I-15 St.

George Improved
Bluff Street to St. George Boulevard

Environmental
Assessment
April 2023 Project Number: S-I15-1(136)6 PIN: 18218
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary Chapter 3: Affected Environment
ES 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1 & Environmental Effects
ES 1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
ES 1.3 Purpose and Need (see Chapter 1) . . . . . ES-1 3.1.1 Resources Considered but
ES 1.4 Alternatives (see Chapter 2) . . . . . . . . . ES-2 not Evaluated in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
ES 1.5 Environmental Effects (see Chapter 3) . . . ES-7 3.2 Land Acquisition and Relocations . . . . . . . . 3-2
ES 1.6 Coordination (see Chapter 4) . . . . . . . . ES-9 3.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
ES 1.6.1 Public & Agency Scoping 3.2.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
and Alternatives Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9 3.2.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
ES 1.6.2 Additional Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9 3.2.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.3 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-9
Chapter 1: Purpose & Need 3.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
3.3.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
1.2 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
3.3.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
1.3 Logical Termini and Proposed Action Area . . . 1-1
3.3.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
1.4 Transportation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
3.4 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
1.4.1 Regional Transportation Planning . . . . . . . 1-2
3.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
1.4.2 Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
3.4.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
1.5 Purpose of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . 1-3
3.4.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
1.6 Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
3.4.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
1.6.1 Population Growth and
3.5 Social Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Development Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
3.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
1.6.2 Need for Travel Demand Improvements . . . 1-4
3.5.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
1.6.3 Need for Active Transportation
3.5.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
3.5.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
1.7 Purpose and Need Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
3.6 Cyclists and Pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
3.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Chapter 2: Alternatives 3.6.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
3.6.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
2.2 Screening Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
3.6.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
2.3 Public and Stakeholder Input . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
3.7 Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
2.4 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
3.7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
2.5 Proposed Action Alternatives and
3.7.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
3.7.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-22
2.5.1 Description of the Proposed
3.7.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Action Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4
3.8 Traffic Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
2.5.2 Screening of the Proposed
3.8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
Action Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4
3.8.2 How Noise Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
2.5.3 Eliminated Proposed Action Alternatives . . 2-12
3.8.3 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
2.5.4 Preferred Alternative for the
3.8.4 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
3.8.5 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
2.5.5 Description of the Preferred Alternative . . . 2-13
3.9 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
3.9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 3.9.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
3.9.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
3.9.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
3.10 Environmental Justice Populations . . . . . . 3-28
3.10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
3.10.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
3.10.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
3.10.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
3.11 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
3.11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
3.11.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32
3.11.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32
3.11.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32
3.12 Section 4(f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
3.12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
3.12.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
3.12.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
3.12.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
3.13 Stormwater, Floodplains,
and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
3.13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
3.13.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
3.14 Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
3.14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
3.14.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
3.14.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
3.14.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
3.15 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
3.15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
3.15.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
3.15.3 Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . .3-40
3.15.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-40
3.16 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
3.16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
3.16.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
3.16.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
3.16.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
3.17 Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
3.17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
3.17.2 Land Acquisition and Relocations . . . . . . 3-42
3.17.3 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
3.17.4 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
3.17.5 Social Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
3.17.6 Cyclists and Pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
3.17.7 Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
3.17.8 Traffic Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
3.17.9 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
3.17.10 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
3.17.11 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
3.17.12 Stormwater, Floodplains,
and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
3.17.13 Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.17.14 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.17.15 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.17.16 Public Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.17.17 Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.18 Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.18.1 Regulatory Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.18.2 Geographic Boundary and Timeframe . . . 3-45
3.18.3 Past Actions Affecting
Resources of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.18.4 Present
 and Reasonably
Foreseeable Future Actions
Affecting Resources of Concern . . . . . . 3-45
3.18.5 Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.19 Environmental Permits and Mitigation . . . . 3-46
Chapter 4: Coordination
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Agency Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.3 Public Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.3.1 Public Scoping Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.3.2. Public Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . .4-2
4.4 Alternatives Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2
4.4.1 Alternatives Review Public Meetings . . . . .4-2
4.4.2. Alternatives Review Public
Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3
4.5 Additional Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.5.1 Community Coordination Team . . . . . . . .4-3
4.5.2 St. George City Community Open House . . 4-3
4.5.3 Dixie Regional Transportation Expo . . . . . 4-3
Chapter 5: Preparers
Chapter 6: Distribution
Chapter 7: References
 List of Tables
Executive Summary
Table ES-1: Summary of Long-term
Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-7
Chapter 1: Purpose & Need
Table 1-1: Intersection Performance . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
Chapter 2: Alternatives
Table 2-2: Purpose of the Proposed
Action Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Table 2-3: Purpose of the Proposed Action
Alternatives’ Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Table 2-4: Proposed Action Alternatives Traffic
Performance Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . .2-7
Table 2-5: Proposed Action Alternatives Traffic
Performance Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . .2-7
Table 2-6: Proposed Action Alternatives Level 3
Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Table 2-7: Proposed Action Alternatives Level 3
Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Chapter 3: Affected Environment
& Environmental Effects
Table 3.2-1: Full Acquisition and Relocation of
Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Table 3.2-2: Potential Full Acquisition
and Relocation of Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Table 3.2-3: Partial Acquisition of Properties . . . . 3-8
Table 3.2-4: Perpetual Easements . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Table 3.3-1: Land Use in the Study Area . . . . . . . 3-9
Table 3.3-2: Conversion of Land Uses under
the Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Table 3.5-1: Average Travel Times on 700 South
between 600 East and River Road . . . . . . . . 3-16
Table 3.5-2: Regional Travel Time via I-15 . . . . . . 3-16
Table 3.6-1: 700 South Crossing Distance and Time
Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
Table 3.7-1: 2022-2023 City Sales and
Property Tax Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
Table 3.7-2: Commercial Property
Acquisition and Direct Effects . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Table 3.8-1: Noise Abatement Criteria . . . . . . . 3-25
Table 3.8-2: Measured and Predicted
Noise Level Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
Table 3.8-3: Summary of Noise
Abatement Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Table 3.9-1: Daily Vehicle Miles
Traveled and Fuel Consumption . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
Table 3.10-1: Minority Populations
in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Table 3.10-2: Low-Income Populations
in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Table 3.11-1: Finding of Effect for
NRHP-Eligible Architectural Properties . . . . . 3-33
Table 3.12-1: Section 4(f) Use of
NRHP-Eligible Architectural Properties . . . . . 3-34
Table 3.14-1: Hazardous Material
Site Probability of Contamination . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Table 3.16-1: Daily Fuel Consumption . . . . . . . . 3-41
Table 3.19-1: Required Permits and Clearances . . 3-46
Table 3.19-2: Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Chapter 4: Coordination
Table 4-1: Agency Scoping Letter Recipients . . . . 4-1
Table 4-2: Public Scoping Meeting Notices . . . . . 4-2
Table 4-3: Public Comments by Type . . . . . . . . .4-2
Table 4-4: Alternatives Review Public
Meeting Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Table 4-5: Public Comments by Type . . . . . . . . 4-3
Chapter 5: Preparers
Table 5.1-1: List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
 List of Figures
Executive Summary
Figure ES-1: 2021 and 2050 No-Action
Interchange Worst-Case Peak Delay
and Off-Ramp Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2
Figure ES-2 Action Alternative
Screening Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3
Figure ES-3: Proposed Action Alternatives . . . .ES-4
Figure ES-4: Refined Preferred Alternative . . . . ES-5
Chapter 1: Purpose & Need
Figure 1-1: Logical Termini and
Proposed Action Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Figure 1-2: Planned Transportation Projects . . . . . 1-2
Figure 1-3: Washington County
Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
Figure 1-4: Major Development Patterns . . . . . . . 1-4
Figure 1-5: 2021 and 2050 No-Action Interchange
Worst-Case Peak Delay and
Off-Ramp Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
Figure 1-6: Travel Times from Points of Origin . . . . 1-6
Figure 1-7: Existing and Planned Active Transportation
Routes and I-15 Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Chapter 2: Alternatives
Figure 2-1: Action Alternative Screening
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Figure 2-2: No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . .2-3
Figure 2-3: Proposed Action Alternatives . . . . . . 2-5
Figure 2-4: Single Point Urban
Interchange (SPUI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Figure 2-5: Offset Single Point
Urban Interchange (SPUI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9
Figure 2-6: Offset Single Point Urban
Interchange (SPUI) with
Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover . . . . . . .2-9
Figure 2-7: Offset Diamond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Figure 2-8 Refined Preferred Alternative . . . . . 2-15
Chapter 3: Affected Environment &
Environmental Effects
Figure 3.2-1: Land Acquisition Types . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Figure 3.2-2: Land Acquisition
and Relocations (ID 100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
Figure 3.2-3: Land Acquisition and
Relocations (ID 102 through 111) . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Figure 3.2-4: Land Acquisition and
Relocations (ID 112 through 138) . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Figure 3.2-5: Land Acquisition and
Relocations (ID 150 through 162) . . . . . . . . . .3-5
Figure 3.2-6: Land Acquisition and
Relocations (ID 140 through 148 and 164
through 166) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Figure 3.2-7: Land Acquisition and
Relocations (ID 168) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Figure 3.3-1: Land Use Study Area . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Figure 3.4-1: 2021, No-Action Alternative (2050),
Preferred Alternative (2050) Average Daily
Traffic Volumes Percent Increase and
Intersection Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
Figure 3.5-1: Social Environment Study Area
and Public and Quasi-Public Places . . . . . . . 3-15
Figure 3.6-1: Existing and Planned Active
Transportation Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Figure 3.6-2: Estimated Daily Cyclist
and Pedestrian Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
Figure 3.7-1: Economic Conditions Study Area
and Commercial Properties at
I-15 and 700 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Figure 3.8-1: Typical A-Weighed Noise Levels . . . 3-24
Figure 3.8-2: Recommended Noise Barriers . . . . 3-27
Figure 3.10-1: Environmental Justice
Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Figure 3.11-1: NRHP-Eligible Historical Buildings . . . 3-32
Figure 3.13-1: Water Resources in the Study Area . 3-36
Figure 3.13-2: Preferred Alternative Drainage
Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37
Figure 3.14-1: Hazardous Material Sites
in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Figure 3.15-1: Key Observation Points . . . . . . . . 3-39
Figure 3.15-2: KOP 1 (700 South at 1000 East) . . 3-39
Figure 3.15-3: KOP 2 (700 South at 800 East) . . . 3-40
Figure 3.15-4: KOP 3 (I-15 at Milepost 7.9) . . . . .3-40
Figure 3.15-5: KOP 4 (900 South at 550 East) . . . 3-40
Figure 3.17-1: Potential Cyclist and Pedestrian
Detours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
 List of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials
ACS American Community Survey
APE Area of Potential Effects
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CCT Community Coordination Team
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CGP Construction General Permit
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
dB Decibel
dBA A-Weighted Decibel
DERR Division of Environmental Response and
Remediation
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DWQ Division of Water Quality
EA Environmental Assessment
EC Eligible/Contributing
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ES Eligible/Significant
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
KOP Key Observation Point
Leq(h) Equivalent Continuous Sound Level per
Hour
LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
LOS Level of Service
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxic
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
NC Ineligible/Non-Contributing
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
OP Ineligible/Out-of-Period
Pb Lead
PM Particulate Matter
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SPUI Single Point Urban Interchange
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TNM Traffic Noise Model
UAC Utah Administrative Code
UDOT Utah Department of Transportation
Uniform Act Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act
UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
USC United States Code
UST Underground Storage Tank
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
 Executive Summary
ES 1.1 Introduction
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) consistent
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508,
and 23 CFR 771 to evaluate the Proposed Action, which
is to construct a new interchange on Interstate 15 (I-15) at
700 South in St. George City, Washington County, Utah.
The environmental review, consultation, and other
actions required by applicable federal environmental
laws for this project are being or have been carried out
by UDOT pursuant to 23 United States Code (USC) 327
and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated
May 26, 2022, and executed by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and UDOT.
This executive summary is intended to provide brief
answers to the following questions:
» What led to the idea of an interchange on I-15 at 700
South in St. George City?
» What is the purpose (or intended outcome) of the
Proposed Action?
» What is the need (or reasons) for the Proposed Action?
» How did UDOT select the Preferred Alternative for the
Proposed Action?
» What are the potential effects of the No-Action
Alternative and Preferred Alternative?
» How did UDOT involve governmental agencies,
stakeholders, and the public?
The reader can refer to Chapters 1 through 4 of this EA
for more detailed answers to these questions.
ES 1.2 Background
The St. George metropolitan area has experienced
unprecedented growth since the 1990s and was recently
ranked as the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the
United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2022). This population
growth puts increased demand on the regional
transportation system.
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
Seeing the effects population growth has on I-15,
particularly at the Bluff Street and St. George
Boulevard Interchanges, UDOT began contemplating
the Proposed Action as early as 2017. Before this EA,
UDOT completed two planning studies in 2017 and
2019. These studies show that an interchange at 700
South would reduce the number of vehicles using the
interchanges at Bluff Street (approximately one mile
to the south) and St. George Boulevard (approximately
one mile to the north).
This EA will further evaluate the benefits and potential
effects of the Proposed Action, and engage all necessary
parties (governmental agencies, stakeholders, and the
public) in the decision-making process.
ES 1.3 Purpose and Need (see Chapter 1)
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to:
» Improve operations of the I-15 Bluff Street and St.
George Boulevard Interchanges compared to the 2050
No-Action condition.
» Improve access from I-15 to regional destinations in St.
George City.
» Improve mobility options for a broad range of users,
including pedestrians and cyclists.
To understand the need for the Proposed Action
better, UDOT analyzed the current and 2050 traffic
conditions. The 2050 condition, also referred to as the
2050 No-Action Alternative, assumes that all planned
transportation projects from the Dixie Metropolitan
Planning Organization 2019-2050 Regional Transportation
Plan are built, except for the Proposed Action. The
analysis assessed the transportation needs for the
Proposed Action by focusing on delay and queue lengths
at the St. George Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges
and travel times to destinations in St. George City.
ES-1
The need for the Proposed Action is based on: Figure ES-1: 2
 021 and 2050 No-Action Interchange Worst-Case Peak
» Excessive delays at the St. George Delay and Off-Ramp Queue Length
Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges
that lead to off-ramp queues extending
2021/
onto mainline I-15 at all but the Bluff Street
2050
ST. GEORGE BLVD.
southbound off-ramp, resulting in unsafe 2,275 Feet
(Extends onto
travel conditions (see Figure ES-1). I-15 mainline)
» Longer travel times via I-15 from origin 1,650 Feet
points north and south of St. George City
to regional destinations in St. George City
due to excessive delays at the St. George St. George Blvd.
33 83
Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges.
275 Feet
» Limited east-west active transportation
routes in the Proposed Action area. Active
transportation refers to human-powered
mobility, such as riding a bicycle or walking.
Dr.
Dixie

River Rd.
I-15 is a barrier that separates residents
east of I-15 from popular destinations to
the west. Current crossings under I-15 are
700 East

limited to 700 South and a pedestrian 4,050 Feet

(Extends onto
tunnel at 400 South. I-15 mainline)
ES 1.4 Alternatives 700 South
(see Chapter 2)
2021/

700 East
UDOT followed a multi-step process

400 East
700 South
to advance action alternatives from a 2050
schematic level to a more detailed design BLUFF ST.
(see Figure ES-2). Action alternatives were
divided into two types: Proposed Action 900 South
Alternatives (preliminary designs for an
interchange at 700 South) and Alternatives
Bluff St.

to the Proposed Action (different ideas

other than an interchange at 700 South). Riverside Dr.
All action alternatives were subjected to the 225 Feet
screening process shown on Figure ES-2
175 Feet
(see page ES-3).
28 91
UDOT considered 5 Alternatives to the
Proposed Action suggested by the public and 450 Feet 2021 Queue
12 Proposed Action Alternatives identified Lengths
by the study team. Preliminary screening,
traffic performance, impacts, and design
2050 Projected
Dixie Dr. Queue Lengths
considerations, along with public input,
guided the process for the selecting the 3,100 Feet
20212050 Delay
Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Action. (seconds)
Note: All delay and queue lengths shown are for the PM peak hour,
except the southbound off-ramp queue at St. George Boulevard.
Source: Avenue Consultants 2023a
ES-2 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
All the Alternatives to the Proposed Action were eliminated.
Through preliminary screening and traffic analyses, UDOT
concluded none of these action alternatives meet the
purpose of the Proposed Action or would perform as well
as the Proposed Action Alternatives.
Through Level 1 screening, UDOT eliminated 7 of the 12
Proposed Action Alternatives; the Single Point Urban
Interchange (SPUI), Offset SPUI, Offset SPUI with
Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover, Offset Diamond,
and Tight Diamond advanced to Level 2 for in-depth
traffic analysis (see Figure ES-3 on page ES-4). Level 2
traffic analyses revealed the Tight Diamond Alternative
to be the only Proposed Action Alternative that does
not reduce off-ramp queue lengths at the St. George
Boulevard Interchange; it was therefore eliminated.
Because the remaining Proposed Action Alternatives
have similar Level 2 traffic performance results, Level 3
results ultimately determined the Preferred Alternative
for the Proposed Action. Level 3 criteria focused on
right-of-way acquisition, environmental justice impacts,
constructability, active transportation (number of conflicts
between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists), and cost.
The SPUI Alternative is the Preferred Alternative for the
Proposed Action because it balances property impacts
Figure ES-2 Action Alternative Screening Process
Charettes Agencies
Past Alternatives Studies Public
Schematic
Identify Action Alternatives
Level 1
Preliminary Screening
D E S IG N
10% S C R E E N I N G
Level 2
Purpose & Need/
Traffic Performance
S CR E E NI NG
15–30% Level 3
Impacts & Design
Considerations
30%
Preferred Alternative
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
and construction impacts and it is the easiest and least
expensive to construct.
The Preferred Alternative includes the major features
described and shown on Figure ES-4 (see page ES-
5). Following selection of the Preferred Alternative,
UDOT modified the design to address pedestrian safety
concerns. 700 South is a popular route for students
walking to and from Dixie High School (350 East 700
South) and Dixie Middle School (929 South 100 East). To
enhance pedestrian safety and comfort on the south side
of 700 South, UDOT added a four-foot-wide park strip
between the sidewalk and shoulder to increase the buffer
between vehicles and pedestrians.
In addition, the Preferred Alternative introduces eight
new conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at
the proposed on- and off-ramps, two of which are
unsignalized (i.e., there is not a traffic signal to control
vehicle movements while pedestrians are crossing).
These unsignalized crossings occur at both free right-
turns onto the northbound and southbound on-ramps.
To address this concern, UDOT added a traffic signal,
similar to the example shown on Figure ES-4 (see page
ES-5), to the westbound to southbound free right-
turn, which turns red when the pedestrian button is
activated. UDOT also added traffic signals
at the remaining right turns to enhance
pedestrian safety further.
Eliminate Alternatives
Eliminate Alternatives
<----- Public Input
ES-3
1 Figure ES-3: Proposed Action Alternatives 2 On-ramp Off-ramp

600 S 600 S

700 E

800 E
700 E

800 E

1100 E
1100 E
CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC

700 S 700 S 700 S 700 S

900 E
900 E
Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) 3 Offset SPUI

600 S 600 S
800 E

700 E

800 E
700 E

1100 E

1100 E
CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC

700 S 700 S 700 S 700 S

900 E

900 E
Offset SPUI with Eastbound-to-
4 Northbound Crossover Tight Diamond

600 S
800 E
700 E

1100 E

CUL-DE-SAC

700 S 700 S
900 E

Offset Diamond

ES-4 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 Figure ES-4: Refined Preferred Alternative Refinements to Preferred Alternative:

Detention
Basin
600 South

Southbound
700 East

800 East
Off-ramp
Dudley Leavitt Northbound
Apartments On-ramp

a Added four-foot-wide park strip

1 3 Morningside
6 5 Storage

2 7
700 South 4 4 700 South
a b a 8
<--- To Dixie High School
6
Southbound
Morningside On-ramp
Professional
Plaza

Northbound b Added traffic signal to protect pedestrians

Off-ramp
To improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, UDOT added the traffic
signal shown above at the southbound on-ramp of the Preferred
Alternative to prevent vehicles from making a right-turn onto the
New Pavement freeway when the pedestrian button is activated.

900 East
Shared-use Path
Sidewalk Edge
Travel Direction
The design shown on this figure is preliminary and subject to change.

Major Features:
1 C onstruct a new SPUI interchange on I-15 at 700 South.
2 Replace the existing I-15 bridges with longer bridges
over 700 South.
3 Raise I-15 to accommodate the longer bridges.
4 Widen 700 South east and west of I-15 to provide dual
left-turn lanes.
5 A dd a cul-de-sac at southern end of 800 East.
6 Add dual left-turn lanes at 700 East and 900 East.
7 Provide a 12-foot-wide shared-use trail on the north side
of 700 South that begins at 800 East and extends east
through the interchange to 1000 East.
8 Construct a six-foot-wide sidewalk on the south side
of 700 South.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 ES-5
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
ES 1.5 Environmental Effects (see Chapter 3)
Table ES-1 summarizes the potential long-term effects from the No-Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative and includes
the sections of this EA where the reader can find detailed discussions on each.

Table ES-1: Summary of Long-term Environmental Effects

Resource No-Action Alternative Preferred Alternative
Land Acquisition and » Would not acquire property. » Would
 acquire eight properties (two
Relocations residential, four commercial, and two vacant).
(see Section 3.2) » Could
 acquire two properties (one residential
and one commercial).
» Would
 relocate 14 businesses and residences.
» Would
 partially acquire 18 properties (11
residential, 6 commercial, and 1 vacant).
» Would
 require perpetual easements of less
than 0.1 acres.

Land Use » Would not convert existing land uses » Would

 convert 1.0 acres of residential, 3.7
(see Section 3.3) to a transportation use and future acres of commercial, and 0.9 acres of vacant
development could proceed as planned. land uses to a transportation use.
» Would
 prevent the residential property at
695 East 700 South (project parcel ID 120)
to redevelop consistent with the St. George
General Plan.

Transportation » Would
 increase 2050 average daily » Would
 decrease or maintain 2050 average
(see Section 3.4) traffic volumes on all streets except daily traffic volumes on most streets
900 East where traffic volumes would compared to the No-Action Alternative.
remain the same as the existing » Would
 double 2050 average daily traffic
condition. volumes on 900 East.
» Would
 result in the failure of four key » Would result in the failure of two key
intersections in downtown St. George intersections in downtown St. George City
City by 2050. by 2050.
Social Environment 
» Would not affect community character. » Would not affect access to public and quasi-
(see Section 3.5) » Would
 not affect access to public and public places; however, cyclists and pedestrians
quasi-public places. crossing I-15 could find it more difficult.

» Would
 increase regional and local
emergency response times.
» Would
 increase traffic congestion and
the number of failing intersections in
downtown St. George City and reduce
700 South’s effectiveness as an east-
west local connector.
» Would
 shorten regional and local emergency
response times compared to the No-Action
Alternative.
» Would
 provide more convenient access
to downtown St. George City for regional
drivers; however, local travelers could
experience diminished access.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 ES-7

Table ES-1: Summary of Long-term Environmental Effects (Continued)
Resource No-Action Alternative
Cyclists and » Would maintain existing bicycle and
Pedestrians pedestrian routes and planned routes
(see Section 3.6) in downtown St. George City.
» Would not affect the time for a
pedestrian to cross 700 South.
» Would diminish pedestrian safety
with increases in average daily traffic
volumes on 700 South compared to
the existing condition.
Economic Conditions » Would not affect existing commercial
(see Section 3.7) activities and trends along 700 South.
» Could make 700 South less desirable
to travel on and decrease patronage
to businesses due to worsening traffic
congestion on 700 South.
Traffic Noise » Would increase noise levels over
(see Section 3.8) existing conditions with an additional
travel lane in each direction on I-15.
Noise barriers are recommended to
decrease the noise levels.
Air Quality » Would not exceed National Ambient
(see Section 3.9) Air Quality Standards.
» Would improve vehicle emission rates,
despite increases in traffic congestion
and delay, due to increasingly
stringent U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency regulations
regarding vehicle emissions.
» Would result in a GHG emissions social
cost of $15,393 per ton of C02 emitted
into the atmosphere in 2050.
Environmental Justice » Would not have disproportionately
(see Section 3.10) high and adverse effects.
Cultural Resources » Would not affect cultural resources.
(see Section 3.11)
ES-8
Preferred Alternative
» Would introduce eight new vehicle conflict
points with cyclists and pedestrians.
» Would increase the time for a pedestrian to
cross 700 South up to 28 percent.
» Would diminish pedestrian safety with
increases in average daily traffic volumes
on 700 South compared to the existing
condition.
» Would construct a 12-foot-wide shared-use
path and 4-foot-wide park strips for cyclist
and pedestrian safety and comfort.
» Would acquire and relocate four commercial
properties.
» Would potentially acquire and relocate one
commercial property.
» Would restrict unsignalized left turns into
and out of commercial properties on 700
South between 700 East and 1000 East.
» Would not affect long-term sales tax and
property tax revenue.
» Would reduce parking at the 700 South
Building, which could reduce the number of
tenants, thereby reducing private revenue.
» Would exceed the noise abatement criteria
threshold at 379 receivers representing 690
receptors. Noise barriers are recommended
to decrease the noise levels.
» Would
 not exceed National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
» Could
 have higher localized mobile source
air toxic (MSAT) emissions relative to the No-
Action Alternative, but there are also offsets
due to increases in speed and reductions in
congestion which are associated with lower
MSAT emissions.
» Would
 result in a GHG emissions social cost
of $15,933 per ton of C02 emitted into the
atmosphere in 2050.
» Would not have disproportionately high and
adverse effects.
» Would have a finding of No Adverse Effect
to seven properties eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places.
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
Table ES-1: Summary of Long-term Environmental Effects (Continued)
Resource No-Action Alternative Preferred Alternative
Section 4(f) » Would not use Section 4(f) properties. » Would have a de minimis impact to three
(see Section 3.12) properties eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
» Would have a temporary occupancy at four
properties eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.

