the long-term City of Ashton planning, this is an excellent
opportunity for growth
• County roads will be over and underpasses – no access to U.S. 20 at those points
• Median with is design currently at 50' and will be optimized as the design progresses.
The 50' is conducive to effective snow removal and storage, which will be evaluated in
the next phase
• Overpasses will meet legal limits (height being the primary concern)
 • Interchange access travel distance is a concern
• A widened HWY 47 coming into the city will have some potential impact on existing
buildings (NEPA to address, city accesses. Consider options during the PEL)
• The city's spray field is impacted (too large to span)

Results of discussion: This alternative will advance due to current and future needs. Noted that
there is a need to evaluate if the is the LEDPA compared to the other two options as we
advance. Suggested to look at Ashton's off- and on-ramp access for northbound traffic where
the new alignment departs and reconnects to the existing US-20 alignment.

SA1-C4
High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: C4 is like the C1 option. The interchange at Hwy 47 is the same. The
difference is to the north of the Hwy 47 interchange; the two lane divided roadway would cross
over the existing US-20 alignment and continue north; there will be a need to create a new
structure to cross the river. The two lanes proceed up a different canyon to the east and then
tie back into the existing US-20 alignment near the northside of the Ashton Hills estates. This
design allows local road access on the old US-20 alignment (shown in green) from northern
developments back into Ashton as a local road.

Discussion:
• Improved access to new subdivisions with the inclusion of frontage roads.
• Possibly less impactful on easements and wetlands than the on alignment
• There is a new development that will be between the old and new US-20 alignments.
• Tax implications for those with easements should be considered
• Added local roads complicates mule deer/wildlife crossings (the north end where you
enter SA2 is in the high concentration wildlife area)

Results of discussion: This alternative will advance with the same considerations as SA1-C1
Mike will combine limits SA-1 and 2 for the level three screening, and this design includes SA2
areas
Study Area 2
SA2-A1

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: All had this alternative
advancing. Comments were on snow removal and access issues. Two wanted to tie this
alternative to C4

Alternative Overview: On alignment within existing corridor. Three lanes uphill with an added
climbing lane for trucks. 2 lanes downhill. Northbound and southbound lanes are separated by
barriers, open space width, or separated by simply just yellow stripes. The separation design is
a future detail. The limits of this alternative are the connection point to SA1 continuing up to
approximately Sheep Falls Road.

Discussion:
• Access is currently at-grade and low volume.
• The traffic team is determining who needs direct access.
• Current access is over a mile apart.
• Opportunity for a few access exceptions to the standard in this area.
Forest Service list of important access areas:
o Anderson Mill Road and the South Tower area
o South Antelope Rd is necessary for recreation and access
o Sheep falls is a popular Fisher area
o Big Bend Ridge Motorized Trail (West)
o Snowmobile parking area
o Truck turn-out for sleeping

Frontage roads could be an issue due to terrain and wildlife.

Results of discussion: Alternative advances with access management

ITD shared the ITD exhibit of possible multi-use crossing locations

• Based on agency input and validated reports
• The starting point for further discussion with stakeholders
• Numbers are milepost locations (mile point layer)
SA2-C1

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: Three-quarters of the screeners

did not advance this alternative.

Alternative Overview: Prior to the river north of Ashton, the northbound lanes would stay on
the existing alignment traveling across the existing bridge and heading up the hill. The
southbound lanes would veer off the alignment near Ashton Hills estates and follow the canyon
to the West. This design would put about a half-mile between the two alignments. A new river
crossing would have to be built for the southbound lanes.

Discussion:
• Travel distance for emergency services and maintenance equipment is a negative
• Noise concerns for the subdivision that would be between the alignments
• Requires a forest plan amendment. This design would impact a national research natural
area designed not to have roads.
• This design creates two high-speed corridors in the migration areas
Results of discussion: Does not advance due to distance between alignments for services and
doubles wildlife crossing issues

SA2-C4, C5 & C6 Ashton Hills Estates

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: All screeners like the C4
alternative. Screeners had more negative comments on C5. Alterative C6 had mixed reviews.

Alternative Overview: C4, C5, & C6 are all variations of the same need for access from Ashton
Hills estates to US-20 (On alignment design). All these apply to the A1 Solution

Discussion:
• Decision to consider these three alternatives as design details of the on-alignment
option.
• References for the solutions came from BYU Idaho study reviewed by Hale Engineering
and public input
• Decision to screen out C6 alternative due to notable terrain issues the other alternatives
do not have
• C4 has excessive curves. It was suggested to use the sweeping curve due to land
ownership issues
 • C5 could have a more refined and safer connection

Results of discussion: Alternatives C4 & C5 advance to be combined with SA2-A1 on alignment

and be refined for best design.
Alternative C6 does not advance due to terrain and constructability

To meet the goal of the project's purpose and need, the north end access point is to close, and
multiple options for local (county) roads to collect traffic and funnel the project provided south
access point.

Looking back at SA1-C4, that alternative would skirt US-20 around the area and allow freeway
access control.

In essence, this is presenting two alternatives:

1. On alignment from Ashton, all the way up would be access-controlled using at grade
managed access. (Expressway or state access standard)
2. Take the long-term approach and implement freeway access control to the caldera. (See
the SA1-C4 alternative)

Question:
Can we achieve freeway access control standards on alignment?
Answer: You would have to get a separate local Rd across the river and an underpass under
Fisherman's Drive under the new US-20, which would be elevated even higher than it would
have been. A new bridge will access both sides and will be built in either situation. As an option,
there are the at-grade access points at Fisherman's Drive; that's one of our exceptions to our
freeway access.
Noted that Jim's boat dock is the most popular dock/take-out point and adequate access needs
to be considered.