Stormwater, » Would improve stormwater system » Would increase impervious surface area by
Floodplains, and according to recommendations from approximately 700,100 square feet, offset by
Water Quality the I-15 Corridor Drainage Master Plan 120,000 cubic feet of stormwater storage in
(see Section 3.13) Mile Post 5.7 to 9.3. two detention ponds.
» Would avoid floodplains.
» Would not affect Virgin River water quality.

Hazardous Materials » Would not affect hazardous materials. » Would have a moderate risk of encountering
(see Section 3.14) hazardous materials at the CMart Shell
property (project parcel ID 138).

Visual Resources » Would not affect visual resources. » Would remove landscaping on 700 South.
(see Section 3.15) » Could obstruct views of the surrounding
landscape for residents near the interchange.

Energy » Would reduce 2050 daily fuel » Would reduce 2050 daily fuel consumption
(see Section 3.16) consumption (gallons) by 27 percent (gallons) by 24 percent compared to the
compared to the existing condition. existing condition.

ES 1.6 Coordination (see Chapter 4)
ES 1.6.1 Public & Agency Scoping and Alternatives Review
Public and agency coordination began with the Public
Scoping Period that occurred between April 18, 2022, and
May 17, 2022. During this time, agency letters were sent to
federal, state, and local agencies and Native American Tribes
who might have an interest in the Proposed Action. None
of these entities replied to UDOT’s formal request for input.
Approximately 261 people attended the two Public Scoping
Meetings that were held on May 3, and May 4, 2022. UDOT
received 247 comments during the Public Scoping Period.
Numerous Public Scoping comments requested more
transparency and involvement in the decision-making
process. In response, UDOT held two additional public
meetings on November 15, 2022, and November 16,
2022, to review the four Proposed Action Alternatives
that advanced to Level 3 of the action alternative
screening process. Approximately 184 people attended
the Alternatives Review Meetings. UDOT received 269
comments during the 30-day comment period that began
on November 11, 2022, and ended on December 10, 2022.
The comments UDOT received during the Public Scoping
Period and Alternatives Review Period informed the
alternative development and screening process and
environmental impact analyses.
ES 1.6.2 Additional Outreach
UDOT assembled a Community Coordination Team
(CCT) composed of business owners and residents who
represented diverse interests and perspectives. UDOT met
with the CCT on June 28, 2022, and on November 20, 2022,
to obtain vital input from the group and to determine how
accurately UDOT was capturing public sentiment.
UDOT also attended the following forums to broaden public
outreach to a regional audience:
» St. George City Community Open House on October
13, 2022, at the Desert Color community (attended by
approximately 150 people).
» Dixie Transportation Expo on February 7, 2023, at the
Dixie Convention Center in St. George City (attended by
approximately 961 people).

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 ES-9

 CHAPTER 1
Purpose & Need
1.1 Introduction
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is
preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) consistent
with the National Environmental Policy Act, Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, and 23
CFR 771 to evaluate a new interchange on Interstate 15 (I-
15) at 700 South in St. George City, Washington County,
Utah. This EA also conforms to the UDOT Environmental
Manual of Instruction.
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions
required by applicable federal environmental laws for this
project are being or have been carried out by UDOT pursuant
to 23 United States Code (USC) 327 and a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) dated May 26, 2022, and executed by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and UDOT.
6.8). This terminus is the southernmost endpoint for
potential I-15 improvements (e.g., auxiliary lanes)
associated with a new interchange at 700 South.
»N
 orth Terminus: I-15 at the St. George Boulevard
Interchange southbound on-ramp and northbound off-
ramp (approximate milepost 8.4). This terminus is the
northernmost endpoint for potential I-15 improvements
associated with a new interchange at 700 South.
»E
 ast Terminus: 700 South and River Road intersection.
River Road is the first north-south arterial east of I-15
and a major traffic generator.
»W
 est Terminus: 700 South and 700 East intersection.
700 East is the first signalized intersection west
of I-15 and is the eastern terminus for a separate
planned project to widen 700 South (see Section 1.4,
Transportation Planning).

By the end of this chapter, the reader should understand:
» How the Proposed Action is defined.
» The historical context and planning background
supporting the Proposed Action.
» The effects of not constructing the Proposed
Action on the transportation network in the
year 2050.
1.2 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would construct a new
interchange on I-15 at 700 South in St. George
These termini, as described and shown on Figure 1-1, meet
the requirements of 23 CFR 771.111(f) because they are
sufficiently spaced to assess the environmental impacts
Figure 1-1: Logical Termini and Proposed Action Area
St. George Blvd.
North
Terminus
400 East

700 East

City, Washington County, Utah.

River Rd.

1.3 Logical Termini and Proposed

Action Area 8
West
Logical termini are rational endpoints Terminus
for evaluating proposed transportation 700 South
improvements. According to 23 CFR 771.111(f), East
Terminus
logical termini should be of sufficient length 900 South
to address environmental matters on a broad 7
scope. The logical termini for the Proposed South
Terminus
Bluff S

Action are as follows:

Riverside Dr. Proposed
» South Terminus: I-15 at the Bluff Street
t.

Action Area
Interchange southbound off-ramp and Termini
northbound on-ramp (approximate milepost Mileposts

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 1-1

on a broad scope and do not restrict the consideration of
alternatives for other transportation improvements. Based
on these termini, the Proposed Action has independent
utility, meaning the Proposed Action functions
independently of other planned transportation-related
projects in the region.
is the designated organization responsible for coordinating
the transportation planning process in the urbanized area
of Washington County. The Dixie MPO works with UDOT,
Washington County, and the cities in its jurisdiction to
prioritize projects in phases based on need and available
funding for construction. These projects are documented

The Proposed Action area encompasses Figure 1-2: Planned Transportation Projects
I-15 and 700 South (see Figure 1-1 on page
1-1). Along I-15, the Proposed Action area 144 159 143
St. George Blvd.
begins at approximate milepost 6.7 and
extends north to approximate milepost 8.5.

1000 East
100 South
The Proposed Action area along 700 South 15 60
extends beyond River Road (approximately
250 feet east) and 700 East (approximately

400 East

700 East
18 83
620 feet west) to account for potential
improvements at these intersections. 12

The Proposed Action area is completely 145

17 129 700 South
developed with residential, commercial,
educational, and medical land uses. I-15

River Rd.
900 South
has two northbound and two southbound
travel lanes that are divided by a 50-foot-
Bluff St

wide depressed, gravel median.

11 Riverside Dr.
.

The width and number of lanes on 700 South

1450 South
varies. Between 600 and 700 East, there is
one eastbound and one westbound travel lane
Proposed Action Area
and a center shared left-turn lane. Between 90 PHASE I (2020-30)
700 East and River Road, the roadway has Dixie Dr. PHASE III (2040-50)
two eastbound and two westbound travel
Project # Project Description Concept
lanes and a center shared left-turn lane. Developer New
Where 700 South crosses under I-15, the 11 Airport Road from old airport to Black Ridge Drive
Construction
roadway narrows and does not provide the 12 SR-18: St. George Boulevard to Main Street Widen/Reconstruct
center shared left-turn lane. 15 100 South: Widen from 700 East to Bluff Street Re-Striping
17 700 South: Widen from 700 East to Bluff Street Re-Striping
PHASE I
2020-29

Sidewalks exist on both sides of 700 South

60 100 South underpass at I-15 in St. George Widen/Reconstruct
and the north-south city streets. A pedestrian
I-15 widening from milepost 6-8 & Widen/New
tunnel at 400 South (three blocks north of 83 & 145
New Exit 7 Interchange1 Construction
700 South) is the only other I-15 crossing in 90 1450 South extension to Crosby Way New Construction
the Proposed Action area. 129 700 South widening under I-15 in St. George Widen/Reconstruct
1.4 Transportation Planning There are no Phase II (2031-2039) projects in the map frame.
St. George Boulevard/Red Cliffs Drive: Intersection
1.4.1 Regional Transportation Planning 143 Widen/Reconstruct
Improvements
PHASE III
2040-50

Transportation planning is an important, 1000 East: Widen to five lanes from St. George Boulevard
144 Widen/Reconstruct
to Red Hills Parkway
ongoing process that identifies improvements 159 I-15 milepost 8 Industrial Road Direct Connect New Construction
to keep pace with the demands placed on the
Note: 1The additional general purpose lane on I-15 and Proposed Action
local and regional transportation system. The might be constructed concurrently pending the outcome of this EA.
Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Source: Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization 2019

1-2 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

in a regional transportation plan (RTP).
The Dixie MPO’s current RTP was adopted in 2019. The
RTP organizes project delivery into three phases: Phase
1 (2019-2030), Phase 2 (2031-2040), and Phase 3 (2041-
2050). Figure 1-2 (see page 1-2) shows the planned
transportation projects in or near the Proposed Action
area, including the Proposed Action (project number 145).
Following its adoption in 2019, the Dixie MPO amended
the RTP to move the Proposed Action from Phase II
to Phase I. In 2021, the Utah State Legislature passed
House Bill 433 authorizing funds to widen I-15 between
mileposts 6.0 and 8.0 (project number 129).
1.4.2 Previous Studies
In 2019, UDOT commissioned the I-15 MP 7 Interchange
Study to determine the benefit of an interchange at 700
South. The study indicated that an interchange could
benefit the transportation system by reducing 2050
traffic volumes at the St. George Boulevard Interchange
and Bluff Street Interchange by 17 percent and 7 percent,
respectively. Multiple interchange design concepts
were also developed to determine the feasibility of an
interchange. The concepts showed that an interchange
could be constructed at 700 South with varying impacts
on the surrounding environment (UDOT 2019). These
concepts, along with others developed for this EA, are
described in Chapter 2, Alternatives.
In 2013, FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
for the I-15 South EA, which evaluated alternatives and
impacts associated with widening I-15 between milepost
0.0 and milepost 16.0. The preferred alternative included
constructing one additional general purpose lane in each
direction and various improvements
Figure 1-3: Washington County Population Growth
at existing interchanges, including
St. George Boulevard (already 450,000
completed); however, a new
400,000
interchange at 700 South (the
Proposed Action) was not included. 350,000
300,000
1.5 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to:
» Improve operations of the I-15 Bluff Street and St.
George Boulevard Interchanges compared to the 2050
No-Action condition.
» Improve access from I-15 to regional destinations in St.
George City.
» Improve mobility options for a broad range of users,
including pedestrians and cyclists.
1.6 Need for the Proposed Action
I-15 is a major transportation corridor in the western
United States that connects St. George City to populated
areas to the north along the Wasatch Front in Utah and the
south in Nevada and southern California. Locally, I-15 is the
primary route to regionally significant destinations in St.
George City and Washington County. As such, I-15 serves
as a vital link to move goods and people throughout
Washington County and the western United States.
1.6.1 Population Growth and Development Context
Population growth puts increased demand on the
transportation system. The St. George metropolitan
area has experienced unprecedented growth since the
1990s and was recently ranked as the fastest-growing
metropolitan area in the United States (U.S. Census
Bureau 2022). Figure 1-3 shows that Washington County’s
population is projected to more than double by 2050.
Putting this in perspective, Washington County is poised
to become the fourth most populated county in Utah
behind Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Davis County
(Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2022).
401,757
337,326

250,000 265,865
200,000
182,111
150,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2022

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 1-3

Since St. George City was settled in 1861, it has been the
economic, cultural, and population center of Washington
County. The construction of I-15 in the 1970s and
subsequent interchanges at St. George Boulevard and
Bluff Street led, in part, to the commercial development
pattern that currently exists around I-15 (see Figure 1-4).
This development pattern, in addition to the regional
destinations shown in Figure 1-4 and the population
growth previously described, is projected to overwhelm
the St. George Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges.
1.6.2 Need for Travel Demand Improvements
To understand the need for the Proposed Action better,
UDOT analyzed the current and 2050 traffic conditions.
The 2050 condition, also referred to as the 2050 No-
Action Alternative, assumes that all planned transportation
projects from the 2019-2050 RTP, including the widening of
I-15, are built, except for the Proposed Action.
The analysis focused on delay and queue lengths at the
St. George Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges and
travel times to destinations in St. George City to assess
the transportation needs.
The analysis used the AM and PM peak hours to account
for the worst-case traffic volume scenarios. The AM
Figure 1-4: Major Development Patterns
Brigham Young
Winter Home
Historic/Arts
District St. George Blvd.
Town Square
Park
Utah Tech
University
400 East
peak hour is the highest volume of morning traffic for a
continuous hour during a typical weekday. Most AM Peak
hour traffic consists of commuting trips. The PM peak hour
is the highest volume of afternoon/evening traffic for a
continuous hour during a typical weekday. Most PM peak
hour traffic consists of commuting and non-work-related
trips, which typically results in more vehicles on the road
compared to the AM peak; therefore, it is often the focus
for identifying and addressing transportation problems.
The following is a summary of the traffic analysis. The
complete results are available in the I-15; Bluff St to St
George Blvd EA Existing and 2050 No Build Traffic Analysis
Memorandum found in Appendix A, Reports and Clearances.
INTERCHANGE DELAY
Vehicle delay, measured in seconds per vehicle, is the
amount of extra time over normal travel conditions it
takes for a driver to travel through an intersection. Longer
delays indicate an intersection is not capable of serving
the number of vehicles during a given period.
Table 1-1 correlates driver perception of delay with seconds
of delay per vehicle. According to the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2022), a delay
between 35 seconds and 55 seconds is considered
approaching operational failure, and greater
than 55 seconds is failing. UDOT generally
considers delays that are greater than 55
seconds as unacceptable.
Table 1-1: Intersection Performance
Signalized Average Delay In
Driver Perception Seconds per Vehicle
No Delay 0 ≤ 10
River Rd.

700 East

St. George
Temple Short Delay > 10 and ≤ 20
Intermountain
Medical Center St. George
Regional Acceptable Delay > 20 and ≤ 35
St. George 700 South Hospital
Public Pool Dixie High
School
Tolerable Delay > 35 and ≤ 55
Dixie Middle
School 900 South
Unacceptable
J.C. Snow St. George City Center Delay (Intersection > 55 and ≤ 80
Park
Regional Commercial Approaches Failure)
Bluff S

Utah Tech University Unacceptable Delay

Riverside Dr. > 80
Hospital (Intersection Fails)
t.

Education
Source: National Academies of Sciences,
Parks/Public Space Engineering, and Medicine 2022

1-4 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 When a signalized intersection approaches Figure 1-5: 2021 and 2050 No-Action Interchange Worst-Case Peak
failure or is failing, drivers toward the end Delay and Off-Ramp Queue Length
of a queue are frequently unable to travel
2021/
through the intersection during one green
light cycle; they must wait until the next
2050
ST. GEORGE BLVD.
green light to proceed. 2,275 Feet
(Extends onto
Figure 1-5 shows that the current I-15 mainline)
PM peak hour conditions at the St.
1,650 Feet
George Boulevard and the Bluff Street
Interchanges have acceptable delays
St. George Blvd.
that are less than 35 seconds per vehicle. 33 83
By 2050, however, the average delay 275 Feet
during the PM peak hour is projected to
more than double at both Interchanges
resulting in unacceptable delays at St.

ie Dr.
George Boulevard (83 seconds) and Bluff

River Rd.
D i x
Street (91 seconds). In other words, both
Interchanges are projected to fail by 2050.
700 East

4,050 Feet
OFF-RAMP QUEUE LENGTHS (Extends onto
The worsening delays at the St. George I-15 mainline)
Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges 700 South
are projected to have a negative affect
on the off-ramp queue lengths (the line
2021/

700 East
of vehicles waiting to continue through

400 East
700 South
an intersection) in the northbound and 2050
BLUFF ST.
southbound directions. By 2050, off-ramp
queue lengths are projected to extend
900 South
onto mainline I-15 at the St. George
Boulevard southbound off-ramp during
Bluff St.

the AM peak hour and at the St. George

Boulevard northbound off-ramp and Bluff
Street northbound off-ramp during the Riverside Dr.
PM peak hour (see Figure 1-5). 225 Feet

Traffic queues extending onto the I-15 175 Feet

28 91
mainline travel lanes could result in unsafe
travel conditions. Stopped or substantially
slowed vehicles in high-speed travel lanes 450 Feet 2021 Queue
lead to unsafe driving maneuvers, sudden Lengths
and unanticipated lane changes, and 2050 Projected
increased rear-end collisions. Dixie Dr. Queue Lengths
3,100 Feet
20212050 Delay
(seconds)
Note: All delay and queue lengths shown are for the PM peak hour,
except the southbound off-ramp queue at St. George Boulevard.
Source: Avenue Consultants 2023a
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 1-5
 TRAVEL TIME
Travel time is how long it takes for a vehicle to travel
from one location to another. Travel time is used to
measure and compare existing and future conditions to
understand better how a corridor is performing.
The excessive delays at the St. George Boulevard and
Bluff Street Interchanges are expected to prolong
travel times to destinations near I-15 and 700 South.
Comparing the current and future average travel times
from Green Springs Road and Brigham Road via I-15
to multiple destinations near 700 South indicates that
travel time is expected to increase by 18 percent in the
Figure 1-6: Travel Times from Points of Origin
SOUTHBOUND
POINT OF ORIGIN
northbound direction and 17 percent in the southbound
direction by 2050 (see Figure 1-6).
1.6.3 Need for Active Transportation Improvements
UDOT defines active transportation as human-powered
travel (e.g., walking, biking, personal electric-assisted
travel) to travel from one location to another (UDOT
2022). UDOT’s Inclusion of Active Transportation UDOT
07-117 mandates the needs of cyclists, pedestrians, and
other active transportation users to be considered in
all project development phases (UDOT 2013). Adhering
to this policy, UDOT recognizes the importance of
active transportation, and is committed to considering
reasonable active transportation
improvements as part of the
Proposed Action.
Underscoring the need to

Gre ing
implement active transportation

Spr Dr.
en
improvements with the Proposed
Action is the current state of the
active transportation network in
and around the Proposed Action
area. I-15 is a barrier that restricts
St. George Blvd. efficient, safe east-west pedestrian
and bicycle travel. For example,
residents east of I-15 are separated
DESTINATION
400 East

700 East

from popular destinations to the

west, such as Dixie High School,
AREA
St. George Public Pool, and J.C.
700 South Snow Park. Sidewalks along 700
South and a pedestrian tunnel at
900 South
400 South are the only options
Bluff St.

for active transportation users

Riverside Dr. to cross under I-15. Although the
400 South pedestrian tunnel is
convenient for college students
walking and biking to and from
Year Travel Time in Minutes at PM Peak Hour Utah Tech University, it does not
Northbound Southbound provide a direct, convenient route
2021 5.7 5.6 for high school and middle school
2050 6.6 6.5 students who live east of I-15 and
Percent Change 18 17 south of 700 South.

NORTHBOUND Furthermore, the 2019-2050

POINT OF ORIGIN RTP recognizes that active
Brigham transportation is an integral part
Rd.
of the transportation system
Source: Avenue Consultants 2023a
1-6 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
 Figure 1-7: Existing and Planned Active Transportation Routes and I-15 Crossings

St. George Blvd.

PLANNED 200 SOUTH

PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL

EXISTING 400 SOUTH

PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
400 East
700 S

700 South
Bluff St.

PLANNED 400 EAST

PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
Proposed Action Area
Riverside Dr. Planned Buffered Bike Lane
Planned Bike Lane
EXISTING BLUFF STREET Planned Protected Bike Lane
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
Planned Bike Boulevard
Planned Sidepath/Shared-use Path
Planned Shared Roadway
Existing Sidepath/Shared-use Path
Existing Bike Lane
Source: Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization 2019, St. George City 2017

and includes projects to connect pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure better. Figure 1-7 shows that a shared-use
path and bike lanes are planned on 700 South under I-15.
Other planned improvements in the Proposed Action area
include pedestrian tunnels under I-15 at 200 South and
400 East, bike lanes, shared roadways (i.e., a street not
designated or marked as a bike route but open to bikes
and vehicles), and a bike boulevard (i.e., a street with
low traffic volumes and speeds that is designated and
designed to give cyclists priority).
1.7 Purpose and Need Summary
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to:
» Improve operations of the I-15 Bluff Street and
St. George Boulevard Interchanges compared to the
2050 No-Action condition.
» Improve access from I-15 to regional destinations in
St. George City.
» Improve mobility options for a broad range of users,
including pedestrians and cyclists.
The need for the Proposed Action is based on:
» Excessive delays at the St. George Boulevard and Bluff
Street Interchanges that lead to off-ramp queues at all
but the Bluff Street southbound off-ramp extending onto
mainline I-15, resulting in unsafe travel conditions.
» Longer travel times via I-15 from origin points north and
south of St. George City to regional destinations in
St. George City due to excessive delays at the
St. George Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges.
» Limited east-west active transportation routes in the
Proposed Action area. I-15 is a barrier that separates
residents east of I-15 from popular destinations to the
west. Current crossings under I-15 are limited to 700
South and a pedestrian tunnel at 400 South.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 1-7

 CHAPTER 2
Alternatives
2.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to document the screening
process the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
undertook to identify the Preferred Alternative for the
Proposed Action (see Section 1.2, Proposed Action,
for more information), consistent with 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.5(c)(2). This chapter also
documents the No-Action Alternative. By the end of this
chapter, the reader should understand:
» How action alternatives are identified, developed, and
screened.
» How public input influences the alternative
development and screening process.
» Which action alternatives are under consideration.
» Why the Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Action
is selected.
Identify Action Alternatives: The process of developing
and screening action alternatives begins by considering
past studies, charettes (i.e., workshops involving
stakeholders to map solutions), government agency input,
and public comments to identify a range of reasonable
alternatives. Action alternatives first begin as schematics,
and those that advance further in the process are
designed in greater detail to the same level so that their
comparative merits can be equally evaluated.
Level 1—Preliminary Screening: The objective of this
initial, high-level step is to eliminate action alternatives
based upon their ability to meet interchange and
roadway design standards and guidance, relative
impacts to adjacent residential or commercial areas, and
interchange function relative to 2050 traffic conditions.

This chapter is a summary of more detailed reports that

are found in Appendix A, Reports and Clearances. The
reader may refer to these reports for more information:
» Build Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Memorandum Figure 2-1: Action Alternative Screening Process
» Alternative Development and Charettes Agencies
Screening Report Past Alternatives Studies Public

2.2 Screening Methodology

Figure 2-1 illustrates the multi-step process
Schematic
used in this Environmental Assessment (EA) to Identify Action Alternatives
advance action alternatives from a schematic
level to a more detailed design (30 percent).
The main objective of this process is to identify Level 1
the preferred design (or alternative) for the Preliminary Screening
D E S IG N

Proposed Action. This process is applied to the

10% S C R E E N I N G Eliminate Alternatives
following action alternative types:
» Proposed Action Alternatives, which are Level 2
different preliminary ideas for an interchange Purpose & Need/
Traffic Performance
at 700 South.
S C REEN IN G Eliminate Alternatives
» Alternatives to the Proposed Action, which
15–30% Level 3
are different ideas other than an interchange
Impacts & Design <----- Public Input
at 700 South to fix the transportation Considerations
problems that the Proposed Action is 30%
attempting to solve. Preferred Alternative

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 2-1

Level 2—Traffic Performance Screening: This level
compares the ability of each action alternative to meet
the purpose of the Proposed Action. This level also
quantifies other performance metrics to ensure the
action alternatives that advance would have acceptable
performance through the year 2050.
Level 3—Impacts and Design Considerations: With
input from Level 2, such as the number of lanes
required for optimum traffic performance and storage
length requirements for turn lanes, action alternatives
that advance to Level 3 transition from schematics to
preliminary designs. UDOT designs action alternatives that
advance to this point to equal levels of detail to define
footprint, or direct impact area, and to compare impacts.
Design, constructability, and public input additionally
serve to compare and differentiate action alternatives.
2.4 No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative assumes that all transportation
improvements identified in the current Dixie Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) 2019-2050 Regional
Transportation Plan, including Northern Corridor, Widening
I-15 between Bluff Street and St. George Boulevard,
and 1450 South Extension to Dixie Drive, would be
built except the Proposed Action (Dixie MPO 2019)
(see Figure 2-2 on page 2-3). The No-Action Alternative
is carried forward according to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Technical Advisory 6640.8A.

Selecting the Preferred Alternative for the Proposed

Action ultimately involves balancing the traffic operations
from Level 2 with environmental impacts, design
complexity, and constructability considerations from
Level 3. The Preferred Alternative for the Proposed
Action is the one that best achieves this balance.

2.3 Public and Stakeholder Input

UDOT engaged the public in multiple ways to obtain input
on the alternative development and screening process.
The reader may refer to Chapter 4, Coordination, or the
following reports found in Appendix B, Public Involvement
Reports, for more information:
» Public Scoping Meeting Report
» Alternatives Review Public Meeting Report

This outreach led to the evaluation of Alternatives to the

Proposed Action. UDOT considered five Alternatives to
the Proposed Action suggested by the public, including
a new interchange at Mall Drive, additional local street
connections, a flyover at Red Hills Parkway, a new
interchange at 400 South, and a new interchange at 400
East. None of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
advanced beyond Level 2 screening and were eliminated
from further consideration. This Chapter focuses on
Proposed Action Alternatives, and Alternatives to the
Proposed Action are not discussed further. For more
information on the screening process for the Alternatives
to the Proposed Action refer to the Alternative
Development and Screening Report, found in Appendix
A, Reports and Clearances.
2-2 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
 Figure 2-2: No-Action Alternative

Northern Washi

ng
Corridor

Main St.

ton Pkw y.
Road
New Improvements
Interchange I-15

Gre e n S
Red Cliffs Widening
Dr.
.
Bluff St

pri
ngs Dr.
Direct Roadway New
Connection Interchange
Road
Widening Intersection Road
St George Blvd. Improvements Widening

Road Widening
Under I-15
700 South
Road I-15 Road
.

Roadway
Bluff St

Widening Widening Widening

. Extension
iverside D r
Roadway 1450 South
R

Improvements Road Widening

& Intersection
Improvements
Roadway
Extension Washington
Interchange
Improvements B righam County
Rd.
Man O War Rd.

I-15
Widening New St George
Crossing
Interstate Widening
New Frontage
Sun R i ver Pkwy Road Surface Street Widening
.
New Infrastructure
General Improvements
St. George City Boundary

The No-Action Alternative includes major improvements in the Dixie MPO 2019-2050 Regional Transportation
Plan, such as Northern Corridor, Widening I-15 between Bluff Street and St. George Boulevard, and 1450 South
Extension to Dixie Drive.
Source: Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization 2019

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 2-3

2.5 Proposed Action Alternatives and dated May 22, 2017, and the FHWA Utah Division
Screening Results Interstate System Access Change Request Guidance
2.5.1 Description of the Proposed Action Alternatives Document dated January 2022.
» Relative impacts to adjacent residential or commercial
In 2019, UDOT commissioned a planning study, the I-15
areas.
MP 7 Interchange Study, to determine the feasibility of an
» Undesirable travel patterns, such as increased traffic
interchange at 700 South. The alternatives from the planning
on residential streets or out-of-direction travel.
study show that an interchange could be constructed at 700
» Negative effects to mainline I-15 traffic operations, such
South with varying impacts on the surrounding environment
as insufficient weave lengths and reduced travel speeds.
(UDOT 2019). Five alternatives from the planning study are
included in the list of Proposed Action Alternatives. From Level 1 screening, five Proposed Action
Alternatives—the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI),
A key operational constraint UDOT considered when
Offset SPUI, Offset SPUI with Eastbound-to-Northbound
developing the Proposed Action Alternatives is the proximity
Crossover, Offset Diamond, and Tight Diamond—
of the 700 South and 900 East signalized intersection. The
advanced to Level 2 for in-depth traffic analysis (see
proximity of this signalized intersection to the Proposed
Figure 2-3 on page 2-5; this icon on the lower left-
Action could negatively affect interchange performance.
hand corner of applicable schematic diagrams indicates
However, 900 East is one of two major routes that drivers
the Proposed Action Alternative is from the previous 2019
east of I-15 use to cross I-15 at 700 South. During the
planning study).
Concept Review Meeting on April 27, 2022, St. George
City and Dixie MPO representatives emphasized that 700
South is the primary route to Dixie High School (350 East
700 South) and the only vehicular crossing of I-15 between
Bluff Street and 100 South. Restricting left-turns at 900
East could result in increased out-of-direction travel and
increased traffic on neighborhood streets. As a result, many
of the Proposed Action Alternatives either move the on- and
off-ramps away from 900 East or integrate 900 East into
the interchange.

2.5.2 Screening of the Proposed Action Alternatives

LEVEL 1: PRELIMINARY SCREENING RESULTS
UDOT developed 12 Proposed Action Alternatives
(see Alternative Development and Screening Report
in Appendix A, Reports and Clearances). The study
team, composed of experienced civil engineers, traffic
engineers, and environmental specialists, met on April 27,
2022, to determine which Proposed Action Alternatives
to advance for further consideration. Details of the
Level 1 screening results for these Proposed Action
Alternatives are available in the Alternative Development
and Screening Report found in Appendix A, Reports and
Clearances. In summary, common reasons for eliminating
a Proposed Action Alternative at Level 1 screening include:
» Interchange complexity and driver expectancy (i.e., the
ability of a driver to easily navigate the interchange).
» Concern that FHWA would not approve the
interchange based on the Interstate Access Policy

2-4 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

1 Figure 2-3: Proposed Action Alternatives 2 On-ramp Off-ramp

600 S 600 S

700 E

800 E
700 E

800 E

1100 E
1100 E
CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC

700 S 700 S 700 S 700 S

900 E
900 E
Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) 3 Offset SPUI

600 S 600 S
800 E

700 E

800 E
700 E

1100 E

1100 E
CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC

700 S 700 S 700 S 700 S

900 E

900 E
Offset SPUI with Eastbound-to-
4 Northbound Crossover Tight Diamond

600 S
800 E
700 E

1100 E

CUL-DE-SAC

700 S 700 S
900 E

Offset Diamond

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 2-5

LEVEL 2: TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE
SCREENING RESULTS
The screening criteria for Level 2 is divided into two parts.
The first part focuses on achieving the traffic related
purposes for the Proposed Action (see Table 2-2) and
the second part focuses on the 700 South interchange
performance, including how the interchange could affect
I-15 and 700 South (see Table 2-4 on page 2-7).
leads to the safety concerns on mainline I-15 described in
Section 1.6.2, Need for Travel Demand Improvements (see
Off-ramp Queue Lengths). At St. George Boulevard in
particular, reduced weave distance creates a northbound
queue between the northbound on-ramp from 700 South
and the off-ramp due to the diamond interchange releasing
traffic on the freeway to keep storage between the ramp
intersections clear.

Comparing the 2050 traffic results for each Proposed
Action Alternative to the No-Action Alternative in Table 2-3
reveals that only the Tight Diamond fails to meet each
purpose of the Proposed Action. The Tight Diamond is
eliminated from further consideration because off-ramp
queues are expected to extend onto I-15 mainline, which
The remaining Proposed Action Alternatives advance for
further consideration because they reduce interchange
delay and off-ramp queues at the St. George Boulevard
and Bluff Street Interchanges and shorten travel times
compared to the No-Action Alternative.

Table 2-2: Purpose of the Proposed Action Screening Criteria

Purpose for the Proposed Action Performance Measure
» Interchange delay is shorter in 2050 compared to the
Improve operations of the I-15 Bluff Street and St.
No-Action Alternative.
George Boulevard Interchanges compared to the 2050
» Off-ramp queues in 2050 are shorter than the No-Action
No-Action condition.
Alternative.
»T
 ravel times from origin points north and south
Improve access from I-15 to regional destinations in St.
of downtown St. George City are shorter in 2050
George City.
compared to the No-Action Alternative.

Table 2-3: Purpose of the Proposed Action Alternatives’ Screening Results

2050 PM Interchange Delay 2050 Interchange Off-ramp Queues1 2050 PM Travel Time
(Seconds) (Feet) (Minutes)
St. George Boulevard Bluff Street
St. George
Alternatives Boulevard Bluff Street NB SB NB SB NB SB Screening Result
No-Action 83 75 4,050 2,275 3,100 225 6.6 6.5 Advance2

Single Point Urban

78 54 2,250 800 1,725 200 Advance
Interchange (SPUI)

Offset SPUI 75 59 1,825 775 2,050 200 Advance

Offset SPUI with

5.2 5.4
Eastbound-to- 77 56 2,100 600 1,400 200 Advance
Northbound Crossover

Offset Diamond 77 60 1,775 800 1,950 200 Advance

Tight Diamond 73 60 4,3003 875 3,0503 200 Eliminate

Notes: 1The queues shown are from the AM or PM peak hour, whichever is greater.
2
The No-Action Alternative is carried forward for further consideration to provide a baseline comparison.
3
Queues extend onto mainline I-15.
NB = Northbound SB = Southbound

2-6 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

UDOT analyzed the remaining Proposed Action
Alternatives according to the criteria in Table 2-4.
These criteria compare the traffic of the Proposed
Action Alternatives in relation to interchange delay,
off-ramp queues, and travel time on 700 South. This
analysis provides insights on how the Proposed Action
Alternatives perform through the year 2050.
All the remaining Proposed Action Alternatives perform
similarly regarding interchange delay, off-ramp queues,
and travel time on 700 South (see Table 2-5). Notable
observations of the results include:
» Interchange delay for each Proposed Action
Alternative is acceptable for an urban interchange
(delay greater than 55 seconds per vehicle is
considered unacceptable) (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2022).
» Although each Proposed Action Alternative is
designed to provide enough storage to prevent
vehicles from backing onto mainline I-15, the length
of the southbound off-ramp queue under the SPUI
and northbound off-ramp queue under the Offset
Diamond indicate they are slightly less resilient to
future, unanticipated changes in travel patterns
resulting from higher volumes at the interchange or
nearby intersections.
» The Offset SPUI Alternatives have the lowest travel
times on 700 South because of the increased distance
from the 900 East intersection. Furthermore, the
Offset SPUI with Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover
Alternative has the lowest westbound travel time
because it minimizes delay for westbound drivers by
allowing the through movement and the northbound
left-turn to proceed simultaneously: Westbound
vehicles do not need to wait for left-turning vehicles
to travel through the interchange.
The SPUI, Offset SPUI, Offset SPUI with Eastbound-
to-Northbound Crossover, and Offset Diamond
Alternatives advance to Level 3 screening.

Table 2-4: Proposed Action Alternatives Traffic Performance Screening Criteria

Criteria Performance Measure
» Interchange delay per vehicle less than 55 seconds.
700 South Interchange
» Off-ramp queues do not back onto mainline I-15.

700 South » Comparative travel time between River Road and 600 East.

Table 2-5: Proposed Action Alternatives Traffic Performance Screening Results1

700 South Interchange 700 South
Interchange Delay Southbound Off-ramp Northbound Off-ramp Eastbound Travel Time Westbound Travel Time
Criteria (Seconds Per Vehicle) Queue (Feet) Queue (Feet) (Minutes) (Minutes)
Single Point Urban
49 1,000 425 2.9 2.5
Interchange (SPUI)

Offset SPUI 45 750 450 2.5 2.3

Offset SPUI with

Eastbound-to- 44 675 400 2.5 2.0
Northbound Crossover

Offset Diamond 39 425 700 3.1 2.5

Notes: 1All values represent the worst case between the AM and PM peak hours in 2050.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 2-7

LEVEL 3: IMPACTS AND CONSTRUCTABILITY
SCREENING RESULTS
DESCRIPTION OF PRELIMINARY DESIGNS FOR PROPOSED
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
UDOT based impacts on surrounding properties and
constructability for each Proposed Action Alternative on the
designs shown on Figure 2-4 through Figure 2-7 (see pages
2-8 and 2-10). All Proposed Action Alternatives are designed
according to current UDOT design standards.
Commonalities among all Proposed Action Alternatives
include:
» Adding a 12-foot-wide shared-use path on the north side
of 700 South. This shared-use path is primarily intended
to provide a safer option for cyclists to travel through the
interchange. UDOT chose to place the shared-use path on
the north side to allow cyclists to access 600 South (one
block to the north) because it has existing bike lanes, and
St. George City has designated the path as the closest
east-west bike route. Inclusion of the shared-use path
satisfies the purpose of the Proposed Action to improve
mobility options for a broad range of users, including
pedestrians and cyclists (see Section 1.5, Purpose of
the Proposed Action, and Section 1.6.3, Need for Active
Transportation Improvements).
» Closing 800 East with a cul-de-sac because either the
interchange southbound off-ramp crosses through it
or leaving it open would negatively affect interchange
operations.
» Adding dual left-turn lanes at 700 East (southbound to
eastbound) and 900 East (northbound to westbound) to
accommodate the predicted increase in left-turn volumes
with the addition of the interchange.

Figure 2-4: Single Point Urban600 South

Interchange (SPUI)
800 East

Southbound
700 East

Off-ramp
Dudley Leavitt
Apartments Northbound
On-ramp

Morningside
Storage

700 South 700 South

Southbound
Morningside New Pavement
On-ramp
Professional
Plaza Shared-use Path
Northbound Sidewalk Edge
900 East

Off-ramp
New Bridge
Travel Direction

The SPUI Alternative brings all left turns and east-west through lanes together in a single point under I-15. The I-15
bridges over 700 South are replaced to accommodate a wider 700 South and interchange ramps.

2-8 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 Figure 2-5: Offset Single Point600 SouthInterchange (SPUI)
Urban

800 East
Southbound
Off-ramp

700 East
Dudley Leavitt
Apartments
Northbound
On-ramp

Morningside
Storage

700 South 700 South

Southbound
Morningside On-ramp
New Pavement
Professional
Plaza Shared-use Path
Sidewalk Edge

900 East
New Bridge
Northbound
Off-ramp
Travel Direction

The Offset SPUI Alternative brings all left turns and east-west through lanes together in a single point west of I-15. Four
new bridges are constructed under I-15 and the bridges over 700 South are replaced.
600Urban
Figure 2-6: Offset Single Point South Interchange (SPUI) with Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover
Southbound
800 East

Off-ramp
700 East

Dudley Leavitt
Apartments Northbound
On-ramp

Morningside
Storage

700 South 700 South

Southbound
On-ramp
Morningside New Pavement
Professional
Plaza Shared-use Path
Sidewalk Edge
900 East

New Bridge
Northbound
Off-ramp Travel Direction

The Offset SPUI with Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover Alternative brings all left turns and east-west through lanes
together in single point west of I-15. The eastbound-to-northbound crossover left-turn crosses on the opposite side of 700
South at the intersection and continues under the I-15 bridge (eliminating the need for two additional structures) to reduce
delay for westbound traffic. Two new bridges are constructed under I-15 and the bridges over 700 South are replaced.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 2-9

 Figure 2-7: Offset Diamond 600 South

700 East

800 East
Dudley Leavitt
Apartments
Northbound
On-ramp
Morningside
Storage
Southbound
Off-ramp

700 South 700 South

Southbound
Morningside On-ramp New Pavement
Professional
Plaza Shared-use Path
Sidewalk Edge

900 East
New Bridge
Northbound
Off-ramp Travel Direction

The Offset Diamond Alternative integrates the on- and off-ramps into the local road network at 800 East and 900 East.
Four new bridges are constructed under I-15 and the bridges over 700 South are replaced.

LEVEL 3 SCREENING CRITERIA AND RESULTS on I-15 for a prolonged period would hinder the
The screening criteria defined in Table 2-6 (see page movement of goods and people.
2-11) identify the differentiating impacts of each » Active Transportation: A purpose of the Proposed
Proposed Action Alternative and emphasize issues that Action is to improve mobility options for a broad range
relate to: of users and to do so with the safest possible design
» Public Input: Community concerns informed screening (see Section 1.5, Purpose of the Proposed Action).
criteria related to right-of-way acquisition (including UDOT’s Inclusion of Active Transportation UDOT
residential relocations and parking) and pedestrian safety. 07-117 directs study teams to account for the safety,
» Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898, Federal convenience, and efficiency of active transportation
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority improvements in decision-making.
Populations and Low-Income Populations, and United
States Department of Transportation Order 5610.2(a),
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, require UDOT
to consider how its actions may affect minority and low-
income populations. Executive Order 12898 specifically
compels UDOT to avoid disproportionately high and
adverse effects on minority and low-income populations.
»C  onstructability: Constructing the interchange while
maintaining at least two travel lanes in each direction
on I-15 during construction presents a considerable
challenge. I-15 serves as a vital link to move goods
and people throughout Washington County and the
western United States. Reducing the travel lanes

2-10 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

Table 2-6: Proposed Action Alternatives Level 3 Screening Criteria
Criteria Performance Measure
» Number of residential full acquisitions and relocations (buildings and dwelling units).
Right-of-Way
» Percentage of the St. George City commercial parking stall requirement, after parking
Acquisition
stalls are removed by a Proposed Action Alternative.

» Number of relocated residences currently in Census block groups that have a higher
Environmental Justice
percentage of low-income and/or minority populations compared to Washington
Impacts
County.

» Number of new structures (bridges) to cross 700 South or accommodate on- and off-
ramps. A greater number of structures correlates to increased construction impacts,
Constructability
which include duration, traffic control, and environmental impacts to the surrounding
community.

» Number of conflict points between pedestrians or cyclists and vehicles through

the interchange. A conflict occurs when the shared-use path, included with each
Active Transportation interchange, or sidewalk crosses a vehicular movement that is not controlled by a
traffic signal or turning movements that can cross the shared-use path or sidewalk
during the pedestrian phase.

» Estimated cost to design, construct, and purchase right-of-way (adjusted to 2025

Cost dollars). (Note: Cost estimate is considered a screening criterion only when it is
necessary to compare differences between Proposed Action Alternatives.)

Table 2-7 (see page 2-12) summarizes the Level 3 the least expensive because it has the fewest structures.
screening results. Key differences between the Proposed The Offset Diamond is the most expensive because it has
Action Alternatives include: the most structures and, although it avoids all residential
» The Offset SPUI Alternatives have the most residential full properties, would remove the most storage units at
acquisition and relocations, including the most relocations Morningside Storage at 911 East 700 South.
impacting low-income and minority populations. Both
Offset SPUI Alternatives would acquire the Dudley Leavitt
Apartments (18 units) at 675 South 800 East.
» The SPUI Alternative is the easiest of the Proposed
Action Alternatives to construct because it has the
fewest new bridges on I-15; it would replace the two
existing bridges over 700 South.
» The Offset Diamond Alternative is the safest for
pedestrians and cyclists because it has the fewest conflicts
with unsignalized traffic movements. By integrating into
the local street network, the ramp connections at 900
East function like other four-way, signalized intersections
in St. George City, which lends itself to safer pedestrian
crossings and interactions with vehicles.
» Cost estimates range between $112 million and $139
million, a difference of $27 million. The number of
bridges, alterations to I-15 (i.e., raising or shifting the
mainline), and right-of-way acquisition fees primarily
contribute to the cost variations. The SPUI Alternative is

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 2-11

Table 2-7: Proposed Action Alternatives Level 3 Screening Results1
Active Transportation
Right-of-way Conflicts
Percent of City Commercial Parking

Unsignalized Traffic

Signalized Traffic
Requirement2
Residential Full

Movement

Movement
Acquisition & Residential
Relocation Relocations in
Proposed Action (Buildings/ The 700 South Morningside Environmental Cost
Alternative Units) Building Professional Plaza Justice Areas3 New Structures ($ Million)

Single Point Urban

2/2 82 98 2 2 2 6 $112M
Interchange (SPUI)

Offset SPUI 3/20 97 96 20 6 3 8 $136M

Offset SPUI with
Eastbound-to-
3/20 91 96 20 4 3 6 $123M
Northbound
Crossover
Offset Diamond 0/0 88 98 0 6 1 8 $139M
Notes: 1The results in this table are based on conceptual designs. These estimates were used for early comparison
purposes and may differ from those described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Effects, or
elsewhere in the EA.
2
 uring a meeting with UDOT on November 30, 2022, a St. George City representative stated commercial
D
properties with parking stall totals that are below the city requirement as the result of roadway improvements
would not be in violation of the St. George City’s off-street parking requirements.
3
 he potential presence of Environmental Justice populations is indicated by Census block groups that contain a
T
higher percentage of minority or low-income persons compared to Washington County.

2.5.3 Eliminated Proposed Action Alternatives
The traffic operations from Level 2, although important
in assuring that all Proposed Action Alternatives would
perform adequately through the year 2050, do not
substantially differentiate one Proposed Action Alternative
from another. Therefore, the Level 3 results are the primary
factors in eliminating action alternatives and selecting the
Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Action.
The Offset SPUI Alternative and Offset SPUI with
Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover Alternative are
eliminated from further consideration because of the
full acquisition and relocation of the Dudley Leavitt
Apartments. This acquisition is problematic for the
following reasons:
»O ther Proposed Action Alternatives would have fewer
impacts to minority and low-income populations, as
described in Executive Order 12898.
» There is a lack of affordable housing in the region. The
public expressed concerns about this issue. Acquiring
these apartments could worsen this situation.
The Offset Diamond is eliminated from further
consideration for the following reasons:
» This Proposed Action Alternative has the greatest
number of structures and would result in the most
construction impacts. The increased number of
structures required for interchange construction would
require a longer construction period (compared to the
SPUI) and would further expose nearby low-income and
minority residents to prolonged air pollution, vibration,
noise, and dust associated with construction activities.
The six closely spaced structures would have the
greatest impact to traffic control, including local access
and the ability to keep all travel lanes open on I-15.
» Numerous public comments received between
November 11, 2022, and December 10, 2022, indicate
a heightened concern over increased traffic on

2-12 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 neighborhood streets. Travel patterns and daily volumes
are expected to change in the vicinity of the Proposed
Action, regardless of the Proposed Action Alternative.
However, the Offset Diamond Alternative is unique
because the southbound off-ramp and northbound on-
ramp tie directly into 900 East, a north-south residential
collector street (see Figure 2-7 on page 2-10). This
Proposed Action Alternative would increase traffic on
900 East because, unlike the other Proposed Action
Alternatives, drivers are not required to make a turn
onto 900 East; rather, southbound drivers, for example,
may continue straight on 900 East, then turn east at
900 South to bypass congestion that frequently occurs
on River Road.
2.5.4 Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Action
Based on the information presented in the screening
analysis, the SPUI Alternative is the Preferred Alternative for
the Proposed Action (hereafter referred to as the Preferred
Alternative) for the following reasons:
» It balances traffic performance, right-of-way acquisition
impacts, and constructability.
» It minimizes relocations and impacts in Environmental
Justice areas.
» It is the easiest to construct because it has the fewest new
structures.
» It is the least expensive Proposed Action Alternative to
construct.
2.5.5 Description of the Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative includes the major features
described and shown on Figure 2-8 (see page 2-15).
Following selection of the Preferred Alternative, UDOT
modified to the design to address safety concerns. (It should
be noted that the following changes would have been made
to other Proposed Action Alternatives if one of them had
been selected.)
700 South is a popular route for students walking to
and from Dixie High School (350 East 700 South) and
Dixie Middle School (929 South 100 East). To enhance
pedestrian safety and comfort on the south side of 700
South, UDOT added a four-foot-wide park strip between
the sidewalk and shoulder to increase the buffer between
vehicles and pedestrians.
In addition, the Preferred Alternative introduces eight new
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at the proposed
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
on- and off-ramps, two of which are unsignalized (there
is not a traffic signal to control vehicle movements while
pedestrians are crossing). These unsignalized crossings
occur at both free right turns onto the northbound and
southbound on-ramps. To address this concern, UDOT
added a traffic signal, similar to the example shown
on Figure 2-8 (see page 2-15), to the westbound-to-
southbound free right turn, which turns red when the
pedestrian button is activated. UDOT also added traffic
signals at the remaining right turns to enhance pedestrian
safety further.
2.6 Summary
UDOT considered 5 Alternatives to the Proposed
Action suggested by the public and 12 Proposed Action
Alternatives identified by the study team. Preliminary
screening, quantitative data, and public input guided the
process for the selecting the Preferred Alternative for the
Proposed Action.
All the Alternatives to the Proposed Action are eliminated.
Through preliminary screening and various traffic analyses,
UDOT concluded none of these action alternatives meet
the purpose of the Proposed Action or perform as well as
the Proposed Action Alternatives.
Through Level 1 screening, UDOT eliminated 7 of the 12
Proposed Action Alternatives; the Single Point Urban
Interchange (SPUI), Offset SPUI, Offset SPUI with
Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover, Offset Diamond,
and Tight Diamond advanced to Level 2 for in-depth
traffic analysis. Level 2 traffic analyses revealed the
Tight Diamond Alternative is the only Proposed Action
Alternative that does not reduce off-ramp queue lengths
at the St. George Boulevard Interchange; it was therefore
eliminated. Because the remaining Proposed Action
Alternatives have similar Level 2 traffic performance
results, Level 3 results ultimately determined the Preferred
Alternative for the Proposed Action. The SPUI Alternative is
the Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Action because
it balances property impacts and construction impacts and
it is the easiest and least expensive to construct.
This chapter is a summary of more detailed reports that are
found in Appendix A, Reports and Clearances. The reader
may refer to these reports for more information:
» Build Alternatives Traffic Analysis Memorandum
» Alternative Development and Screening Report
2-13
 Figure 2-8 Refined Preferred Alternative Refinements to Preferred Alternative:

Detention
Basin
600 South

Southbound
700 East

800 East
Off-ramp
Dudley Leavitt Northbound
Apartments On-ramp

a Added four-foot-wide park strip

1 3 Morningside
6 5 Storage

2 7
700 South 4 4 700 South
a b a 8
<--- To Dixie High School
6
Southbound
Morningside On-ramp
Professional
Plaza

Northbound b Added traffic signal to protect pedestrians

Off-ramp
To improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, UDOT added the traffic
signal shown above at the southbound on-ramp of the Preferred
Alternative to prevent vehicles from making a right-turn onto the
New Pavement freeway when the pedestrian button is activated.