Noted if SA1-C4 alignment is selected, it can/will be moved north to skirt around more
wetlands

Summary: (push this thought to level 3)

To sum this up, for freeway access management strategy. There would be an opportunity with
SA1-C4 or modification of SA1-C1 freeway access could be maintained to the top of the caldera.

To maintain standard freeway access with SA1-A1 or a or SA2-A1 or any of the on alignment
designs, they would require extensive frontage roads or backage roads and extra river
crossings.

Decision combine SA1 and SA2

Study Area 3

Decision SA3 stays on alignment and combines SA1 and SA2 (We will now have three
consolidated alignments to choose up to Swan Lake)

Results of discussion: SA3 Moves forward Combined with SA1 & SA2
Discussion on wildlife crossings
• There are very clear requirements/expectations to provide Grizzly bear/Lynx crossings
o new highway construction is required to provide a way for them to move
through the area freely
• Currently, mileposts 366.5 and 269.9 are designated crossings
• ITD (Karen) will provide crossing plans within the study areas for review
• Agencies will deliver grizzly bear and other wildlife crossing analyses
o Sabrina is the contact for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
o Female animals with young prefer overpasses
o Pronghorn deer will not use an underpass
o The bigger the animal, the more space needed (avoid the tunneling effect)
• We need to look at the opportunity to address wildlife crossings and impacts
o Look for opportunities to improve and not preclude wildlife crossing solutions
o Keep in mind the associated fencing considerations
o Make sure the alternatives selected do not prevent effective wildlife solutions
• Threatened and endangered T&E (T&E Species)
o Finish the screening and design with the T&E species in mind; consider what
solutions will mitigate effectively.
o Evaluate in Zones, then design for species specifically
o In the PEL phase, prepare a summary of solutions and have the wildlife agencies
comment
• Elevate sections of the roadway for wildlife crossing where possible
o Fencing considerations
o Hunting considerations
o Reference Targhee Pass lessons learned
• Recreational vehicle crossing
o Reference Utah multi-use crossings. Morning/evening wildlife use, human use in
the day

Summary of discussion:
o ITD is considering crossings and will be considering
▪ Method of arriving at zones
▪ What does multi crossing mean, and what does that package look like
▪ What alternatives are the most wildlife effective
▪ Work with agencies to meet the wildlife needs

Rendering of a wildlife bridge

Study Area 4 (South of Swan Lake to the Herriman area)
SA4-A1

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: All but one screener wanted
this alternative to advance. The one person expressed access concerns

Alternative Overview: On alignment of four lanes in the Swan Lake area. Populated area, a lot
of accesses. Leaving zone wide enough to spread to divided, snow storage, etc.

Discussion:
▪ Addresses capacity, safety, access management, and freight need but increases
environmental impacts through the area.
▪ Four major access points; would be nice to consolidate.
▪ The existing condition is a safety hazard on top of Federal Hill on the south edge of SA4.
▪ Consider impacts of the widened roadway.
▪ Opportunities to provide swan crossing
▪ Wetlands impacts

Results of discussion: This alternative advances with access management considerations

SA4-C1

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: All but one screener wanted
this alternative to advance. One person expressed environmental concerns.

Alternative Overview: Goes off alignment to the west side of Swan Lake. Divided highway.
Comes back to the existing alignment just before the River (Harriman and Green Canyon).
Potential for old alignment to be local access.

Discussion:
▪ Minimizes environmental impacts through the area
▪ Need to do additional noise analysis for Swan Lake.
▪ Concerns about road density implications and required forest plan amendment
▪ Goss Hawk territory would need to be considered
▪ This is probably could be the LEDPA.
▪ Alignment could move further West - but not any further east
▪ An idea was proposed to move the interchange south to MP 375 (Little Butte).

Results of discussion: This alternative advances with modification to move interchange south
SA6-C40

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: Mixed review from screeners

Alternative Overview: Frontage road to parallel to US-20, three connection points. At grade
crossings. Frontage road to cross at or near the existing bridge. The connector between Green
canyon and Green canyon parking is a highly used connection road. The bridge is historic.
Permitted snowmobile crossing.

Discussion:
• Potential opportunity for Forest Service roads to be incorporated into frontage roads to
limit roads in the area.

Results of discussion: This alternative advances with access management - Needs to be broken
down to be compared to each independent section.
Question: Cumulatively, what needs to be considered in study area 4
Considerations:
• Effect on Swans
o Noise study if off alignment is selected
• Wetland issues when widening on alignment – west alignment may be the LEDPA
• Possible that the project will need to use the sensitive species approach with lake and
Swans
• Swans cross to the east to get to the river with their offspring
o Swan crossing - raise the road.
• How does the alternative add to road number density? If it increases above the forest
plan study, there is a process to amend the plan.
o One road, no matter how wide, is preferred
• Swan crossing - raise the road.
• High use area.
• Safety at the top of Federal Hill
• Address campground access
• Suggested to move interchange south to Little Bute - would be a forest service road.

Study Area 5
SA5-A1

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: On alignment through Harriman Park. On alignment two lanes in each
direction

Discussion:
• Note the parking for the bridge
• Research the ROW in Harriman park
• Considerations for additional or enhanced parking
• Tunnel for Snowmobile crossing peds and animals

Results of discussion: This alternative advances on alignment