900 East
Shared-use Path
Sidewalk Edge
Travel Direction
The design shown on this figure is preliminary and subject to change.

Major Features:
1 C onstruct a new SPUI interchange on I-15 at 700 South.
2 Replace the existing I-15 bridges with longer bridges
over 700 South.
3 Raise I-15 to accommodate the longer bridges.
4 Widen 700 South east and west of I-15 to provide dual
left-turn lanes.
5 A dd a cul-de-sac at southern end of 800 East.
6 Add dual left-turn lanes at 700 East and 900 East.
7 Provide a 12-foot-wide shared-use trail on the north side
of 700 South that begins at 800 East and extends east
through the interchange to 1000 East.
8 Construct a six-foot-wide sidewalk on the south side
of 700 South.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 2-15

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
 CHAPTER 3
Affected Environment &
Environmental Effects
3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Resources Considered but not Evaluated in Detail
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requires Early coordination and data collection determined that
that an Environmental Assessment (EA) “briefly provides some environmental resources would not be affected by
sufficient evidence for determining whether to prepare either alternative. These resources are summarized below
an environmental impact statement or a finding of no and are not included in the remainder of this chapter:
significant impact” (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) » Farmland: The area surrounding the Preferred
1501.5(c)(1)). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Alternative is suburban and mostly developed. Farmland
Technical Advisory T6640.8A further directs an EA to or Agricultural Protection Areas are not present near the
“discuss any social, economic, and environmental impacts Preferred Alternative.
whose significance is uncertain. The level of analysis » Joint Development: There are no projects identified for
should be sufficient to adequately identify the impacts and joint development.
appropriate mitigation measures, and address known and » Paleontological: The Utah Department of Transportation
foreseeable public and agency concerns” (FHWA 1987). (UDOT) consulted with the Utah Geological Survey
regarding the potential for paleontological resources (e.g.,
The purpose of this chapter is to meet this requirement
fossils). There is a low potential for geological deposits
by disclosing the potential environmental effects
near the Preferred Alternative to yield significant fossil
(or impacts) from the No-Action Alternative and the
localities (Utah Geological Survey 2023). If unknown
Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 2, Alternatives) using
resources should be encountered during construction, the
the following framework in each chapter sub-section:
contractor would be required to follow UDOT Standard
» Introduction defines the resource and identifies
Specifications regarding paleontological resource
applicable environmental regulations.
discovery (see Utah Geological Survey Letter Regarding
» Affected Environment defines the study area for the
Paleontological Resource Discovery in Appendix A,
environmental resource and describes the existing
Reports and Clearances).
condition in the resource’s study area. Study areas in this
» Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
chapter vary by resource based on the anticipated effects
Act, as amended (16 United States Code (USC) 4601-4):
of the No-Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative.
UDOT consulted with Utah State Parks regarding Section
» Environmental Effects describes the potential effects the
6(f) properties near the Preferred Alternative. A portion
No-Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative would
of J.C. Snow Park is a Section 6(f) property; however,
have on the environmental resource. There are three types
the Preferred Alternative would avoid the park.
of effects:
» Soils and Geology: The Preferred Alternative is in a
»D irect effects occur at the same time and place as
suburban setting and on existing roadways; therefore,
the alternatives.
geological hazards are not a concern.
» Indirect effects occur later in time or are farther
» Wetlands, Waters of the United States, and Wild and Scenic
removed in distance from the alternatives.
Rivers: UDOT determined that potential waters of the United
»C  umulative effects are the effects resulting from the
States, including wetlands and other State of Utah waters, are
Preferred Alternative that are in addition to all other
not present near the Preferred Alternative (see Environmental
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.
Review for Water Resources and Invasive Species with its
» Mitigation Measures describes measures that avoid,
attached Aquatic Resource Delineation Report in Appendix
minimize, or compensate for effects caused by the
A, Reports and Clearances). No wild and scenic rivers are
Preferred Alternative.
present near the Preferred Alternative.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-1

» Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species: Figure 3.2-1: Land Acquisition Types
UDOT determined that threatened, endangered,
FULL ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
candidate, and state conservation agreement
species or designated critical habitats would not The land acquisition required ACQUISITION
be affected by the Preferred Alternative (see when the Preferred Alternative LINE
Biological Resources Evaluation Memorandum in goes through the structure.
Appendix A, Reports and Clearances).

By the end of this chapter, the reader should

understand the following:
PROPERTY LINE
» What effects are anticipated under the No-
Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative.
» What mitigation measures are proposed to
minimize effects from the Preferred Alternative.
» What permits are required to construct the
Preferred Alternative. IMPACT AREA

3.2 Land Acquisition and Relocations

POTENTIAL FULL ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
3.2.1 Introduction
Property acquisitions on federally funded
The proximity of the land acquisition
required for the Preferred Alternative
projects are regulated by the Uniform Relocation
avoids the structure but affects the
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
use of the property.
Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) (42 USC 4601 et seq.).
The Utah Relocation Assistance Act is used by
PROPERTY LINE
local jurisdictions and UDOT (Utah Administrative
Code (UAC) 57-12-2). The Uniform Act and the
Utah Relocation Assistance Act provide guidance
for fair and equitable treatment regarding the
ACQUISITION
acquisition of real property by government LINE
agencies.

The Washington County Assessor’s office and

IMPACT AREA
aerial imagery provided data for this analysis.

3.2.2 Affected Environment

PARTIAL ACQUISITION
In the land acquisition and relocations study The land acquisition required for the
area boundary (see Figure 3.3-1 on page 3-9), Preferred Alternative is minor and does
properties mostly consist of residential land use, not affect the use of the property.
with others being commercial, public and quasi-
public, and vacant. PROPERTY LINE
3.2.3 Environmental Effects
Impacts are quantified in three ways: (1) full
acquisition and relocation; (2) potential full
acquisition and relocation; and (3) partial
acquisition (see Figure 3.2-1). ACQUISITION
LINE
IMPACT AREA

3-2 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
There would be no property acquisition under the No-
Action Alternative.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT EFFECTS
For this analysis, properties were given their own
unique identification number that differs from the parcel
identification used by the Washington County Assessor’s
office because some parcels do not have a county parcel
identification. Because right-of-way acquisitions and
relocations were estimated using preliminary engineering,
the following impacts constitute a preliminary
quantification. Although the refinement of the final design
and negotiations with property owners may result in
different impacts than those quantified in this analysis,
impacts are expected to remain within a similar range.

The Preferred Alternative would widen the existing right-

of-way on I-15, 700 South, 700 East, and 900 East, and
would require additional area for detention basins (see
Chapter 2, Alternatives, and Section 3.13, Stormwater,
Floodplains, and Water Quality). These improvements
would require the full acquisition of 8 properties with 9
relocations, the potential full acquisition of 2 properties
with 5 relocations, and the partial acquisition of 18
properties (see Figures 3.2-2 through 3.2-7 and Tables 3.2-
1 through 3.2-3 on pages 3-4 through 3-8).

The Preferred Alternative would require perpetual

easements on two properties to provide UDOT access for
the long-term maintenance of the retaining wall on the
southbound off-ramp (see Figure 3.2-6 on page 3-6 and
Table 3.2-4 on page 3-8).

INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects would not occur under the Preferred
Alternative.

3.2.4 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation is required.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-3

 Figure 3.2-2: Land Acquisition and Relocations (ID 100)

th
ou
6 0S
11 1050 South

400 East

430 East
100

Proposed Detention
Basin (see Section 3.13,
Stormwater, Floodplains,
and Water Quality)
1100 South

700 South Commercial Full Acquisition Proposed Right-of-Way

River Rd.

Commercial Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement

Residential Full Acquisition Acquisition
Residential Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement
1 of 6
Vacant Full Acquisition Property Boundary

Figure 3.2-3: Land Acquisition and Relocations (ID 102 through 111)
700 South

104
102 108 111

106
110

uth
Lex

o
0S
in

76
gto
n Dr.

700 South Commercial Full Acquisition Proposed Right-of-Way

River Rd.

Commercial Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement

Residential Full Acquisition Acquisition
Residential Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement
2 of 6
Vacant Full Acquisition Property Boundary

3-4 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 Figure 3.2-4: Land Acquisition and Relocations (ID 112 through 138)

700 East

800 East
134 138
112 114 116
120

700 South
700 South Commercial Full Acquisition Proposed Right-of-Way
River Rd.

Commercial Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement

Residential Full Acquisition Acquisition
Residential Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement
3 of 6
Vacant Full Acquisition Property Boundary

Figure 3.2-5: Land Acquisition and Relocations (ID 150 through 162)
700 South
160
156 158 162

150
900 East

154
152

Morningside Drive
700 South Commercial Full Acquisition Proposed Right-of-Way
River Rd.

Commercial Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement

Residential Full Acquisition Acquisition
Residential Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement
4 of 6
Vacant Full Acquisition Property Boundary

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-5

 Figure 3.2-6: Land Acquisition and Relocations (ID 140 through 148 and 164 through 166)

148
146

142
144

164

166

140

700 South Commercial Full Acquisition Proposed Right-of-Way

River Rd.

Commercial Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement

Residential Full Acquisition Acquisition
Residential Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement
5 of 6
Vacant Full Acquisition Property Boundary

Figure 3.2-7: Land Acquisition and Relocations (ID 168)

900 East

1000 East

168

Proposed Detention 600 South

Basin (see Section 3.13,
Stormwater, Floodplains,
and Water Quality)

700 South Commercial Full Acquisition Proposed Right-of-Way

River Rd.

Commercial Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement

Residential Full Acquisition Acquisition
Residential Potential Full Acquisition Perpetual Easement
6 of 6
Vacant Full Acquisition Property Boundary

3-6 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

Table 3.2-1: Full Acquisition and Relocation of Properties
Project Washington County Total Acquisition Total Acquisition
Parcel ID Parcel ID Parcel Address Current Use (Acres) (Square Feet) Relocations
100 SG-5-2-31-1341 ~1030 South 400 East Commercial 1.6 71,100 0

104 SG-MPP-4 698 East 700 South Commercial 0.1 2,575 1

111 SG-MPP-8 770 East 700 South Commercial 0.2 7,710 1

120 SG-769-B-1 695 East 700 South Residential 0.2 8,715 1

138 SG-759 765 East 700 South Commercial 0.8 34,850 5

140 SG-756-A-1 675 South 800 East Residential 0.2 7,330 1

144 SG-755-B 850 East 600 South Vacant 0.2 7,405 0

168 SG-875-A-1-A 629 South 1000 East Vacant 0.6 27,130 0

Total 3.9 166,815 9

Table 3.2-2: Potential Full Acquisition and Relocation of Properties

Project Washington County Total Acquisition Total Acquisition
Parcel ID Parcel ID Parcel Address Current Use (Acres) (Square Feet) Relocations
110 SG-MPP-9 ~726 East 700 South Commercial 0.1 3,685 1

850 East 600 South,

148 SG-758-A Residential 0.1 3,515 4
Units 9-12

Total 0.2 7,200 5

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-7

Table 3.2-3: Partial Acquisition of Properties
Project Total Acquisition Total Acquisition
Parcel ID Washington County Parcel ID Parcel Address Current Use (Acres) (Square Feet)
102 SG-MP-1-A 633 South Lexington Drive Residential < 0.1 95

106 None 640 East 700 South Commercial 0.6 27,370

108 SG-MPP-5 706 East 700 South Commercial < 0.1 155

112 SG-772-A-1 621 East 700 South Residential < 0.1 370

114 None 639 East 700 South Residential < 0.1 1,245

116 SG-770 655 East 700 South Residential < 0.1 2,005

134 SG-760-A 735 East 700 South Residential 0.1 4,895

142 SG-756-A-1 675 South 800 East Residential 0.1 2,375

146 SG-758-A 850 East 600 South Vacant 0.1 5,560

150 SG-5-2-32-4410 736 South 900 East Commercial 0.2 7,190

152 SG-MOR-C-93-A 885 East Morningside Drive Residential < 0.1 125

154 SG-MOR-C-93-B 736 South 900 East Commercial < 0.1 240

156 None ~920 East 700 South Residential < 0.1 1,215

158 None ~940 East 700 South Residential < 0.1 910

160 SG-1385-B ~960 East 700 South Residential < 0.1 745

162 None ~980 East 700 South Residential < 0.1 35

164 SG-750-A-1 911 East 700 South Commercial 0.2 8,100

166 SG-748-A 965 East 700 South Commercial 0.2 7,070

Total 1.6 69,700

Table 3.2-4: Perpetual Easements

Project Total Acquisition Total Acquisition
Parcel ID Washington County Parcel ID Parcel Address Current Use (Acres) (Square Feet)
142 SG-756-A-1 675 South 800 East Residential < 0.1 3,135

146 S-758-A 850 East 600 South Vacant < 0.1 395

Total < 0.1 3,530

3-8 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

3.3 Land Use Table 3.3-1: Land Use in the Study Area
3.3.1 Introduction Percent of the Total
Acres i n the Acres in the Study
This section evaluates the conversion of existing land uses Land Use Study Area Area
to a transportation use and consistency of the Preferred
Residential 63.3 36.3
Alternative with the St. George General Plan.
Commercial 32.5 18.7
The Utah Geospatial Resource Center, the St. George City
interactive online map, aerial imagery, and a field visit on Public/Quasi-Public 3.5 2.0
June 22, 2022, provided data for this analysis. Vacant 2.6 1.5
3.3.2 Affected Environment
Transportation 72.4 41.5
The land use study area contains properties adjoining
Total 174.3
the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 3.3-1). Existing
land use is suburban: It is comprised primarily
Figure 3.3-1: Land Use Study Area
of low-density residential properties (i.e.,
single-family homes). Other land uses include 100 South
medium- and high-density residential (i.e.,
apartments), segregated commercial areas,
public and quasi-public gathering places (e.g.,
400 East

700 East

River Rd.
schools, churches, hospital, parks, recreational
facilities), vacant properties, and existing
transportation uses (see Table 3.3-1).

The St. George General Plan is the guiding

land use plan and policy document for St.
George City. The St. George General Plan
does not include specific goals or objectives 700 South
for the 700 South corridor; however, Chapter
6, Proposed Land Uses describes its land use
plan that determines how land will develop
900 East

into the future (St. George City 2002). Since 900 South
the adoption of the St. George General Plan, Study Area
the city created an interactive online map Residential
that shows its land use plan, including any Commercial
updates to it that have occurred between the Public
adoption of the St. George General Plan and Riverside Dr. Vacant
the publishing of the EA.

Future land use includes low-density residential,

medium-density residential, high-density residential,
commercial, and professional office uses. The location
of these future land uses mostly correlates with the
existing land uses shown in Figure 3.3-1 except where
the existing land use is vacant.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-9

3.3.3 Environmental Effects
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No-Action Alternative would not convert
existing land uses to a transportation use and future
development could proceed as planned.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT EFFECTS
The Preferred Alternative would require the partial or
full acquisition of properties adjoining the Preferred
Alternative (see Section 3.2, Land Acquisition and
Relocations). These acquisitions would convert existing
residential, commercial, and vacant land uses to a
transportation use (see Table 3.3-2). The Preferred
Alternative would not acquire properties designated as
public or quasi-public land uses.
Table 3.3-2: Conversion of Land Uses under the
Preferred Alternative
Acres Percent of the Total
Converted to Acres in the Study
Land Use Transportation
Residential 1.0
3.4 Transportation
3.4.1 Introduction
This section compares the traffic volume changes between
the No-Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative and
describes the effect the changes would have on the road
network shown on Figure 3.4-1 (see page 3-13).
The average daily traffic volumes presented in this
section are provided by the Dixie Metropolitan Planning
Organization (Dixie MPO) Travel Demand Model (CITILABS
CUBE Version 3). Computer simulation software programs
Synchro and Vissim provide intersection Level of Service
(LOS)—a method for measuring intersection performance—
with traffic volumes developed from the Travel Demand
Model. LOS measures the performance of an intersection
on a scale from A to F, with A representing the best
performance and F the worst. LOS E or F indicates the
intersection is not able to handle the number of vehicles
traveling through during a specific time of day. The LOS
presented in this analysis represents operations during the
Area PM peak, which is the highest volume of afternoon/evening
0.6 traffic for a continuous hour during a typical weekday.

Commercial 3.7 2.1 3.4.2 Affected Environment

Public/Quasi-Public 0.0 0.0
Vacant 0.9 0.5
Total 5.6 3.2
INDIRECT EFFECTS
The full acquisition of residential, commercial, and vacant
properties under the Preferred Alternative would provide
opportunities for future redevelopment (see Section 3.2,
Land Acquisition and Relocations). All remaining vacant
areas on these properties could redevelop consistent
with the St. George General Plan except for the residential
property at 695 East 700 South (project parcel ID 120).
The St. George General Plan designates the future land use
as medium-density residential (St. George City 2022a).
The remaining parcel would be too small to redevelop
as medium-density residential and, therefore, would not
be consistent with the St. George General Plan; however,
adjacent parcels could continue to be developed according
to adopted zoning and general plan designations.
3.3.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
The transportation study area generally follows St. George
Boulevard, River Road, Riverside Drive, and Bluff Street
(see Figure 3.4-1 on page 3-13). These roads create a loop
around downtown St. George City and are also major
routes to I-15. The street network is predominately a grid of
consistently spaced intersections that are 528 feet apart.
This consistent grid network, however, does not exist south
of 700 South and east of I-15 where the city blocks are
larger and major intersections are farther apart.
Figure 3.4-1 (see page 3-13) shows the major routes and
intersections that establish the baseline conditions for this
analysis. In the existing condition:
» St. George Boulevard (30,000 vehicles), River Road (up
to 36,000 vehicles), Bluff Street (up to 29,000 vehicles),
and 700 South (up to 25,000 vehicles) have the highest
average daily volumes because they either lead to I-15
or, in the case of 700 South, are one of two routes that
cross I-15 where an interchange does not exist.
» Average daily volumes on 700 South are the lowest near
Bluff Street (17,000 vehicles) and increase as the road
extends east to River Road (25,000 vehicles), indicating
the commercial land uses along River Road and St.
George Regional Hospital are major local trip generators.

3-10 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

» The intersection at St. George Boulevard and River Road is
the only intersection analyzed that currently fails (LOS F).
» The 700 South and River Road intersection and
the Riverside Drive and River Road intersection are
approaching failure (LOS D).
3.4.3 Environmental Effects
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
By the year 2050, average daily traffic volumes are
predicted to increase on all streets, except 900 East
where traffic volumes are predicted to remain the same
as the existing condition (see Figure 3.4-1 on page 3-13).
This increase is primarily attributed to the population
growth expected to occur in the region (see Section 1.6.1,
Population Growth and Development Context). The largest
increases would occur on roads leading to the existing I-15
interchanges at Bluff Street and St. George Boulevard; both
Bluff Street and River Road are predicted to increase by over
50 percent.
The following intersections are predicted to fail:
» St. George Boulevard and 1000 East.
» St. George Boulevard and River Road.
» 700 South and River Road.
» Riverside Drive and River Road.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Traffic volumes would decrease on 700 South between
Bluff Street and 400 East. Trips originating from central
downtown St. George City would no longer need to use
700 South (heading west) and Bluff Street (heading south)
to access I-15 but would use the more direct route to I-15 by
heading east on 700 South. Consequently, there would be
fewer vehicles in the vicinity of Dixie High School.
Traffic volumes are predicted to increase on Foremaster
Drive and 700 South (between River Road and 900 East)
and decrease on River Road (between Riverside Drive and
700 South). This traffic volume shift shows that drivers
from the communities south and east of downtown St.
George City are predicted to change their driving patterns
to access I-15. Instead of using River Road to access I-15 at
St. George Boulevard, drivers would take the shorter route
to I-15 via Foremaster Drive and 700 South. Although the
shift in traffic volumes benefits River Road, the intersection
at 700 South and River Road, like the No-Action
Alternative, is predicted to fail (LOS F).
3.4.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

The results of the No-Action Alternative indicate that

drivers from communities south and east of downtown St.
George City are primarily using River Road to access I-15.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative would have direct and indirect
effects on the local road network. Although traffic volumes
would increase on streets in the vicinity of the Preferred
Alternative, volumes would decrease on congested roads,
such as River Road. The LOS improvements at several
intersections shown on Figure 3.4-1 (see page 3-13) indicate
the Preferred Alternative would stabilize the road network
and better distribute traffic throughout downtown St.
George City.

DIRECT EFFECTS
The traffic volume on 900 East would double under the
Preferred Alternative because drivers are predicted to
use 900 East and 900 South (both residential streets) to
access I-15 to avoid the failing intersection at 700 South
and River Road.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-11

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
 Figure 3.4-1: 2021, No-Action Alternative (2050), Preferred Alternative (2050) Average Daily Traffic Volumes Percent Increase and Intersection Level of Service

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
60% 60% 60% 50% 60% 60% 60% 52% 60%
50% 43% 50% 50% 43% 50% 50% 50% 41% 50%
40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 36%
25% 25% 29%
30% 21% 30% 30% 30% 20% 30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 14% 14% 20% 20% 17% 20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Main Street 400 East 100 South St. George Blvd. 700 East River Rd. (700 South to St. George Blvd.) Foremaster Dr.
2021 Daily Volume: 14,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 3,500 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 14,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 30,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 8,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 27,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 14,000 Vehicles

St George Blvd

1000 East
Study Area
100% Utah
Tech Preferred Alternative Footprint
90% University

Main St.

400 East

700 East
80% 2021 TO 2050 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME PERCENT INCREASE
70%
r. No-Action Alternative
Blu

River Rd.
60% D
ff S

si de
t.

50% 41% 41% r Preferred Alternative

40%
St. George
Regional Rive
30% Hospital INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
20% 700 South Foremaster Dr. A-C E
10%
0% Dixie D F
High
Bluff St. (700 South to St. George Blvd.) School
900 South No-Action Alternative (2050)

900 East
2021 Daily Volume: 29,000 Vehicles
2021
Preferred Alternative (2050)

Riverside Dr.

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

90% 90% 90% 90% 83% 90% 90% 90%
80% 80% 80% 80% 75% 80% 80% 80%
70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
59% 56%
60% 55% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 53%
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 44%
41%
40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 36% 40%
29%
30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 10%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Bluff St. (I-15 to 700 South) 700 South (Bluff St. to 400 East) 700 South (400 East to 900 East) Riverside Dr. 900 East 700 South (900 East to River Rd.) River Rd. (Riverside Dr. to 700 South)
2021 Daily Volume: 22,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 17,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 22,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 12,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 4,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 25,000 Vehicles 2021 Daily Volume: 36,000 Vehicles

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-13

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
3.5 Social Environment
3.5.1 Introduction
This section describes the social environment and the
potential for the No-Action Alternative and Preferred
Alternative to affect community character, public and
quasi-public places, public safety, and travel patterns
and accessibility.
Public comments express concern that the Preferred
Alternative would increase neighborhood crime rates.
Representatives of the St. George Police Department are
members of the Community Coordination Team (CCT).
In a CCT meeting on June 28, 2022, both representatives
gave the opinion that the Preferred Alternative would not
increase crime rates. This determination was followed
by a literature review to identify studies that discuss the
relationship between the construction of a new interchange
and its impact on crime rates; no studies were found.
3.5.2 Affected Environment
Community Character
Since it was settled in 1861, St. George City has been the
cultural and population center of Washington County.
Throughout most of the city’s history, the downtown
has been the focal point of the community, including
700 South and its surrounding neighborhoods. Existing
established neighborhoods include Morningside Park,
Colony Park, and Shadowbrook.
The considerable population growth since the 1970s,
the construction of I-15, and the increase in vehicular
traffic on 700 South have led to these roadways acting
as physical barriers in downtown (see Figure 3.5-1). One
example of how the community and its government view
these roads as barriers is the use of I-15 and 700 South as
elementary school boundaries (see Figure 3.5-1).

The Utah Geospatial Resource Center, the Washington

County School District, aerial imagery, and a field
visit on June 22, 2022, provided data for this social
environment analysis.

Figure 3.5-1: Social Environment Study Area and Public and Quasi-Public Places

Dixie 100 South

Sun Bowl
St. George
Vernon Recreaction Center College
Worthen Utah Tech Park
River Rd.
Main St.

400 East

Park University
700 East

Desert Ridge
Church Red Cliffs
Blu

St. George The Church of Jesus Jehovah

ff S

Temple Christ of Latter-day Witnesses

t.

Saints Congregation
St. George
Regional
Hospital
1100 E Park
700 South Foremaster Dr.
Dixie High St. George
St. George Medical
Municipal Pool School The Church of
Park Study Area
Jesus Christ of
900 East

Dixie Middle Latter-day Preferred

School Saints Alternative Footprint
900 South
Park
J.C. Snow Recreation Area
Park
Heritage
Cox Park
Place of Worship
Elementary
School Medical Facility
School
Riverside Dr.
Elementary School
Boundary

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-15

Public and Quasi-Public Places
The social environment study area boundary is large
enough to identify public and quasi-public places that
could be affected by the Preferred Alternative’s change in
access (see Figure 3.5-1 on page 3-15). Public and quasi-
public places in the study area include medical facilities,
schools, places of worship, libraries, parks, and other
recreational facilities. Access to these places contributes
to community character and facilitates social interactions.
Public Safety
The social environment study area includes the St. George
Regional Hospital and the St. George Medical Park (see
Figure 3.5-1 on page 3-15). Neither fire departments nor
police departments exist in the study area; the nearest
fire department is the St. George Fire Station 1 at 51 South
1000 East, and the nearest police department is at 265
North 200 East.
By the year 2050, average daily traffic volumes are
predicted to increase on all streets, except 900 East
where traffic volumes are predicted to remain the same
as the existing condition. With the increase in traffic, the
intersection at 700 South and River Road is predicted to fail,
along with other key intersections, which would reduce 700
South’s effectiveness as an east-west connector. Average
travel times for vehicles on 700 South (between 600 East
and River Road; see Table 3.5-1) and on I-15 (from the north
and south; see Table 3.5-2) would increase compared to the
existing condition, which could delay emergency vehicle
response times.
Table 3.5-1: Average Travel Times on 700 South between
600 East and River Road
Average Travel
Time (Minutes) Change (Minutes)
Existing (2021) 1.8 N/A

I-15 serves as a main route for emergency vehicles from No-Action Alternative 3.1 + 1.3
the broader region to access St. George Regional Hospital,
Preferred Alternative 2.9 + 1.1
with freeway interchanges at St. George Boulevard and
Bluff Street, acting as critical access points for emergency
vehicles traveling on these roadways. Local emergency Table 3.5-2: Regional Travel Time via I-15
routes to St. George Regional Hospital that cross I-15 Average Travel
Time (Minutes) Change (Minutes)
(without an interchange) include 700 South and 100 South.
Existing (2021) 5.6 N/A
Travel Patterns and Accessibility
I-15 serves as a regional connector for drivers to access No-Action Alternative 6.6 + 1.0
major regional destinations in the social environment
Preferred Alternative 5.3 - 0.3
study area, with 700 South serving as a necessary east-
west local connector between River Road and Bluff Street.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The nearest local roadway performing the same function
DIRECT EFFECTS
is approximately a mile away at 100 South.
Community Character
3.5.3 Environmental Effects Improvements under the Preferred Alternative would add
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE new interchange on- and off-ramps and widen 700 South;
The No-Action Alternative would not affect community however, these improvements would not divide existing
character, and no public and quasi-public places would neighborhoods.
be acquired.
Public and Quasi-Public Places
Average travel times on 700 South between 600 East The Preferred Alternative would not remove or restrict
and River Road would increase compared to existing access to public and quasi-public places because they do
conditions (see Table 3.5-1). The increased congestion not adjoin the proposed improvements.
on 700 South could make it more difficult for drivers to
Public Safety
enter or leave residential neighborhoods or access public
As described in Section 3.4, Transportation, traffic
and quasi-public places or commercial areas, thus limiting
volumes would increase on some streets in the vicinity
their ability to travel during peak hours.
of the Preferred Alternative but would decrease on

3-16 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

congested roads, such as River Road. The decrease
on River Road would have a beneficial effect on local
emergency response times to St. George Regional
Hospital. On 700 South, the Preferred Alternative would
increase travel time over the existing condition less
than the No-Action Alternative, and thus would benefit
emergency response times.

Travel Patterns and Accessibility

Average travel times on 700 South between 600 East
and River Road would increase compared to existing
conditions but would decrease compared to the No-Action
Alternative (see Table 3.5-1 on page 3-16). Similar to the
No-Action Alternative, increased congestion on 700 South,
east of I-15, could make it more difficult for drivers to enter
or leave residential neighborhoods or access public and
quasi-public places or commercial areas, thus limiting their
ability to travel during peak hours.

INDIRECT EFFECTS
Community Character
Indirect effects would not affect community character
under the Preferred Alternative.

Public and Quasi-Public Places

Regional travelers would benefit from the more direct
access to public and quasi-public places provided by the
new interchange at 700 South. Although this would provide
convenience for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists who need
to cross I-15 could find it more difficult to access these places
due to additional crossings at the I-15 on- and off-ramps and
the widened crossing distances on 700 South.

Public Safety
The more direct access from locations north and south
of downtown St. George City to St. George Regional
Hospital via I-15 would reduce emergency response times
(see Table 3.5-2 on page 3-16). An interchange at 700
South would provide emergency responders with another
location to access I-15 to avoid the congestion at St.
George Boulevard and River Road.

Travel Patterns and Accessibility

The new interchange on 700 South would make it more
convenient for regional travelers using I-15 to access
locations in the social environment study area.

3.5.4 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation is required.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-17

3.6 Cyclists and Pedestrians
3.6.1 Introduction
Cyclists and pedestrians require defined paths such
as sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use trails for safe
travel. UDOT’s policy, Inclusion of Active Transportation
UDOT 07-117, requires that all active transportation users,
including pedestrians and bicyclists, be considered in the
planning, design, construction, and all other elements of
UDOT transportation facilities. This section addresses the
cyclist and pedestrian improvements proposed with the
Preferred Alternative and the effects these may have on
connectivity to existing and planned routes, and cyclist
and pedestrian safety and comfort.
Current and planned facilities were identified through
aerial imagery, field visits, and consultation with the Dixie
MPO Regional Active Transportation Plan and the St.
George Active Transportation Plan. The origin-destination
function in Streetlight Data, an analytics platform that
uses mobile data, provided data used to estimate the
daily average number of cyclists and pedestrians who use
700 South to cross under I-15.
Figure 3.6-1: Existing and Planned Active Transportation Routes
400 East
400 South
600 South
Dixie
High
School
Dixie
Middle
School
PLANNED 400 EAST
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
Source: Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization 2019, St. George City 2017
3-18
3.6.2 Affected Environment
The cyclists and pedestrians study area extends beyond
the direct limits of the Preferred Alternative to allow for
a greater understanding of nearby active transportation
routes and existing connectivity in the vicinity of the
Preferred Alternative (see Figure 3.6-1).
Existing Active Transportation Facilities
Sidewalks (without park strip buffers) are the only
pedestrian facilities along 700 South. The closest bike
lanes are on 600 South, a parallel route one block north
of 700 South. All signalized intersections along 700
South, and three non-signalized intersections at 100 East,
200 East, and 300 East have crosswalks. The crossings
at non-signalized intersections lack pedestrian crossing
protection devices (such as crossing beacons). The only
pedestrian crossing of I-15, other than at 700 South, is the
pedestrian tunnel at 400 South (see Figure 3.6-1).
Planned Active Transportation Facilities
The Dixie MPO Regional Active Transportation Plan and
the St. George Active Transportation Plan identify planned
EXISTING 400 SOUTH
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
9000 East
700 East
River Rd.
700 South
Study Area
900 South
Preferred Alternative Footprint
Planned Buffered Bike Lane
Planned Bike Lane
Planned Sidepath/Shared-use Path
Planned Shared Roadway
Existing Sidepath/Shared-use Path
Existing Bike Lane
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
improvements in the cyclists and pedestrians study area. southwest quadrant, it has the fewest households among
A goal of St. George City is to improve the quality of life the quadrants, thereby reflecting the lowest cyclist and
for all by providing greater access to active transportation pedestrian counts.
routes (St. George City 2017). The planned improvements
Safe Routes to Schools
work toward this goal by providing better active
Heritage Elementary School is the only school that has
transportation connectivity across I-15 and to existing
designated safe routes, none of which cross or use 700
shared-use paths. Specifically, improvements include
South (Safe Routes Utah 2023). A Washington County
adding bike lanes and a shared-use path along 700 South
School District representative confirmed on January 11, 2023,
(see Figure 3.6-1 on page 3-18).
that Legacy Elementary School has not adopted a Safe
Cyclist and Pedestrian Traffic Routes to School plan (Bess 2023). However, there are three
Figure 3.6-2 shows the number of cyclists and pedestrians “zebra” crosswalks at 300 East and 400 East, indicating
who use 700 South to cross I-15 from four quadrants these are designated crossings for students.
intersecting the cyclists and pedestrians study area. The
quadrants are based on residential areas where cyclists
and pedestrians are likely to cross I-15 at 700 South.
The data reveals most of the cyclist and pedestrian
traffic originates north of 700 South consistent with
higher population density from residences and Utah
Tech University student enrollment. Although Dixie
High School and Dixie Middle School are located in the

Figure 3.6-2: Estimated Daily Cyclist and Pedestrian Traffic

St George Blvd
400 East

700 East
Main St.

PEDESTRIANS BY QUADRANT
Utah
Tech
University
299
Blu
ff S

St. George
t.

62 Regional
188 1,776 Hospital
150 590
700 South
Dixie High
School
900 East

CYCLISTS BY QUADRANT Dixie Middle

River Rd.

School 573
1,125
121 Heritage Riverside Dr.
94 Elementary
School

38
95
Study Area
Households
Per Quadrant

This figure shows how many cyclists and pedestrians use 700 South to cross I-15 daily from four quadrants intersecting
the cyclists and pedestrians study area.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-19

3.6.3 Environmental Effects
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-Action Alternative, the existing bicycle and
pedestrian routes and distances to cross 700 South would
remain the same (see Table 3.6-1). The Dixie MPO and St.
George City would carry out their plans for further active
transportation routes.
As described in Section 3.4, Transportation, average
daily traffic volumes would increase on 700 South. The
Highway Safety Manual 1st Addition indicates there is
a correlation between traffic volumes and pedestrian
safety (AASHTO 2010): As traffic volumes increase, the
likelihood of vehicle-pedestrian collisions also increases.
Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would diminish
pedestrian safety along 700 South.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT EFFECTS
The on- and off-ramps of the Preferred Alternative would
introduce eight new vehicle conflicts with cyclists and
pedestrians. The Preferred Alternative would implement
a shared-use path and additional cyclist and pedestrian
safety features described Section 3.6.4 to navigate the
new conflict points.
The Preferred Alternative incorporates a 12-foot-wide
shared-use path on the north side of 700 South that begins
at 800 East and extends east through the interchange to
1000 East to be consistent with the Dixie MPO Regional
Active Transportation Plan and the St. George Active
Transportation Plan. This shared-use path provides a safer
option for cyclists to travel through the interchange by
separating them from the vehicle travel lanes. UDOT chose
to place the shared-use path on the north side because:
» It gives cyclists the quickest access to 600 South (one
block to the north) and its existing bike lanes, which
St. George City designated as the primary bike route
instead of 700 South.
» The data shown on Figure 3.6-2 indicates the north side
of 700 South is more heavily traveled by cyclists.
Table 3.6-1: 700 South Crossing Distance and Time Comparison
Distance to Cross 700 South
Intersection with Existing Proposed
700 South (Feet) (Feet)
700 East 60 98
900 East 68 108
3-20
The Preferred Alternative would widen 700 South
between 600 East and 100 East to accommodate
additional through lanes and left-turn lanes, which would
increase the crossing distance at 700 East and 900 East
(see Table 3.6-1). The distance to cross 700 South would
increase up to 40 feet (approximate), which means it
would take the average person walking at 2.5 miles per
hour up to 11 seconds (or 69 percent) longer to cross.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Beyond 600 East and 1000 East, the existing sidewalks
would remain in place and connect to the new sidewalks
and a shared-use path proposed under the Preferred
Alternative. The crossing distance at all designated
crosswalks at 100 East, 300 East, 400 East, and River
Road would not be affected.
As described in Section 3.4, Transportation, daily traffic
volumes on 700 South between Bluff Street and 900
East would decrease or remain the same compared to the
No-Action Alternative. Therefore, the likelihood of vehicle-
pedestrian collisions would be similar. However, between
900 East and River Road daily traffic volumes, and
consequently the likelihood of vehicle-pedestrian collisions,
would increase, compared to the No-Action Alternative.
3.6.4 Mitigation Measures
To enhance cyclist and pedestrian safety on 700 South,
the following design features shall be implemented if the
Preferred Alternative is constructed:
» Traffic signals at all ramps as proposed in Section 2.5.5,
Description of the Preferred Alternative for the Proposed
Action, to protect cyclists and pedestrians traveling
through the interchange when the pedestrian button is
activated.
» Four-foot-wide park strip between the sidewalk and
shoulder on the south side of 700 South to increase the
buffer between vehicles and pedestrians.
» Signal timing adjustments at 700 East and 900 East to
give pedestrians enough time to cross 700 South.
Time to Cross 700 South
Increase Existing Proposed Increase Percent
(Feet) (Seconds) (Seconds) (Seconds) Increase
38 16 27 11 63
40 19 29 10 59
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
3.7 Economic Conditions
3.7.1 Introduction
This section describes the local economic context and the
effects on the local economy. The Utah Geospatial Resource
Center, the Washington County Assessor’s office, and aerial
imagery provided data for this analysis.
3.7.2 Affected Environment
The economic conditions study area boundary is the
same as described in Section 3.3, Land Use (see Figure
3.3-1 on page 3-9). Commercial properties occupy all four
corners of 700 South where I-15 crosses over the street.
These commercial properties include restaurants, a gas
station, retail stores, storage units, and professional and
medical offices (see Figure 3.7-1). The largest of these,
Morningside Professional Plaza, is a 6.1-acre property with
11 commercial buildings.
Drivers access commercial properties on 700 South
using signalized intersections at 700 East and 900 East,
and non-signalized driveways at all other locations. All
turning movements are currently allowed into and out
of all commercial properties. Patrons and employees of
commercial properties adjacent to 700 South use the
surface parking provided by those properties.
Figure 3.7-1: Economic Conditions Study Area and Commercial Properties at I-15 and 700 South
100 South
600 South
Main Street
700 East
800 East
700 South
Cmart
Riverside Dr. Strip Gas
Mall Station
Morningside
Professional Plaza
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
Beyond the economic conditions study area, the St.
George Metropolitan Statistical Area has approximately
84,000 jobs and 7,000 businesses (St. George Area
Chamber of Commerce 2023).
Major employers near the economic conditions study
area include:
» Intermountain Healthcare (4,000 to 4,999 employees).
»W  ashington County School District (3,000 to 3,999
employees).
»U  tah Tech University (1,000 to 1,999 employees).
»S  t. George City (1,000 to 1,999 employees).
»S  kyWest Airlines (500 to 999 employees).
»H  armons (250 to 499 employees).
(Utah Department of Workforce Services 2022)
St. George City relies on property and sales tax as reliable
revenue sources to fund essential services, with property
and sales tax revenue accounting for a significant
percentage of the its annual budget (see Table 3.7-1 see
page 3-22). The remaining revenue sources consist of
licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenue, charges
for services, fines and forfeitures, and other revenues.
1100 East
Morningside
Storage
The 700 South
Building
700 South
900 East
St. George
Medical Park
Study Area
Commercial
Property
3-21
Table 3.7-1: 2022-2023 City Sales and Property Tax Revenue UDOT collected property tax information from the
Revenue Source St. George City Washington County Assessor’s Office for each of the
properties that would be acquired under the Preferred
Sales Tax $32,000,000
Alternative (Washington County 2022). The amount of
Property Tax $11,700,000 potential property tax revenue lost in St. George City
would be approximately $29,728 or 0.002 percent of the
Subtotal $43,700,000
total collected.
Total City Budget $101,759,854
It is anticipated that, if displaced, business tenants could
Percent of City Budget 43 relocate to new locations in St. George City; therefore,
Source: St. George City 2022b long-term sales tax revenue losses are not anticipated. It
is possible, however, for St. George City to lose revenue if
3.7.3 Environmental Effects
displaced businesses relocate to another city.
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Existing commercial activities and trends along 700 Any potential reduction in property tax revenue that would
South would continue under the No-Action Alternative. occur because of the full acquisitions under the Preferred
Worsening congestion on 700 South could decrease Alternative would be offset either by new growth or the
patronage to commercial properties along 700 South; certified tax rate. The certified tax rate is a calculation used
similarly, congestion at the St. George Boulevard and Bluff by local governments in Utah to determine the tax rate
Street interchanges would worsen, which could also lead needed to generate enough revenue to fund their budgets
to decreased patronage at commercial properties around for the year. The calculation involves dividing the total
these interchanges. budget for the year by the taxable assessed value of the
property in the area. The certified tax rate allows St. George
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE City to retain its current property tax revenues.
DIRECT EFFECTS
The Preferred Alternative would require the full
acquisition and relocation of four commercial properties
(see also Section 3.2, Land Acquisition and Relocations),
the potential full acquisition of one commercial property,
and the partial acquisition of six commercial properties
(see Table 3.7-2 on page 3-23).

Unsignalized left turns would be restricted into and out

of all remaining commercial properties on 700 South in
the economic conditions study area, which could reduce
patronage and revenue to commercial properties that would
remain on 700 South in the economic conditions study area.

The Preferred Alternative would not directly affect the

major employers near the economic conditions study area.

Under the Preferred Alternative, two full residential

acquisitions and one potential residential acquisition
are anticipated and would require relocation. Residents
would be relocated in the city limits; therefore, negative
impacts to the overall tax base from residential
relocations are not anticipated.

3-22 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

Table 3.7-2: Commercial Property Acquisition and Direct Effects
Business Address / Project Parcel ID Direct Effects
Full Acquisition and Relocation
Camping World Vacant ~1030 South 400 East / » Full acquisition of undeveloped lot used to store excess
Property 100 recreational vehicles.
Little Caesars Pizza 698 East 700 South / 104 » Relocation of one restaurant.
Heritage Home & Garden 770 East 700 South / 111 » Relocation of one retailer.
Strip Mall and Gas » Relocation of one restaurant, one gas station (Cmart), and
765 East 700 South / 138
Station three retailers.
Potential Full Acquisition and Relocation
Commercial Storage
~726 East 700 South / 110 » Full acquisition of commercial storage building.
Building
Partial Acquisition
» Removal of 33 out of 289 parking stalls. This would reduce
Morningside the total parking to 98 percent of the number of stalls
640 East 700 South / 106
Professional Plaza required by the St. George City Zoning Ordinance (St.
George City 2019). See also Indirect Effects below.
Honolulu Grill 706 East 700 South / 108 » Removal of landscaping fronting 700 South.
St. George Medical Park 736 South 900 East / 150 »R
 emoval of landscaping fronting 700 South and 900 East.
» Relocation of access gate approximately 30 feet north
from its current location.
»R emoval of 31 out of 346 storage units (9 percent) and 1
Morningside Storage 911 East 700 South / 164
office space to accommodate new access and maintain site
circulation, which could result in a commensurate loss of
revenue (assuming all impacted units are occupied).
» Removal of 23 out of 151 parking stalls. This would reduce
the total parking to 82 percent of the number of stalls
The 700 South Building 965 East 700 South / 166
required by the St. George City Zoning Ordinance. See
also Indirect Effects below.

INDIRECT EFFECTS
Under the Preferred Alternative, a new interchange with
northbound and southbound on-and-off ramps would
provide direct access to 700 South for drivers on I-15.
This access could potentially allow for new highway-
dependent development and/or redevelopment of
commercial properties on 700 South adjacent to I-15.
Furthermore, major employers near the economic study
area would benefit economically from increased exposure
and improved access to and from I-15.
thereby potentially reducing the private revenue for the
property owner and tax revenue for St. George City. The
removal of parking stalls at Morningside Professional
Plaza is unlikely to reduce the number of tenants and
patrons, however, because this property currently has a
parking surplus according to St. George City’s off-street
parking requirements.
3.7.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

The loss of parking stalls at the 700 South Building could

reduce the number or types of tenants and patrons in
the building because there may not be enough parking
to support the needs of existing and future tenants,

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-23

3.8 Traffic Noise doubling the amount of traffic on a highway, would generally
3.8.1 Introduction be perceived as barely detectable.

A noise assessment was prepared in accordance with Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted noise level
federal regulations (23 CFR 772) and UDOT’s Noise in the design year (2050) approaches or exceeds the
Abatement Policy 08A2-01 (UDOT 2020). 23 CFR 772 Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), or a predicted noise level
provides procedures for preparing noise studies and substantially exceeds the existing noise level (an increase
evaluating noise abatement for federal and federal- of 10 dBA). As listed in Table 3.8-1 (see page 3-25), the NAC
aid highway projects. Per 23 CFR 772.7, projects are represent noise levels that, when approached or exceeded,
categorized as Type I, Type II, or Type III. require consideration of noise abatement. The NAC applies
to areas having regular human use and where lowered
FHWA defines a Type I project as construction of a
noise levels would be a benefit.
highway on a new location or significant changes
to the horizontal or vertical alignment of an existing Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.5 is a modeling software
highway. The Preferred Alternative proposed in this EA is developed by the FHWA used in this study to calculate existing
considered to be a Type I project. traffic-generated noise and worst-case future noise conditions.
TNM predicts noise levels for the time of day when the number
The full results of this analysis are included in the Traffic
of vehicles, traveling speed, and percentage of heavy trucks
Noise Report in Appendix A, Reports and Clearances.
combine to create the worst (i.e., loudest) traffic noise hour.
3.8.2 How Noise Works
TNM uses receivers, which are representative locations of
Noise is reported in decibel (dB) units. A dB is a noise-sensitive areas (receptors) (see Table 3.8-1 on page
logarithmic unit used to measure sound pressure levels. 3-25) to predict noise levels. Receivers may represent
Because decibels are logarithmic, the sound pressure one or more receptors based on their proximity to the
cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary Preferred Alternative.
arithmetic (e.g., 1+1=2). Under the decibel scale, a doubling
of sound energy corresponds to a three-decibel increase.
Figure 3.8-1: Typical A-Weighed Noise Levels
In other words, when two identical sources are each
producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting 140
sound level at a given distance would be three decibels Air Raid Siren
130
higher than one source under the same conditions. For Jet Takeoff (200')Earphones at
Loud Level 120 Maximum
example, if one vehicle produces 70 decibels when it vocal effort
Car Horn (3') Boom Stereo
in Car 110
passes an observer, two vehicles passing simultaneously
Rock Music
would produce 73 decibels instead of 140 decibels. 100
Permanent
Heavy Truck (50') Chain Saw damage begins
after 8 hours
The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize 90
City Bus (50') Lawn
how humans perceive noise, because sound is composed of Train (50') Mower 80 Annoying
various frequencies, and the human ear does not respond to Freeway traffic (50') Average
Factory
70 Intrusive
all frequencies. Frequencies not detectable by the human ear Vacuum
Cleaner
must be filtered when measuring highway noise levels. Studies Light traffic (50') 60
Normal
have shown that the A-scale best approximates the frequency Conversation
50 Quiet
response of the human ear. Therefore, highway sound levels Light traffic (100') Rainfall
40
are reported in an A-weighted decibel or dBA. Figure 3.8-1 Quiet Room
illustrates the typical dBA for various noise sources. 30 Very quiet
Quiet Rural Area
20
Although a 3-dB increase corresponds to a doubling of Whisper
sound energy, this change is barely perceptible to the human Normal 10
Breathing
ear. In general, a 5-dB change is distinctly noticeable, and a 0
10-dB change is perceived as doubling the sound. Therefore,
Source: Federal Highway Administration 1980
a doubling of sound energy (i.e., 3-dB increase), such as by
3-24 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
Table 3.8-1: Noise Abatement Criteria
Activity FHWA Criteria UDOT Criteria
Category Leq(h) 1 Leq(h)2 Description of Activity
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve
57 56
A an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is
(Exterior) (Exterior)
essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
67 66
B Residential
(Exterior) (Exterior)
Active sports areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries,
daycare centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places
67 66
C of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional
(Exterior) (Exterior)
structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites,
schools, television studios, trails and trail crossings.
Auditoriums, daycare centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of
52 51
D worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio
(Interior) (Interior)
studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios.
72 71 Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars and other developed lands, properties
E
(Exterior) (Exterior) or activities not included in A–D or F.
Agricultural, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging,
F — — maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards,
utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing.
G — — Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
Source: UDOT 2020
Notes: 1Leq Hourly dBA means the average sound level over one hour.
2
Hourly dBA that is less than 1 dBA of the values required by FHWA in 23 CFR 772.

3.8.3 Affected Environment levels. The TNM is only valid when predicted noise levels are
The noise study area includes all noise-sensitive land uses within three dBA of the measured noise levels. Comparing
that could be affected by the Preferred Alternative. Noise- field measured noise levels and TNM predicted noise levels
sensitive land uses include: indicates that TNM 2.5 is reasonably accurate at predicting
» Multi- and single-family residences. traffic-generated noise levels (see Table 3.8-2).
» J.C. Snow Park. Table 3.8-2: Measured and Predicted Noise Level Comparison
» Two sports fields: Bruce Hurst Field, and Karl Brooks Field. Field
» Two daycare facilities: Home Away from Home St. Measurement Field Measured Noise TNM Predicted Noise
Site Level dBA Level dBA Difference
George, and A Child’s World.
» One house of worship: The Church of Jesus Christ of 1 70.1 69.6 0.5
Latter-day Saints. 2 70.0 70.0 0.0
» Two medical facilities: St. George Medical Park, and 3 58.9 58.0 0.9
Kidney and Hypertension Center.
4 66.9 67.9 -1.0
The existing noise environment is based on traffic noise 5 69.6 68.2 1.4
modeling (noise measurements are used to validate the 6 64.4 66.5 -2.1
TNM). A series of field measurements were taken at eight
7 67.7 66.0 1.7
different locations on June 21 and June 22, 2022. The
measurements from these locations were used to validate 8 63.3 61.0 2.3
the use of TNM 2.5 to predict existing and future noise

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-25

The noise study area includes 706 noise receivers »C
 ost less than $30,000 per benefited receptor for NAC
representing 1,483 receptors. Existing outdoor noise levels Category B receptors or $360 per linear foot for NAC
range from 49 dBA to 78 dBA. Categories A, C, D, or E receptors.

3.8.4 Environmental Effects
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No-Action Alternative would add a travel lane in each
direction on I-15, which would increase future noise levels
over the existing conditions and warrant mitigation (i.e.,
noise barriers) as disclosed in the I-15, MP 0 to 16 Finding
of No Significant Impact & Environmental Assessment
dated January 2013. According to 40 CFR 1501.12, these
finding are incorporated in this EA by reference.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT EFFECTS
Under the Preferred Alternative, 238 receivers representing
636 receptors would exceed the NAC.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects would not occur under the Preferred
Alternative.
Table 3.8-3 summarizes the results for four noise
barriers evaluated along I-15. Noise barriers 1 through 4
are feasible and reasonable and are recommended for
balloting. Figure 3.8-2 (see page 3-27) shows the location
of each barrier that is recommended for balloting.
Noise abatement measures analyzed and deemed feasible
and reasonable in the environmental study phase are
still subject to final design and balloting. UDOT follows
the balloting process to determine if property owners
and tenants are in favor of proposed noise abatement
measures. The final decision to construct a noise barrier
will not be made until completion of the project design
when refined utility relocation and right-of-way costs are
available. Reasonableness will be revisited using refined
costs prior to balloting.

3.8.5 Mitigation Measures

If a noise impact is identified, specific conditions must be
met before traffic noise abatement (i.e., noise barriers)
would be implemented. For noise abatement to be
considered feasible and reasonable, it must:
» Provide a 5-dBA traffic noise reduction for at least 50
percent of front-row receptors;
» Meet UDOT’s noise reduction design goal of at least a
7-dBA traffic noise reduction or greater for at least 35
percent of front-row receptors; and

Table 3.8-3: Summary of Noise Abatement Measures

Feasible Reasonable
Front-Row
Receptors
Noise Barrier Benefited Front- Receiving 7-dBA Feasible and
Impacted Noise Barrier Height Row Receptors Reduction Cost Per Benefited Reasonable
Barrier Receptors Length (Feet) (Feet) (Percent) (Percent) Receptor (Yes / No)
1 170 3,906 181 56 55 $6,891 Yes
2 99 4,250 18 1
78 78 $10,262 Yes
3 181 3,376 20 93 81 $6,017 Yes
4 125 2,888 181 100 81 $3,582 Yes
Notes: 1The reported height represents the average height of the noise barrier. Refer to the Traffic Noise Report in
Appendix A, Reports and Clearances, for the specific heights of each noise barrier segment, as they may vary.

3-26 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 Figure 3.8-2: Recommended Noise Barriers
100 South
BARRIER 3
20 Feet Tall
400 East
700 East
BARRIER 4
18 Feet Tall
(Average)
700 South
BARRIER 1
18 Feet Tall
(Average)
900 East
900 South
BARRIER 2
Study Area
18 Feet Tall
Barrier Recommended
(Average)
for Balloting
Riverside Dr.
3.9 Air Quality
3.9.1 Introduction
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 regulate air quality throughout
the United States (42 USC 7401 et seq.). To evaluate the
effects the Preferred Alternative may have on compliance
with the CAA and CAAA, UDOT conducted an air quality
evaluation, with the full results of this analysis included in the
Air Quality Summary in Appendix A, Reports and Clearances.
3.9.2 Affected Environment
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Areas in which air quality meets (i.e., is below) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) standards for
a given pollutant are considered “in attainment” for
that pollutant. Areas exceeding these standards (i.e.,
are above) are “nonattainment” areas. A “maintenance”
area was previously a nonattainment area and has
subsequently been redesignated as an attainment area.
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ)
Division of Air Quality operates a network of air quality
monitoring stations throughout Washington County that
monitor air pollution levels for the six NAAQS criteria
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), particulate
matter (PM), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
lead (Pb), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Washington
County is currently in attainment for all NAAQS
criteria pollutants.
River Rd.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
In addition to NAAQS, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulates air toxics.
Most air toxics originate from human-made
sources, including on-road mobile sources,
non-road mobile sources (e.g., locomotives,
construction equipment, and airplanes)
and stationary sources (e.g., factories or
refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)
are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by
the CAA. MSAT are compounds emitted from
highway vehicles and non-road equipment.
Greenhouse Gases
Global climate change is an important
national and global concern that the federal
government is addressing in several ways. The
transportation sector is the second-largest
source of total greenhouse gases (GHG) in
the United States and the largest source of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions, which is the predominant GHG.
In 2018, the transportation sector was responsible for 27
percent of all CO2 emissions produced in the United States
(EPA 2022a). The human-made source of carbon emissions
is the combustion of fossil fuels, which account for about
80 percent of human-made emissions of carbon worldwide.
Almost all of transportation related GHG emissions result
from the consumption of petroleum products such as
gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and other residual fuels.
3.9.3 Environmental Effects
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Vehicle emission rates would improve due to increasingly
stringent EPA vehicle emissions regulations, which would
help improve air quality in the air quality study area.
The No-Action Alternative would have a slight increase
in per-vehicle emissions due to continuing congestion
and delays in the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative;
however, anticipated improvements in overall air quality
would likely outweigh these increases.
3-27
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3.10 Environmental Justice Populations
DIRECT EFFECTS 3.10.1 Introduction
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
The Preferred Alternative would not result in new
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
violations of the NAAQS.
Income Populations, directs federal agencies to take
Mobile Source Air Toxics appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address
With highway improvement projects, the localized level disproportionately high and adverse effects from federal
of MSAT emissions for the Preferred Alternative could be projects on the health or environment of minority and
higher relative to the No-Action Alternative, but there are low-income populations to the greatest extent possible
also offsets due to increases in speed and reductions in and permitted by law (Executive Order 1994). According
congestion which are associated with lower MSAT emissions. to FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Greenhouse Gases Income Populations, these social groups are defined as
GHG emissions would be slightly higher under the the following (FHWA 2012):
Preferred Alternative compared to the No-Action » Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial
Alternative (see Table 3.9-1). groups of Africa.
Table 3.9-1: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled and Fuel » Hispanic: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
Consumption Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or
origin, regardless of race.
No-Action Preferred Change
Alternative Alternative (Percent) » Asian American: A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the
Daily VMT 684,000 708,000 3.5
Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands.
Daily Fuel » American Indian or Alaskan Native: A person having
Consumption 13,959 14,449 3.5 origins in any of the original people of North America
(Gallons) and who maintains cultural identification through tribal
affiliation or community recognition.
» Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person
Following CEQ interim guidance on providing context for having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii,
GHG emissions, UDOT estimated that the social cost (i.e., Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
the economic cost associated with the environmental and » Low-Income: A person whose household income is at
social damage caused by emitting one ton of GHG emissions or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human
into the atmosphere) of GHG emissions under the Preferred Services poverty guidelines.
Alternatives would be $15,933 per ton of CO2 in 2050,
compared to $15,393 per ton for the No-Action Alternative. This section addresses the effects the No-Action
This would represent an increase of $540 per ton. Alternative and Preferred Alternative would have on
environmental justice populations.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Vehicle emission rates would continue to improve due to The U.S. Census Bureau, specifically the 2021 American
increasingly stringent EPA regulations regarding vehicle Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, the U.S.
emissions, which would help improve air quality. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Resource Locator online map, and aerial imagery
On a regional basis, EPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations, provided data for this analysis.
coupled with fleet turnover, would result in reductions
that over time and in almost all cases would cause region- 3.10.2 Affected Environment
wide MSAT level to be substantially lower than today. The environmental justice study area boundary contains
the U.S. Census block groups intersecting the Preferred
3.9.4 Mitigation Measures
Alternative (see Figure 3.10-1 on page 3-29).
No mitigation is required.

3-28 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

To identify areas of concern for environmental Figure 3.10-1: Environmental Justice Study Area
justice populations, Census block groups
intersecting the Preferred Alternative were
compared to Washington County minority St George Blvd.
and low-income population percentages. A

Main St.

400 East

River Rd.
Census block group is considered an area of
concern for environmental justice population ➊
if the minority or low-income population
➋
exceeds the county percentage. ➌ ➍ ➎
Approximately 14 percent of Washington
700 South
County’s population is reported as a ➏

Bluff St.
minority. Four of the 7 block groups have a
➐ Study Area
higher minority population percentage than
Preferred Alternative
Washington County (see Table 3.10-1 and Riverside Dr. Footprint
Figure 3.10-1).
Minority Census
Block Group
Approximately 10 percent of Washington
Low-income Census
County’s population is reported as low- Block Group
income. Six of the 7 block groups have a
higher low-income population percentage Table 3.10-1: Minority Populations in the Study Area
than Washington County (see Table 3.10-2 Figure Minority
and Figure 3.10-1). 3.10-1 ID Geography Total Population (Percent)
N/A Washington County 87,176 14
Because there are areas of concern for
1 Block Group 2, Census Tract 2713 1,227 9
environmental justice populations, further
research was conducted to determine 2 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2712 1,764 21
where these populations are located. The 3 Block Group 3, Census Tract 2714 1,791 6
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 4 Block Group 3, Census Tract 2713 1,276 20
Development Resource Locator online
5 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2713 1,448 33
map identifies properties that benefit
6 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2718 753 8
low-income renters by providing below-
market-average rental prices through 7 Block Group 3, Census Tract 2718 2,388 26
government programs, including the Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2021a
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Table 3.10-2: Low-Income Populations in the Study Area
(HUD 2023). The only LIHTC property in
the environmental justice study area is the Figure Low-Income
3.10-1 ID Geography Total Population (Percent)
Village at Heritage Court (919 South 400
N/A Washington County 86,228 10
East), located in Block Group 3, Tract 2713.
1 Block Group 2, Census Tract 2713 1,088 32
2 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2712 1,658 12
3 Block Group 3, Census Tract 2714 1,705 11
4 Block Group 3, Census Tract 2713 1,276 18
5 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2713 1,448 50
6 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2718 753 26
7 Block Group 3, Census Tract 2718 2,388 7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2021b

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-29

3.10.3 Environmental Effects
Determining the effects on environmental justice
populations utilized a two-step approach. The first step
evaluated if the Preferred Alternative would impact
resources that affect environmental justice populations.
Resources that are likely to affect local environmental
justice populations include land acquisition and
relocations, traffic noise, and air quality.
If any of the previous conditions occurred, a second step was
taken to decide if the impact would benefit or burden minority
and low-income communities resulting in a disproportionately
high and adverse effect on those populations.
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-Action Alternative, 700 South and I-15 would
be widened without an interchange at 700 South. Property
acquisitions would not likely occur, noise barriers on I-15
would be balloted to mitigate traffic noise, and air quality
would be slightly better than if the Preferred Alternative
were constructed (see Section 3.9, Air Quality).
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT EFFECTS
Acquisitions and Relocations
The Preferred Alternative would require the full acquisition of
two single-family residential properties (project parcel ID’s
120 and 140) and the potential full acquisition of one multi-
family structure with four dwelling units (project parcel ID
148) located in Block Group 1, Census Tract 2713, which is an
area of concern for environmental justice populations.
would not result in a disproportionately high and adverse
effect on environmental justice populations.
Traffic Noise
Under the Preferred Alternative, noise-sensitive properties
would be impacted similarly throughout the noise study
area and would receive similar proposed noise abatement in
the form of noise barriers along I-15 (see Section 3.8, Traffic
Noise). This uniformity of impacts and noise abatement
means that environmental justice populations would not
experience a disproportionately high and adverse effect due
to traffic noise under the Preferred Alternative.
Air Quality
Under the Preferred Alternative, air quality would
decrease slightly compared to the No-Action
Alternative (see Section 3.9, Air Quality). These slight
increases in air pollutants are not anticipated to result
in a disproportionately high and adverse effect on
environmental justice populations.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects would not occur under the Preferred
Alternative.
3.10.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Because there is uncertainty to whether minority or low-

income persons live at these properties, further analysis was
performed (with the assumption that minority and low-
income persons live at these properties) to determine if land
acquisition impacts would result in a disproportionately high
and adverse effect on environmental justice populations in
this Census block group.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 2713, contains approximately

336 households with an average household size of
4.5 persons (U.S. Census Bureau 2021c). Based on the
average household size and number of dwelling units
impacted (6), it is assumed that 27 persons would be
affected, which is less than 2 percent of all people living
in the Census block group and less than 6 percent of
minority populations. Fewer than 4 percent of low-income
populations would be impacted by land acquisitions. This

3-30 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

3.11 Cultural Resources
3.11.1 Introduction
This section describes the identified cultural resources
in the cultural study area. For additional details, see the
Selective Reconnaissance Level Survey in Appendix A,
Reports and Clearances.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54
U.S. Code 3001-3071) outlines the national policy and
procedures regarding historic properties (e.g., districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in,
or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP)). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal
agencies to consider the effects of their actions on such
properties by following 36 CFR 800, which is overseen by
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. If adverse
effects to these resources result from the action, UDOT is
required to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any
adverse effects.
For this analysis, cultural resources include the following:
» Archaeological resources: Prehistoric or historic
remains of past human activities—including objects,
features, artifacts, and linear historic sites, such as
canals and railroads—that are at least 45 years old.
» Architectural resources: Historic sites, buildings,
culverts, or structures that are at least 45 years old.
In accordance with 36 CFR 60.4, cultural resources must
be evaluated for their eligibility for the NRHP under four
specific criteria and with consideration for seven elements
of integrity. A cultural resource site or building may be
considered eligible for the NRHP if it meets one or more of
the following criteria:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our
past; or
C. E mbodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction, or represents the
work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or
represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
D. H as yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history.
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
Sites and buildings that are potentially eligible under
one of the four previous criteria must also be evaluated
for integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. To be eligible for
the NRHP, a site/building must possess integrity of those
elements directly related to the criterion or criteria under
which it would be determined eligible.
In Utah, historic buildings are further evaluated using a
rating system established by the Historic Preservation
Program at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). This system assigns one of the following four
ratings to buildings based on the degree to which they
retain historic and architectural integrity:
» Eligible/Significant (ES): Built in the historic period
and retains integrity; excellent example of a style or
type; unaltered or only minor alterations or additions;
individually eligible for the NRHP under criterion “C”;
also buildings of known historical significance.
» Eligible/Contributing (EC): Built in the historic period
and retains integrity; good example of a style or type,
but not as well-preserved or well-executed as “ES”
buildings; more substantial alterations or additions
than “ES” buildings, though overall integrity is
retained; eligible for the NRHP as part of a potential
historic district or primarily for historical, rather than
architectural, reasons.
» I neligible/Non-Contributing (NC): Built during the historic
period but has had major alterations or additions; no longer
retains integrity.
» Ineligible/Out-of-Period (OP): Built outside the
historic period.
In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4, the cultural study area
for archaeological resources and historic buildings is
referred to as the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Both
direct and indirect impacts are included in the APE.
3-31
3.11.2 Affected Environment 3.11.3 Environmental Effects
The APE, shown on Figure 3.11-1, encompasses all Effects to historic properties were assessed based on the
potential improvements at the interchange and nearby standards of the NHPA and its implementing regulation, 36
side streets, including 700 East and 900 East. CFR 800. There are three categories for classifying effects
to historic and archaeological resources:
An online file search in the Utah Division of State History
» No Historic Properties Affected: The project will have
Preservation Pro system was conducted in November 2022
no effect on the property.
to identify any previously identified cultural resources in
» No Adverse Effect: The project will have no effect
the APE and within 0.5 miles. The file search indicated that
on the property that would alter the characteristics
no previous surveys had been undertaken within 0.5 miles
qualifying it for inclusion on, or eligibility for, the NRHP.
of the APE. Cultural resource surveys were conducted in
» Adverse Effect: The project may alter any of the characteristics,
October and November 2022.
qualifying the property for inclusion on the NRHP.
Archaeological Resources
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
An intensive-level survey of the APE did not identify
Under the No-Action Alternative, construction would not
archaeological resources in the APE.
occur; therefore, cultural resources would not be affected.
Architectural Properties
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The selective reconnaissance-level survey identified 14
DIRECT EFFECTS
historic buildings in the APE—12 of which are eligible for
The Preferred Alternative would result in No Adverse
listing on the NRHP. Descriptions of the eligible properties are
Effect to seven NRHP-eligible properties and No Historic
summarized in Table 3.11-1, and the location of each property
Properties Affected to five NRHP-eligible properties
is shown on Figure 3.11-1.
(see Table 3.11-1 on page 3-33).

Figure 3.11-1: NRHP-Eligible Historical Buildings The Utah SHPO concurred with the
determination of effects to historic properties
in the Determination of Eligibility and Finding
Utah
Tech of Effect that was prepared by UDOT on
University
January 19, 2023. This correspondence
is available in Appendix A, Reports and
600 East

700700

Clearances.
EastEast

1100 East

INDIRECT EFFECTS
The Preferred Alternative would not have
700 South indirect effects on cultural resources.

3.11.4 Mitigation Measures

700 South No mitigation is required.
Dixie
900 East

High
School
400 East

900 South Area of Potential

Effects
NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES
Eligible Property

3-32 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

Table 3.11-1: Finding of Effect for NRHP-Eligible Architectural Properties
Figure
3.11-1 SHPO Eligibility Rating/NRHP
ID Address Date Style Eligibility Finding of Effect
One-story minimal
No Historic
1 595 East 700 South 1943 traditional style WWII-era EC/Eligible
Properties Affected
cottage house
Three one-story Ranch style
2 621 East 700 South 1970 EC/Eligible No Adverse Effect
triplex buildings
Four 1.5-story modern
3 639 East 700 South 1972 EC/Eligible No Adverse Effect
Mansard style apartment
Six one-story Ranch style
4 655 East 700 South 1969 EC/Eligible No Adverse Effect
duplex buildings
One-story Ranch with No Historic
N/A 695 East 700 South 1974 NC/Ineligible
garage style and plan house Properties Affected
One-story Ranch with
5 684 South 700 East 1969 EC/Eligible No Adverse Effect
carport style and plan house
One-story Ranch with
6 668 South 700 East 1965 EC/Eligible No Adverse Effect
carport style and plan house
One-story Ranch with
7 660 South 700 East 1972 EC/Eligible No Adverse Effect
carport style and plan house
One-story Ranch with
8 646 South 700 East 1969 EC/Eligible No Adverse Effect
garage style and plan house
One-story Ranch with No Historic
9 630 South 700 East 1970 EC/Eligible
garage style and plan house Properties Affected
One-story Ranch style and No Historic
10 620 South 700 East 1969 EC/Eligible
plan house Properties Affected
1.5-story split entry with No Historic
N/A 694 East 600 South 1975 NC/Ineligible
garage style and plan house Properties Affected
One-story Ranch with No Historic
11 712 East 600 South 1970 EC/Eligible
carport style and plan house Properties Affected
One-story mobile home No Historic
12 425 East 900 South 1969 EC/Eligible
style and plan houses Properties Affected

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-33

3.12 Section 4(f)
3.12.1 Introduction
Section 4(f) refers to the original section in the U.S.
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303),
which requires UDOT to consider Section 4(f) properties
during transportation project development. Section 4(f)
implementing regulations found in 23 CFR 774 define a
Section 4(f) property as “publicly owned land of a public
park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of
national, state, or local significance, or land of a historic
site of national, state, or local significance” (23 CFR 774.17).
Archaeological sites only qualify for protection under Section
4(f) if they warrant preservation in place (23 CFR 774.13(b)).
3.12.2 Affected Environment
The Section 4(f) study area is the same as the APE for historic
sites. There are 12 historic properties eligible for listing on
the NRHP (see Figure 3.11-1 on page 3-32). Public parks,
recreation areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges that meet
the requirements of 23 CFR 774.17 are not present.
3.12.3 Environmental Effects
This section evaluates the “use” of Section 4(f) properties.
“Use,” as defined in 23 CFR 774.17, includes permanent
incorporation of land into a transportation facility, temporary
occupancy, and constructive use (i.e., severe proximity
impacts). Uses that result in minor impacts without adverse
effects are “de minimis.” A temporary occupancy use is
considered an exception if meets the requirements of 23
CFR 774.13(d).
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Construction on 700 East would not occur; therefore,
there would not be a use of Section 4(f) properties.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT EFFECTS
The Preferred Alternative would result in a de minimis
impact to three NRHP-eligible properties (see Table 3.12-
1). A temporary occupancy would occur at four NRHP-
eligible properties; each of these meet the requirements
of 23 CFR 774.13(d). The Utah SHPO concurred with these
determinations in the Determination of Eligibility and
Finding of Effect that was prepared by UDOT on January
19, 2023. This correspondence is available in Appendix A,
Reports and Clearances.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
The Preferred Alternative would not result in indirect effects
on Section 4(f) properties.
3.12.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Table 3.12-1: Section 4(f) Use of NRHP-Eligible Architectural Properties

Address SHPO Eligibility Rating/NRHP Eligibility Section 4(f) Use
595 East 700 South EC/Eligible No use (Avoided)
621 East 700 South EC/Eligible de minimis
639 East 700 South EC/Eligible de minimis
655 East 700 South EC/Eligible de minimis
684 South 700 East EC/Eligible No use (Temporary Occupancy)
668 South 700 East EC/Eligible No use (Temporary Occupancy)
660 South 700 East EC/Eligible No use (Temporary Occupancy)
646 South 700 East EC/Eligible No use (Temporary Occupancy)
630 South 700 East EC/Eligible No use (Avoided)
620 South 700 East EC/Eligible No use (Avoided)
712 East 600 South EC/Eligible No use (Avoided)
425 East 900 South
EC/Eligible No use (Avoided)
(Grandview Mobile Home Park)

3-34 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

3.13 Stormwater, Floodplains,
and Water Quality
3.13.1 Introduction
Water resources include stormwater, floodplains, and
surface water quality. Although groundwater (e.g., aquifers
and drinking wells) is also considered a water resource,
according to the Utah DEQ, aquifers and drinking water
sources are not in or near the Stormwater, Floodplains, and
Water Quality study area (DEQ 2022). Therefore, neither
groundwater nor drinking water resources are discussed in
this section.
Stormwater refers to any type of surface runoff
originating from precipitation that does not infiltrate the
ground. Runoff typically comes from roadways, sidewalks,
parking lots, paved streets, and park strips. A stormwater
(or storm drain) system is a network of structures,
channels, and underground pipes designed to collect
stormwater runoff. Detention and retention basins are
stormwater management facilities designed to capture
and store rainwater during heavy rain. Detention facilities
detain, or capture and slowly release, stormwater runoff
to prevent downstream flooding, while retention facilities
hold water for irrigation or recharge. Both types of
facilities also improve water quality by settling sediment
out of the water column and allowing for chemical
processes that enhance water quality. A well-designed
storm drain system controls the quantity, timing, and
distribution of stormwater to ensure roadway safety and
mitigate the chance of flooding and property damage.
Floodplains are normally dry areas that occasionally flood
due to high snowmelt, stormwater runoff, or high lake
water. Floodplains have been assessed for the project
per 23 CFR 650, and Executive Order 11988 Floodplain
Management (42 CFR 26951), which requires agencies to
reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of
floods on humans, and to restore and preserve the natural
and beneficial values served by floodplains.
Surface water quality is regulated through the Federal
Clean Water Act. The EPA has regulatory authority
over the Clean Water Act and delegates portions of
its enforcement to the Utah DEQ’s Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). In Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1313), the DWQ must establish standards for
designated beneficial uses. As such, the DWQ monitors
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
and assesses surface waters to determine if they are
meeting standards for their designated beneficial use or if
they are considered impaired and, therefore, are included
on Section 303(d) list for impairment. A Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) study is required for impaired waters
to establish a management plan not to exceed the total
amount of any pollutant allowed in the water.
The Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(UPDES) is the Utah version of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, which is the permit system
mandated by the Clean Water Act to control pollutants
in surface waters, including stormwater. The UPDES
regulates stormwater discharges from three potential
sources: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4),
construction activities, and industrial activities.
The DWQ oversees the MS4 permitting program in Utah.
An MS4 permit is issued by the DWQ to municipalities,
construction sites, and industrial facilities that operate
a MS4. The permit requires these entities to implement
controls to minimize the discharge of pollutants into
surface waters from their stormwater systems.
3.13.2 Affected Environment
The Stormwater, Floodplains, and Water Quality study
area, shown in Figure 3.13-1 (see page 3-36), is broad
enough to include the stormwater system affected by the
Preferred Alternative and extends south to include and
evaluate any effects on the Virgin River.
STORMWATER
Impervious surfaces include I-15, local streets, parking lots,
sidewalks, and driveways. The St. George City stormwater
system consists of underground pipes, culverts, deep
gutters on roads, catch basins, and the roadways
themselves that act as methods for channeling the
stormwater from the city into the Virgin and Santa Clara
rivers (Bowen Collins & Associates 2022). Standards set
forth by St. George City require storm drain pipelines to be
large enough to manage stormwater without overflowing
into the roadway during a 10-year storm event with a
3-hour duration (Bowen Collins & Associates 2022).
Current deficiencies occur due to the limited number of
north-to-south crossings of I-15 and insufficient trunk line
diameters. For example, in the event of a 100-year storm,
the existing roadways cannot effectively move the water
3-35
 past I-15 to the Virgin River, causing the accumulation
of water with maximum depths greater than six feet
along the north and west side of I-15 (Bowen Collins &
Associates 2022).
FLOODPLAINS
The area west of I-15 is designated Flood Zone X, which
means it is outside of a designated floodplain but has a
0.2 percent (or moderate) annual chance of flooding. A
floodplain exists along the Virgin River, south of River
Road. This floodplain is designated AE, indicating it is
an area that would be flooded by a 100-year flood, and
where the base flood elevations have been derived from a
detailed hydraulic analysis.
WATER QUALITY
The Virgin River is part of the Lower Colorado River
Watershed Management Unit. The river has been
assessed by the DWQ and is included on the DWQ Clean
Water Act 303(d) list of impaired waters for warm water
aquatic life, other aquatic life, and agriculture (Tetra
Tech, Inc. 2004). This is due to elevated levels of total
dissolved solids, boron, and increased temperature
Figure 3.13-1: Water Resources in the Study Area
Utah
Tech
University
River Rd.
400 East
(EPA 2022b). Boron is considered a non-point source
pollutant, meaning that the source of the pollution
is likely attributable to a broad area as opposed to a
single location. To date, a TMDL for boron has not been
approved and a source for the contamination has not
been identified. Boron is not typically associated with
highway runoff but is likely caused by the weathering
of rocks and nearby agricultural use (EPA 2008, FHWA
2016). There are approximately 30.2 acres of undeveloped
or agricultural land that could be contributing to the
water quality issues in the Virgin River (see Figure 3.13-1).
Due to resource limitations, DWQ must prioritize which
waters are assessed as part of its three-year review of the
state’s surface waters. As such, no additional assessment
details for the Virgin River are available.
UDOT’s current MS4 permit (UTS000003) authorizes it
to discharge stormwater to surface waters from existing
and new outfalls (if installed and operated according to
the permit). To meet permit requirements, as it relates
to the Preferred Alternative, precipitation for events
up to the 80th percentile (i.e., equal to or exceeded by
80 percent of all storm events) must be
managed using retention or other methods
defined in the permit.
3.13.3 Environmental Effects

700 East

1100 East

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-Action Alternative, plans to
St. George improve existing drainage facilities described
Regional
Hospital in the I-15 Corridor Drainage Master Plan Mile
700 South Foremaster Dr. Post 5.7 to 9.3 would be implemented (Bowen
Dixie Collins & Associates 2022). As a result, the
900 East

High
School likelihood and severity of flooding would likely
900 South Study Area diminish.
Preferred Alternative Footprint
The anticipated development of undeveloped
Agricultural or Vacant Land and agricultural areas, sources that contribute
Riverside Dr.
Existing Culvert to the water quality concerns in the Virgin
Riverside Dr. FLOOD ZONES River, is expected to have a beneficial effect on
AE (100 year floodplain)
R iver the Virgin River’s water quality.
Virgin X (0.2% annual chance)
STORM DRAIN TRUNK LINES (DIAMETER)
60-96"
48-54"
24-30"
Source: Bowen Collins & Associates 2022, Federal Emergency
Management Agency 2022

3-36 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Figure 3.13-2: Preferred Alternative Drainage Improvements
DIRECT EFFECTS
Stormwater
The Preferred Alternative would increase the
impervious surface area by approximately

400 East

700 East
700,100 square feet with a corresponding
increase in the amount of stormwater runoff
over the existing condition.
Detention
To offset the increased impervious surface, Basin
the Preferred Alternative would construct 700 South
2 detention basins at the locations show on
Figure 3.13-2. The new detention basins would

900 East
be in parcels fully acquired by the Preferred
Alternative (see Section 3.2, Land Acquisition
and Relocations). Each detention basin would
900 South
be approximately 4-to-6-feet deep with a
combined capacity of 120,000 cubic feet
(based on a 50-year, 24-hour storm event).
The outlets from the detention basins would be
set at an elevation to provide retention for the Detention
80th percentile storm event, in accordance with Basin
the MS4 permit. Both detention basins would Preferred Alternative Footprint
be vegetated to absorb pollutants through a North Basin
process known as phytoremediation (i.e., the South Basin
rside Dr.
process of using plants to absorb, break down, Rive New Trunkline
New Ditch/Trunkline
r

and convert pollutants in soil or water into less

ve

Existing Culvert
Ri

harmful substances).
in

STORM DRAIN TRUNK LINES (DIAMETER)

rg
Vi

The north detention basin would capture 60-96"

most of the I-15 runoff north of 700 South, 48-54"
24-30"
then discharge it into a new trunkline that
connects to the existing trunkline under INDIRECT EFFECTS
900 East. The remaining I-15 runoff would be conveyed Water Quality
through a combination of new storm drain trunklines Because the source of pollutants in the Virgin River are
and open ditches that parallel I-15 to the south detention primarily unrelated to roadway sources, it is unlikely that
basin. From this basin, stormwater would be released the Preferred Alternative would have a detrimental effect
to the existing trunkline under 400 East that discharges on the Virgin River’s water quality.
to the Virgin River. Collectively, these detention basins
would prevent water quality impacts to the Virgin 3.13.4 Mitigation Measures
River and reduce anticipated peak flows to the existing
No mitigation is required.
storm drain system to current peak flow conditions;
therefore, no other improvements, such as larger trunk
lines under 900 East and 400 East would be required.

Floodplains
The Preferred Alternative would avoid the designated
floodplain along the Virgin River.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-37

3.14 Hazardous Materials
3.14.1 Introduction
This section identifies and discloses the potential to
encounter hazardous materials during
construction. Hazardous materials include any
materials that, if improperly managed or
disposed of, may pose hazards to human
health and the environment.
and I-15 between 400 East and 200 South. Hazardous
materials sites are listed and shown in Figure 3.14-1. Table
3.14-1 identifies the contaminated soil and groundwater
risks for various hazardous material sites.
Figure 3.14-1: Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area
Utah
Tech
University

Hazardous material sites are regulated by the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42
USC 82); the Comprehensive Environmental

700 East
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42

400 East

1100 East
USC 103); and Utah Administrative Code Title
19, Environmental Quality. These regulations
define statutes for clean-up requirements CMart Shell
and designate liability to persons involved in
700 South
hazardous waste releases.
Dixie

900 East
High Victor’s Taco
The Utah Division of Environmental Response School Express & More
and Remediation (DERR), a division of the
Utah DEQ, regulates underground storage Study Area
tanks and leaking underground storage tanks.
Preferred Alternative Footprint
3.14.2 Affected Environment
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
The hazardous materials study area consists Closed Former LUST
of a 500-foot buffer from the centerline of Open Former LUST
700 South between 600 East and 1000 East,

Table 3.14-1: Hazardous Material Site Probability of Contamination

Probability of Contamination Site Type
» Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act sites
High » National Priorities List sites
» Open leaking underground storage tank sites
» Closed leaking underground storage tank sites
» Active or closed landfills
» Active underground storage tank sites
Moderate » Toxic Release Inventory System sites
» Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities sites)
» Open underground storage tanks
» Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System: treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities sites (small quantity and large quantity generators)
» Emergency Response Notification System
Low
» Hazardous material spill sites
» Removed and closed underground storage tanks
» Registered aboveground storage tanks

3-38 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

Victor’s Taco Express & More (approximately 90 feet from
700 South centerline) had a petroleum release in late
1993, changing its status from an underground storage
tank (UST) to a leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
(DERR 1993). The DERR took actions to control and remove
any contamination from the petroleum leak. Clean-up
actions led to the closure and removal of the USTs in
1997 (Utility Testing Laboratory 1997). In 1998, the DERR
issued a No Further Action statement, meaning that any
remaining contaminated soil or groundwater is at depths
and locations such that they do not pose a threat to human
health or the environment (DERR 1998).
The CMart Shell (approximately 45 feet from 700 South
centerline) was classified as a LUST site from April 2002
to January 2003 (Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 2018).
Nearby soil and groundwater, including along the I-15
3.15 Visual Resources
3.15.1 Introduction
This section describes the existing visual character (or physical
features) of the visual resources study area. Visual character is
the description of the visible attributes of a scene or object.
3.15.2 Affected Environment
Key observation points (KOP) were selected to describe
the visual character of the area near the Preferred
Alternative, with an emphasis on views from the
surrounding area toward I-15 (see Figure 3.15-1).
Figure 3.15-1: Key Observation Points
3

400 East

700 East
corridor, were contaminated with petroleum. Clean-up
actions were effective, resulting in a No Further Action
statement by the DERR in 2017 (DERR 2017).

3.14.3 Environmental Effects

The potential to encounter contaminated soils or groundwater
2 1 700 South
at hazardous material sites was evaluated based on the

900 East
contamination probability, the nature of the remediation
efforts, and the Preferred Alternative’s impact on the site.
900 South
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No-Action Alternative would not affect properties 4 Preferred Alternative Footprint
containing hazardous materials and, therefore, would not
encounter contaminated soil or groundwater.
Key Observation Point/Direction

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Key Observation Point 1

DIRECT EFFECTS
The Preferred Alternative would acquire the CMart Shell
and Victor’s Taco Express & More parcels. The CMart Shell
site is an active gas station, and the risk of encountering
hazardous materials is moderate because the site has
undergone remediation efforts. The risk of encountering
hazardous materials at the Victor’s Taco Express & More
site is low because the tanks are no longer present and
the site has undergone remediation efforts.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
The Preferred Alternative would not result in indirect effects
on hazardous material sites.
As seen in Figure 3.15-2, looking west toward I-15, a well-
kept berm populated with mature coniferous and deciduous
trees and further landscaped with tan rocks, small bushes,
and well-maintained grass along the south side of 700 South
is visible. Commercial buildings line the north side of 700
South. On the north side of 700 South, the terrain slopes
slightly upward. Large and small tan rocks with low-lying
round vegetation wedged between cover this terrain.
Figure 3.15-2: KOP 1 (700 South at 1000 East)

3.14.4 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation is required.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-39

Key Observation Point 2
As seen in Figure 3.15-3, looking east on 700 South, I-15
crosses over 700 South and obstructs views of the bluffs
overlooking St. George City. The sides of the interstate
are vegetated with green low-lying shrubs, giving it a
natural aesthetic. Grey columns support the steel and
concrete bridges over 700 South. Chain link fences line
both sides of the road and sidewalks rise above the
roadway in both directions.
Figure 3.15-3: KOP 2 (700 South at 800 East)
Key Observation Point 3
As seen in Figure 3.15-4, looking south on I-15, drivers are
met with views of multi-colored bluffs in the distance and an
urban landscape in the foreground. Light tan dirt and sparse,
yellow grasses cover the median swell and outside slopes.
Utility and light poles, billboards, and buildings of varying
size, shape, color, and texture form the urban surrounding.
Figure 3.15-4: KOP 3 (I-15 at Milepost 7.9)
Key Observation Point 4
As seen in Figure 3.15-5, looking northeast on 900 South,
the sparsely vegetated ground rises to meet I-15 in the
foreground. The Pine Valley Mountains in the background
tower over St. George City and contrast with the urban
setting in the foreground. Utility poles line both sides of I-15.
Figure 3.15-5: KOP 4 (900 South at 550 East)
3-40
3.15.3 Environmental Consequences
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-Action Alternative, I-15 would be widened to
include an additional travel lane in each direction, which would
reduce or remove the median swell shown in KOP 3. Widening
I-15 would neither be noticeable from the other KOPs, nor
would it modify the urban character on 700 South.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT EFFECTS
Key Observation Point 1
Widening 700 South would remove all landscaping
including most of the landscaped berm on the south side.
The removal of these features would be noticeable and
change the aesthetic character of the corridor.
Key Observation Point 2
The I-15 bridges spanning 700 South would be replaced
with longer bridges that would not require columns for
support. The vegetated slopes of the interstate would be
replaced with 29-foot-tall concrete retaining walls, which
could obstruct views of the surrounding landscape from
residents near the interchange. The new shared-use path
on the north and sidewalk on the south would be at the
same elevation as the roadway.
Key Observation Point 3
The outside slopes would be replaced with on- and off-
ramps. Forty-two inch (3.5 feet) tall concrete barriers
would separate the ramps from mainline. Large exit signs
installed above or to the outside of the off-ramp would
direct drivers, obstructing views of the surrounding
landscape and urban setting. The surrounding urban
setting would not be affected.
Key Observation Point 4
Modifications to the visual character from this KOP are
not anticipated. I-15 would remain at the same elevation
as the existing condition; therefore, views of the Pine
Valley Mountains would not be obstructed.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects would not occur under the Preferred
Alternative.
3.15.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
3.16 Energy
3.16.1 Introduction
This section describes the estimated energy that would
be used, specifically petroleum products consumed by
vehicles for the No-Action Alternative and the Preferred
Alternative. The Dixie MPO Travel Demand Model
(CITILABS CUBE Version 3), the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), and the Center for Transportation
Analysis Energy and Transportation Science Division
provided data for this analysis.
3.16.2 Affected Environment
The energy study area is the same as described in Section
3.4, Transportation (see Figure 3.4-1 on page 3-13). The
Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 40 was reviewed
to identify the current average fuel economy for light-duty
vehicles (i.e., cars, motorcycles, and lights trucks with
two axles and four tires), which is then used to calculate
the current estimated vehicle fuel consumption. The
Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050 was
reviewed to identify the projected fuel consumption by
vehicles in 2050. The Dixie MPO Travel Demand Model was
used to determine average daily VMT and network delay.
Estimated fuel consumption was calculated by dividing the
average daily VMT by the combined fuel economy for light-
duty vehicles which are the dominant vehicle type.
Cars and light-duty vehicles currently travel approximately
483,000 miles per day and experience a combined 15.2
hours of delay. This amounts to approximately 19,016
gallons of gasoline used per day.
3.16.3 Environmental Effects
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-Action Alternative, daily VMT and network
delay would increase by 2050 for all vehicles (see Table
3.16-1). Daily fuel consumption would decrease as fuel
economy continues to improve in light-duty vehicles.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT EFFECTS
Daily VMT, network delay, and fuel consumption would be
similar to the No-Action Alternative (see Table 3.16-1).
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects would not occur under the Preferred
Alternative.
3.16.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

In 2020, the combined fuel economy for all registered

light-duty vehicles was 25.4 MPG (Boundy, et. al. 2022).
It is assumed that the average fuel economy will almost
double by 2050 due to more stringent federal Corporate
Average Fuel Economy and greenhouse gas emission
standards. Despite emerging technologies, such as
ethanol-flex-fuel, hybrid electric, and electric vehicles,
the majority (79 percent) of cars sold in 2050 will still use
conventional gasoline engines (EIA 2022).

Table 3.16-1: Daily Fuel Consumption

2021 No-Action Alternative (2050) Preferred Alternative (2050)
Value Value Change (Percent) Value Change (Percent)
Daily VMT 483,000 684,000 42 708,000 47

Daily Network Delay (Hours) 15.2 32.2 111 32.2 111

Daily Fuel Consumption

19,016 13,959 -27 14,449 -24
(Gallons)

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-41

3.17 Construction Impacts
3.17.1 Introduction
Although previous impact assessments in this chapter
have considered the long-term effects of the Preferred
Alternative, construction impacts focus on the temporary,
short-term effects on local resources that could degrade
the quality of the human or natural environment. The
appropriate avoidance and minimization measures
identified below will also be included in the Preferred
Alternative’s environmental commitments.
3.17.2 Land Acquisition and Relocations
The Preferred Alternative would require temporary
construction easements. UDOT would temporarily use
parts of properties during construction and compensate
the property owner for the use. Properties that are
planned to be used temporarily will be regraded and
revegetated as agreed upon with the property owner
when construction is complete or when the use of the
property is no longer required.
3.17.3 Land Use
Construction activities could require temporary access
closures to properties adjacent to 700 South, 700 East,
and 900 East. To the extent possible, the contractor will
coordinate with St. George City and property owners to
maintain access to these properties.
3.17.4 Transportation
Area residents and commuters may experience
temporary impacts such as limited access to community
facilities, commercial and residential areas, traffic delays,
rerouting, and temporary lane closures. UDOT and the
construction contractor will develop and implement
a Traffic Management Plan to ensure that residences,
businesses, and community facilities and services along
local roads are accessible during construction. The Traffic
Management Plan will include the placement of signs
identifying access points. The signs will indicate that
businesses will remain open during construction.
If I-15 detours are required to accommodate construction
activities, such as raising I-15 or constructing new bridges over
700 south, UDOT would reroute traffic to state highways,
including Bluff Street (State Route 18) and St. George
Boulevard (State Route 34). This would increase traffic on
these routes, which could cause drivers to find alternate
routes, thereby increasing traffic on other local roads.
3-42
UDOT will develop a Public Involvement Plan before
construction starts so area residents and commuters
are aware of potential traffic delays, rerouting, and
temporary lane closures. Area residents and commuters
will be reminded that businesses will remain open during
construction. Public involvement activities may include:
» Performing door-to-door visits to business owners and
tenants along the corridor.
» Distributing fliers.
» Developing a project website with construction updates.
» Updating social media.
» Maintaining a project hotline.
3.17.5 Social Environment
Modern life requires complex infrastructure to provide
fresh water, reliable energy sources, and materials
management (including sewers). Disruption of these
services may occur during project construction, which
could temporarily diminish quality of life for those directly
affected. The Preferred Alternative would:
» Relocate approximately 0.5 miles of a high-voltage
transmission line that parallels the west side of I-15.
» Relocate telecommunication, sewer, water, electric, and
natural gas lines below 700 South, 700 East, 800 East,
and 900 East.
» Sever and reconnect utilities to adjoining properties.
UDOT will coordinate with utility providers to coordinate
the relocation of utilities to minimize the disruption of
these services.
3.17.6 Cyclists and Pedestrians
The pedestrian tunnel under I-15 at 400 South would be
closed during construction of the southbound off-ramp.
During this time, pedestrians would likely be rerouted to
100 South, the closest location to cross I-15, to avoid the
ongoing construction activities at 700 south. This detour
would be approximately 1.1 miles long and take the average
person walking 3 mph approximately 26 minutes longer to
cross I-15 (see Figure 3.17-1 on page 3-43).
Pedestrian and bicycle access—including access to
sidewalks—along 700 South would be disrupted during
construction. If sidewalk closures occur while the
pedestrian tunnel at 400 South is also closed, cyclists and
pedestrians would not have a viable detour to cross I-15. If
the 400 South pedestrian tunnel remains open while the
sidewalks on 700 South are closed, this detour would be
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
approximately 1.3 miles long and take the average person
walking 3 mph approximately 31 minutes longer to cross
I-15 (see Figure 3.17-1). Pedestrian access will be maintained
through I-15 at 700 South and 400 South pedestrian
tunnel to the maximum extent practicable. Any closure of
pedestrian access is subject to the approval of the engineer.
Construction activities will be phased to avoid simultaneous
closures of pedestrian crossings across I-15 on 700 South
and the 400 South pedestrian tunnel.
As part of the Public Involvement Plan described in
Section 3.17.4, Transportation, UDOT will notify area
residents of the pending closures and provide details on
the proposed detours.
Figure 3.17-1: Potential Cyclist and Pedestrian Detours
400 South Detour
700 South Detour 100 South
include establishing the hours that construction equipment
can be operated and permissible sound levels at those times.
UDOT has developed specifications that establish
construction noise control. Noise suppression techniques
will be applied during construction in accordance with
UDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction, Section 00555, Prosecution and Progress,
Part 1.9, Limitation of Operations.
3.17.9 Air Quality
Measures will be taken to reduce fugitive dust generated
by construction when the control of dust is necessary for
the protection and comfort of motorists or residents. Dust
suppression techniques will be applied during construction
in accordance with UDOT’s Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Construction, Section 01355 Environmental
Protection, Part 1.11, Fugitive Dust.

3.17.10 Environmental Justice

1000 East

1200 East

During construction, both environmental justice and

non-environmental justice populations would experience
increases in noise and dust and the effects associated
26
MINUTES
with traffic delays, rerouting, and temporary lane closures.
Low-income individuals relying on alternate modes of
transportation (e.g., public transit, walking, or biking) would
400 South experience greater inconvenience than other populations
EXISTING 400 SOUTH from the effects described in the following sections:
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
» Section 3.17.4, Transportation
700 East

» Section 3.17.6, Cyclists and Pedestrians

900 East

» Section 3.17.15, Public Transit

31 3.17.11 Cultural Resources

1100 East

MINUTES
River Rd.

Ground-disturbing activities during construction

700 South
3.17.7 Economic Conditions
During construction, UDOT and the contractor will
maintain access to the commercial properties along the
corridor; however, these properties could experience a
short-term decrease in revenue associated with travel
delay and construction activities.
3.17.8 Traffic Noise
Land uses sensitive to traffic noise are also sensitive to
construction noise. Methods of controlling construction noise
could potentially result in the discovery of previously
unidentified archaeological sites. In the case of an
inadvertent discovery during construction, activities in
the area of discovery will be immediately stopped and
procedures will be applied in accordance with UDOT’s
Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction,
Section 01355 Environmental Protection, Part 1.13,
Discovery of Historical, Archaeological, or Paleontological
Objects, Features, Sites, or Human Remains.
3.17.12 Stormwater, Floodplains, and Water Quality
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would disturb more
than one acre of earth. There is the potential for temporary
construction impacts to water quality during construction.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-43

Activities such as clearing vegetation, grading, stockpiling,
and material staging can disturb vegetation and cause
erosion. Runoff from disturbed areas could temporarily
increase pollutant loading into receiving waters. Pollutant
loading, largely in the form of discharged sediment, can
be minimized with the use of best management practices,
which minimize soil from leaving the construction site.
UDOT and its construction contractor will:
» Comply with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Utah Construction General Permit (CGP) by
preparing the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) during project design, and will provide
the SWPPP to the contractor before Notice to
Proceed. The SWPPP will be prepared consistent with
UDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction, Section 01355 Environmental Protection,
Part 1.14, Stormwater Management Compliance.
» The project contractor will comply with the CGP by
finalizing the SWPPP before beginning any earth
disturbing activities; will submit the Notice of Intent; and
will implement and maintain the project SWPPP according
to CGP requirements throughout project construction.
3.17.13 Hazardous Materials
Contaminated soil may be encountered during
construction on or near properties known to have stored
hazardous materials. Coordination with the Utah DEQ may
be necessary if a discovery is made. Procedures will be
applied in accordance with UDOT’s Standard Specification
for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 01355
Environmental Protection, Part 1.7, Hazardous Waste.
The contractor will consult with UDOT and the DERR to
determine the appropriate remedial measures.
If previously unidentified sites or contamination areas are
encountered during construction, work will immediately
stop in the contaminated area, in accordance with UDOT’s
Standard Specifications 01355 Part 1.7, Hazardous Waste,
and the contractor will consult with UDOT and the DERR
to determine the appropriate remediation.
Hazardous materials spills by the contractor will be handled
according to UDOT’s Standard Specifications 01355 Part
1.8, Spill of Petroleum-Based Produce and Used Oil, and the
requirements and regulations of the Utah DEQ.
3-44
3.17.14 Visual Resources
Construction equipment operating in or next to the
roadway, lane closures and lane shifts, construction
signs, and modifications to business access points during
construction could temporarily affect visual quality.
3.17.15 Energy
Construction would primarily depend on fossil fuels
(gasoline and diesel fuel) to support roadway construction
activities, including maintenance of traffic, clearing
vegetation, grading, delivering and spreading fill, excavating
unusable soils and associated disposal, constructing
drainage structures, laying base material, paving, relocating
utilities, and landscaping.
Potential traffic delays during construction would
increase fuel consumption as vehicles passing through
construction areas would operate at less-than-efficient
speeds and experience longer idle times.
3.17.16 Public Transit
Construction activities could temporarily affect access to
public transit along 700 South. Removing sidewalks, curb
and gutter, and asphalt and the presence of construction
equipment at or near Suntran bus stops could make it
difficult for pedestrians, particularly the elderly or those
with disabilities, to access bus stops.
To minimize these effects, UDOT will coordinate with
Suntran to ensure that some bus stops are always
accessible by placing signs near bus stops that inform
transit riders of stop closures; show locations of nearby
available bus stops; and show alternate routes to avoid
construction activities.
3.17.17 Invasive Species
Construction activities, including earthwork, grading,
and landscaping, could introduce noxious weeds into
disturbed areas and natural landscapes adjacent to the
construction site.
To minimize these effects, UDOT will include Statewide
Special Provision Section 02924S Invasive Weed Control in
the contract documents to require the proper cleaning of
earthmoving construction equipment (before mobilizing
onto the project site) and avoid unnecessary earth
disturbances. The contractor will comply with UDOT’s
Statewide Special Provision Section 02924S Invasive Weed
Control requirements.
I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218
3.18 Cumulative Effects Dixie MPO is responsible for coordinating transportation
3.18.1 Regulatory Setting planning in the region as the agency prepares future
land use projections. These land use projections are used
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.7; 1978 regulations) require
to develop a regional transportation plan, which guides
cumulative effects to be analyzed. Cumulative effects
the development of future transportation systems. The
result from incremental impacts of a proposed action
regional transportation plan lists projects planned to meet
when added to other past, present, and reasonably
future transportation needs for the next 20-plus years.
foreseeable future actions—regardless of the agency or
All projects listed in the regional transportation plan are
person(s) that undertakes the other actions. Cumulative
designed to work collaboratively to meet the existing and
effects may also include the effects of natural processes
anticipated transportation (highway, transit, pedestrian
and events.
and bicycle, freight, and air) needs through year 2050
A cumulative effects analysis focuses on the sustainability (see Chapter 2, Alternatives, for more information on
of a specific environmental resource as the analysis planned transportation improvements in or near St.
quantifies the effects of that individual resource George City).
collectively, with all the other Preferred Alternative
3.18.5 Cumulative Effects
environmental effects. It can result from individually minor,
but collectively significant actions, occurring over time. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Preferred Alternative would result in minor changes
For a proposed action to cause a cumulative effect on a to VMT and traffic speeds compared to the No-Action
resource, it must first have a direct or indirect effect on Alternative and, therefore, would not substantially affect
that resource. The cumulative effect requiring an analysis GHG emissions. Further, EPA’s GHG emissions standards,
in this EA is isolated to GHG emissions (see Section 3.9, implemented in concert with national fuel economy
Air Quality) standards, would also help minimize GHG emissions.
3.18.2 Geographic Boundary and Timeframe
The geographic boundary for this analysis is St. George
City. The time frame for cumulative effects begins in the
1970s with the construction of I-15 and extends into 2050,
which is the end of planned transportation projects in the
Dixie MPO 2019-2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

3.18.3 Past Actions Affecting Resources of Concern

Development in St. George City began with the arrival
of European-American settlers in 1861. Since adoption
of the automobile (and the burning of fossil fuels) as the
primary mode of transportation in the early 20th Century,
St. George City’s contribution to global GHG emissions
(primarily CO2) has likely increased with population
growth and increased VMT.

3.18.4 Present
 and Reasonably Foreseeable Future
Actions Affecting Resources of Concern
UDOT, Dixie MPO, and St. George City are responsible
for future transportation planning in St. George
City. Together, these agencies work to identify the
transportation needs and long-term transportation
solutions to meet the demands of the traveling public.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-45

3.19 Environmental Permits and Mitigation
Table 3.19-1 summarizes the permits that could be required under the Preferred Alternative. Table 3.19-2 summarizes
the mitigation efforts and project commitments to be completed under the Preferred Alternative. In addition, all UDOT
Standard Specifications and best management practices will be followed.

Table 3.19-1: Required Permits and Clearances

Permit/Clearance Granting Agency Applicant Application Time Granting Time Applicable Portion of the Project

Before the Required if the

Section 401 of Utah Division
UDOT project is project could result
the Clean Water of Water Design Phase
Certification advertised for in any discharge into
Act Certification Quality
construction navigable waters

After the
Utah Division Areas of ground
Section 402 UDOT and construction Before
of Water disturbance during
Permit (UPDES) Contractor contract has been construction
Quality construction
awarded

Air quality during

construction phase
Air Quality Utah Division Before Before
Contractor (emissions from
Approval Order of Air Quality construction construction
operations and
equipment)

Approval of After National

Additional or Environmental Final design Interstate access
FHWA UDOT
Modification of Policy Act phase changes
Access Points approval

3-46 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

Table 3.19-2: Mitigation Measures
Resource Mitigation Commitment
Land Acquisition and UDOT would temporarily use parts of properties during construction and compensate
Relocations each property owner. Properties planned to be used temporarily will be regraded and
revegetated as agreed upon with the property owner when construction is complete or
when the use of the property is no longer required.
Land Use No mitigation is required.
Transportation UDOT and the construction contractor will develop and implement a Traffic Management
Plan to maintain access to residences, businesses, and community facilities and services
along local roads. The Traffic Management Plan will include the placement of signs identifying
access points. The signs will indicate that businesses will remain open during construction.
UDOT will develop a Public Involvement Plan before construction starts so area residents
and commuters are aware of potential traffic delays, rerouting, and temporary lane
closures. Area residents and commuters will be reminded that businesses will remain open
during construction. Public involvement activities may include:
» Performing door-to-door visits to business owners and tenants along the corridor.
» Distributing fliers near the Proposed Action.
» Developing a project website with construction updates.
» Updating social media.
» Maintaining a project hotline.
Social Environment UDOT will coordinate with utility providers to coordinate the relocation of utilities to
minimize the disruption of these services.
Cyclists and The Preferred Alternative shall incorporate the following design features:
Pedestrians » Traffic signals at all ramps to protect cyclists and pedestrians traveling through the
interchange when the pedestrian button is activated.
» Four-foot-wide park strip between the sidewalk and shoulder on the south side of 700
South to increase the buffer between vehicles and pedestrians.
» Signal timing adjustments at 700 East and 900 East to give pedestrians enough time to
cross 700 South.
As part of the Public Involvement Plan, UDOT will notify area residents of the pending
closures and provide details on the proposed detours.
Pedestrian access will be maintained through I-15 at 700 South and 400 South pedestrian
tunnel to the maximum extent practicable. Any closure of pedestrian access is subject to the
approval of the engineer. Construction activities will be phased to avoid simultaneous closures
of pedestrian crossings across I-15 on 700 South and the 400 South pedestrian tunnel.
Economic Conditions No mitigation is required.
Traffic Noise Noise suppression techniques will be applied during construction in accordance with UDOT’s
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 00555, Prosecution and
Progress, Part 1.9, Limitation of Operations.
Air Quality Dust suppression techniques will be applied during construction in accordance with UDOT’s
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 01355 Environmental
Protection, Part 1.11, Fugitive Dust.
Environmental Justice No mitigation is required.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 3-47

Table 3.19-2: Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Resource Mitigation Commitment
Cultural Resources In the case of an inadvertent discovery during construction, activities in the area of discovery
will be immediately stopped and procedures will be applied in accordance with UDOT’s
Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 01355 Environmental
Protection, Part 1.13, Discovery of Historical, Archaeological, or Paleontological Objects,
Features, Sites, or Human Remains.
Section 4(f) No mitigation is required.
Stormwater, Comply with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Utah Construction General
Floodplains, and Permit (CGP) by preparing the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during
Water Quality project design, and will provide the SWPPP to the contractor before Notice to Proceed.
The SWPPP will be prepared consistent with UDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road
and Bridge Construction, Section 01355 Environmental Protection, Part 1.14, Stormwater
Management Compliance.
The project contractor will comply with the CGP by finalizing the SWPPP before beginning
any earth disturbing activities; will submit the Notice of Intent; and will implement and
maintain the project SWPPP according to CGP requirements throughout project construction.
Hazardous Materials Coordination with the Utah DEQ may be necessary if a discovery is made and procedures will
be applied in accordance with UDOT’s Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction,
Section 01355 Environmental Protection, Part 1.7, Hazardous Waste. The contractor will consult
with UDOT and the DERR to determine the appropriate remedial measures.
If previously unidentified sites or contamination areas are encountered during construction,
work will immediately stop in the contaminated area, in accordance with UDOT’s Standard
Specifications 01355 Part 1.7, Hazardous Waste, and the contractor will consult with UDOT
and the DERR to determine the appropriate remediation.
Hazardous materials spills by the contractor will be handled according to UDOT’s Standard
Specifications 01355 Part 1.8, Spill of Petroleum-Based Produce and Used Oil, and the
requirements and regulations of the Utah DEQ.
Visual Resources No mitigation is required.
Energy No mitigation is required.
Public Transit UDOT will coordinate with Suntran to ensure that some bus stops are always accessible by
placing signs near bus stops that inform transit riders of stop closures; show locations of
nearby available bus stops; and show alternate routes to avoid construction activities.
Invasive Species UDOT will include Statewide Special Provision Section 02924S Invasive Weed Control in the
contract documents.
The project contractor will comply with UDOT’s Statewide Special Provision Section 02924S
Invasive Weed Control requirements.

3-48 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 CHAPTER 4
Coordination
4.1 Introduction 4.3 Public Scoping
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) 4.3.1 Public Scoping Meetings
engaged the public throughout the preparation of this Two Public Scoping Meetings were held. The first was
Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to 40 Code an online meeting, hosted on Zoom Webinar, on May
of Federal Regulations 1506.6. This chapter summarizes 3, 2022, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The in-person
the agency and public outreach efforts undertaken by meeting occurred the following day on May 4, 2022,
UDOT before publishing this EA. The reader may refer from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Atwood Innovation
to the following reports found in Appendix B, Public Plaza at Utah Tech University in St. George City. Table
Involvement Reports, for more information: 4-2 (see page 4-2) summarizes how and when UDOT
» Public Scoping Meeting Report notified the public of these meetings.
» Alternatives Review Public Meeting Report
Approximately 108 people attended the online Public
4.2 Agency Scoping Scoping meeting. The UDOT Project Manager and
Letters were mailed to eight federal, state, and local UDOT Environmental Lead presented for the first
agencies, and seven Native American Tribes on April 15 minutes, followed by a 45-minute question and
18, 2022. None of the contacted agencies or tribes answer session where UDOT verbally responded
responded. Copies of these letters are available in the to written questions submitted through Zoom
Public Scoping Meeting Report in Appendix B, Public Webinar. A recording of this online meeting and the
Involvement Reports. presentation slides were made available on the EA
website at https://udotinput.utah.gov/i15stgeorge.
Table 4-1: Agency Scoping Letter Recipients
Agencies Native American Tribes The in-person meeting was an open-house format
attended by approximately 153 people (some attendees
U.S. Environmental
Cedar Band of Paiute did not provide their information on the provided sign-
Protection Agency
in sheet). Display boards provided information about
Indian Peaks Band of the EA, including the overall process, schedule, traffic
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Paiute conditions and projections, regional transportation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife plans, active transportation facilities, and environmental
Kanosh Band of Paiute resources to be evaluated. UDOT team members were
Services
available to answer questions one-on-one and listen to
Utah Resource Development input and concerns. Comment forms were available for
Moapa Band of Paiute
Coordinating Committee
attendees to provide feedback. Meeting information
shown at the in-person meeting was also available on
Washington County Navajo Nation
the EA website.

Paiute Indian Tribe of

St. George City
Utah

Dixie Metropolitan Planning Shivwits Band of

Organization Paiute

Washington County School

District

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 4-1

Table 4-2: Public Scoping Meeting Notices 4.4 Alternatives Review
Notification Media Date 4.4.1 Alternatives Review Public Meetings
Postcards Numerous Public Scoping comments requested more
mailed to 1,254 Postcard mailer April 16, 2022
transparency and involvement in the decision-making
properties
process. UDOT, in turn, held additional public meetings
Hand-delivered and opened a 30-day comment period during the action
Informational
to residents and
flyer delivered to April 18, 2022 alternative screening phase (see Chapter 2, Alternatives).
businesses near the
450 properties
Proposed Action
Two Alternatives Review public meetings were held. The
Study website first was an online meeting, hosted on Zoom Webinar,
Website April 18, 2022
update on November 15, 2022, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
April 18, 2022 The in-person meeting occurred the following day on
Email notices to
April 19, 2022 November 16, 2022, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the
individuals in the Email
email database May 2, Atwood Innovation Plaza at Utah Tech University in St.
2022 George City. Table 4-4 (see page 4-3) summarizes how
St. George City, and when UDOT notified the public of these meetings.
Washington County,
Utah Tech University, Approximately 59 people attended the online
Social media meeting. The UDOT Region 4 Preconstruction
and UDOT Region April 18, 2022
invitation
4 social media Engineer (and former UDOT Project Manager) and
channels (Twitter UDOT Environmental Lead presented for the first
and Facebook) 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute question and
Press release to UDOT Region 4 answer session where UDOT verbally responded to
April 18, 2022
local news media media contacts written questions submitted through Zoom Webinar. A
recording of this online meeting and the presentation
4.3.2. Public Scoping Comment Period slides were made available on the EA website.
The public comment period began on April 18, 2022, and
The in-person meeting included two 30-minute
ended on May 17, 2022. Public comments were received
presentations at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. of the same
on forms provided at the public scoping meeting,
information provided during the online meeting.
electronically (via email or EA website), or by mail. A
Approximately 125 people (some attendees did not
total of 247 comments were received (see Table 4-3).
provide their information on the provided sign-in sheet)
Table 4-3: Public Comments by Type attended the in-person meeting. Display boards and
Type Number of Comments maps provided information about the four Proposed
Action Alternatives that advanced through initial levels
Comment Form 51
of screening. UDOT team members were available to
Email 93 answer questions one-on-one and listen to input and
concerns. Comment forms were available for attendees
Website 103
to provide feedback. Meeting information shown at the
Total 247 public open house was also available on the EA website.

4-2 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

Table 4-4: Alternatives Review Public Meeting Notices 4.5 Additional Outreach
Notification Media Date 4.5.1 Community Coordination Team
Hand-delivered UDOT assembled a Community Coordination Team
Informational
to residents and October 24,
flyer delivered to (CCT), composed of business owners and residents who
businesses within 2022
500 properties represented diverse interests and perspectives. This
the study area
25-member group met with UDOT on two occasions
Study website October 24,
Website to gauge how accurately UDOT was capturing public
update 2022
sentiment and obtain vital input.
November 1,
2022 Twenty CCT members attended the first meeting, held
Email notices to
November 11, on June 28, 2022. At this meeting, UDOT established
individuals in the Email
2022 expectations for the CCT and asked those in attendance
email database
November 15, to verify the accuracy and relevance of the comments
2022 UDOT received during the Public Scoping period.
Postcards
mailed to 3,500 Seventeen CCT members attended the second meeting,
properties in the November 2, held on November 10, 2022. UDOT reviewed the
Postcard mailer
vicinity of the 2022 presentation for the upcoming Alternatives Review
Proposed Action Public Meetings, gathered feedback on the information
area
to be presented, and sought input on the four Proposed
St. George City, Action Alternatives that advanced through initial levels
Washington County, of screening.
Utah Tech University,
Social media November 4,
and UDOT Region 4.5.2 St. George City Community Open House
invitation 2022
4 social media
channels (Twitter UDOT attended a St. George City Community Open House
and Facebook) on October 13, 2022, at Desert Color’s The Shores Resort
November 4, (820 West Akoya Pearl Street) in St. George City to provide
Press release to UDOT Region 4
local news media media contacts 2022 information to those who might use the Proposed Action
and encourage attendees to sign up for email updates.
November 8,
Newspaper story St. George News Approximately 150 people attended this event.
2022
4.5.3 Dixie Regional Transportation Expo
4.4.2. Alternatives Review Public Comment Period UDOT attended the annual Dixie Transportation Expo
The public comment period began on November 11, 2022, on February 7, 2023, at the Dixie Convention Center
and ended on December 10, 2022. Public comments were (1835 South Convention Center Drive) in St. George
received on forms provided at the alternatives review public City. The goal of attending this event was to broaden
meeting, electronically (via email or EA website), or by mail. public outreach to a regional audience and encourage
A total of 269 comments were received (see Table 4-5). attendees to sign up for email updates. Approximately
961 people attended this event.
Table 4-5: Public Comments by Type
Type Number of Comments
Comment Form 21

Email 214

Website 32

Mail 2

Total 269

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 4-3

 CHAPTER 5
Preparers
5.1 Introduction
This Environmental Assessment was prepared by the individuals listed in Table 5.1-1.

Table 5.1-1: List of Preparers

Name Organization Project Title
Kim Manwill UDOT Project Manager

Carissa Watanabe UDOT Environmental Lead

Kevin Kitchen UDOT Public Involvement Lead

Ryan Anderson UDOT District Engineer

David Amott UDOT Architectural Historian

Liz Robinson UDOT Archaeologist

Matt Howard UDOT Biologist

Rod Hess UDOT Water Resources Specialist

Naomi Kisen UDOT Air Quality Specialist

Raymond Bennett UDOT Right-of-Way Agent

HG Kunzler Avenue Consultants Project Manager

Justin Peterson Avenue Consultants Environmental Lead

Jack Allen Avenue Consultants Environmental Advisor

Matt Montgomery Avenue Consultants Environmental Analyst/Traffic Noise Modeler

Craig Bown Avenue Consultants Environmental Analyst

Becca Apgar Avenue Consultants Environmental Analyst

Ethan Greene Avenue Consultants Technical Editor

Adrian Welsh Avenue Consultants GIS Specialist

David Bassett Avenue Consultants Traffic Lead

Blake Unguren Avenue Consultants Traffic Advisor

Camille Anderson Avenue Consultants Traffic Analyst

Nuzhat Azra Avenue Consultants Traffic Analyst

Jordan Christensen Avenue Consultants Traffic Analyst

Duke Richardson Avenue Consultants Public Involvement Lead

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 5-1

Table 5.1-1: List of Preparers (Continued)
Name Organization Project Title
Laura Ingersoll Avenue Consultants Public Involvement Specialist

Sharice Walker Avenue Consultants Public Involvement Specialist

Adam Pitcher Avenue Consultants Graphic Designer

Matt Bates Avenue Consultants Graphic Designer

Ben Unguren Avenue Consultants Graphic Designer

Jerry Amundsen Avenue Consultants Design Lead

Nick Betts Avenue Consultants Roadway Design Lead

Brett Jensen Avenue Consultants Roadway Designer

Amelia Newkirk Avenue Consultants Roadway Designer

Lauren Phillips Avenue Consultants Roadway Designer

Brian Shewell Avenue Consultants Drainage Designer

Derek Lahusen Avenue Consultants Design Reviewer

Jeremy Christensen Avenue Consultants Design Reviewer

Lee Cabell Horrocks Design Advisor

Nicole Tolley Horrocks Environmental Reviewer

Michael Heaps Horrocks Travel Demand Modeler

Aaron Woods Horrocks Cultural Resource Specialist

Ben Pearson Horrocks Architectural Historian

Haylie Ferguson Horrocks Air Quality Specialist

Nathan Clarke Horrocks Water Resources Specialist

Marley Madsen Horrocks Biologist

Lisa Beck Harmony Public Involvement Public Involvement Support

5-2 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

 CHAPTER 6
Distribution
6.1 Introduction
This Environmental Assessment (EA) was distributed to the following individuals and is available on the EA website
at https://udotinput.utah.gov/i15stgeorge.
Melissa McCoy Nicolle Felshaw
NEPA Branch Chief Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington County
EPA Region 8 (8EPR-N) 197 East Tabernacle Street
1595 Wynkoop Street St. George, UT 84770
Denver, CO 80202-8917
Michele Randall
Jason Gipson Mayor
Chief Utah Regulatory Branch St. George City
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 175 East 200 North
Nevada-Utah Regulatory Branch St. George, UT 84770
533 West 2600 South, Suite 150
John Willis
Bountiful, UT 84010
Interim City Manager
Yvette Converse 175 East 200 North
Field Office Supervisor St. George, UT 84770
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
Cameron Cutler
Utah Ecological Services Field Office
Public Works Director
2369 Orton Circle, Suite 50
175 East 200 North
West Valley City, UT 84119
St. George, UT 84770
Sindy Smith
Myron Lee
RDCC Coordinator
Transportation Planning Director
Resource Development Coordinating Committee
Five County Association of Governments
Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office
1070 West 1600 South, Bldg. B
5110 State Office Building
St. George, UT 84770
P.O. Box 141107
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-1107 Larry Bergeson
Superintendent
Chris Hansen
Washington County School District
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
121 West Tabernacle Street
State Historic Preservation Office
St. George, UT 84770
300 South Rio Grande Street (450 West)
Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Victor Iverson
Chairman
Washington County
197 East Tabernacle Street
St. George, UT 84770

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 6-1

 CHAPTER 7
References
Avenue Consultants. 2023a. I-15; Bluff St to St George Blvd EA Existing and 2050 No Action Traffic Analysis
Memorandum.

Avenue Consultants. 2023b. 18218; I-15 St. George Improved EA Build Alternatives Traffic Analysis Memorandum.

[AASHTO] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2010. Highway Safety Manual 1st Edition.

Bess, K. 2023. Personal Communication between Karen Bess, Washington County School District, and Justin Peterson,
Avenue Consultants, regarding Legacy Elementary School Safe Routes to School Plan. January 11.

Bowen Collins & Associates. 2022. I-15 Corridor Drainage Master Plan Mile Post 5.7 to 9.3.

Boundy, R., S. Davis. 2022. Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 40.

[DERR] Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. 1993. LUST Release/Spill Report DERR-1993-
010492.

[DERR] Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. 1998. Release Site EIHL, Former Station located at
720 East 700 South, St. George, Utah Facility Identification No. 6000078 LUST Site Closure.

[DERR] Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. 2017. No Further Action, Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Release C-Mart Shell C-2, located at 795 East 700 South, St. George, Utah Facility Identification No.
6000312, Release Sites LQV and MAV.

[DEQ] Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 2022. Utah Environmental Interactive Map. Accessed August 26,
2022. https://enviro.deq.utah.gov/.

[Dixie MPO] Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2019. 2019-2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

[EIA] U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050.

[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Regulatory Determinations Support Document for Selected Contaminants
from the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 2).

[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2022a. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Accessed March 20, 2023.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2022b. Waterbody Report, Virgin River-2. Accessed August 26, 2022. https://
mywaterway.epa.gov/waterbody-report/UTAHDWQ/UT15010008-004_00/2022.

[FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2022. National Flood Hazard Levels Viewer. Accessed August 24,
2022. https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 7-1

 b5529aa9cd.

[FHWA] Federal Highway Administration. 2016. FHWA Environmental Technology Brief: Is Highway Runoff a Serious
Problem? https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/98079/runoff.cfm.

[FHWA] Federal Highway Administration. 1980. Noise Fundamentals Training Document Highway Noise Fundamentals.

[FHWA] Federal Highway Administration. 2012. FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations.

[HUD] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2023. HUD Resource Locator. Accessed January 26, 2023.
https://resources.hud.gov/.

Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 2022. Utah Long-Term Planning Projections A Baseline Scenario of Population and
Employment Change in Utah and its Counties.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition A Guide for
Multimodal Mobility Analysis.

Safe Routes Utah. 2023. Heritage Elementary Map. Accessed January 5, 2023. https://www.saferoutesutahmap.com/
map/school-maps/heritage-elementary-362/print-view.

St. George Area Chamber of Commerce. 2023. Economy. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://stgeorgechamber.com/
community-info/economy/.

St. George City. 2002. St. George General Plan.

St. George City. 2017. City of St. George Active Transportation Plan.

St. George City. 2019. St. George City Code 10-19 Off-Street Parking Requirements.

St. George City. 2022a. St. George City Interactive Mapping Application. Accessed July 19, 2022. https://maps.sgcity.
org/sgcitymaps/.

St. George City. 2022b. Annual Budget 2022-2023.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004. TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River Watershed.

[UDOT] Utah Department of Transportation. 2013. Inclusion of Active Transportation UDOT 07-117.

[UDOT] Utah Department of Transportation. 2019. I-15 MP 7 Interchange Study. https://uplan.maps.arcgis.com/apps/

MapJournal/index.html?appid=5b62011bfa564cedb55555512bbddfea.

[UDOT] Utah Department of Transportation. 2020. Noise Abatement UDOT 08A2-01.

[UDOT] Utah Department of Transportation. 2022. Walking & Biking – Active Transportation. Accessed May 3, 2022.
https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/business/public-entities/planning/.

7-2 I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

Utah Department of Workforce Services. 2022. Washington County Largest Employers. Accessed March 23, 2023.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021a. 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B03002.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021b. 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B17021.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021c. 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B11016.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. Over Two-Thirds of the Nation’s Counties Had Natural Decrease in 2021. https://www.census.
gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/population-estimates-counties-decrease.html.

Utah Geological Survey. 2023. Personal communication between Martha Hayden, Utah Geological Survey, and Aaron
Woods, Horrocks Engineers, regarding paleontological localities in the project area. January 10.

Utility Testing Laboratory. 1997. Underground Storage Tank Closure Notice Facility ID# 6000078.

Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 2018. Work Plan for Monitoring Well Abandonment Texaco C-Mart #2 795 E 700 S St.
George, Utah 84770 UST Facility No. 6000312; Release Site ELQV and EMAV.

Washington County. 2022. Washington County Assessor Record Search. Accessed January 26, 2023. https://www.
washco.utah.gov/forms/assessor/search/.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218 7-3

I-15 St. George Improved
Bluff Street to St. George Boulevard