I15-St George Improved EA - April 2023

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
1.6.3 Need for Active Transportation
Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
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
2.2 Screening Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
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
Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
3.7.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-22
2.5.1 Description of the Proposed
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
2.5.4 Preferred Alternative for the
Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
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 3.17.10 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
3.9.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27 3.17.11 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
3.9.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28 3.17.12 Stormwater, Floodplains,
3.10 Environmental Justice Populations . . . . . . 3-28 and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
3.10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28 3.17.13 Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.10.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28 3.17.14 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.10.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30 3.17.15 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.10.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30 3.17.16 Public Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.11 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 3.17.17 Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
3.11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 3.18 Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.11.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32 3.18.1 Regulatory Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.11.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32 3.18.2 Geographic Boundary and Timeframe . . . 3-45
3.11.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32 3.18.3 Past Actions Affecting
3.12 Section 4(f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 Resources of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 3.18.4 Present
and Reasonably
3.12.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 Foreseeable Future Actions
3.12.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 Affecting Resources of Concern . . . . . . 3-45
3.12.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 3.18.5 Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.13 Stormwater, Floodplains, 3.19 Environmental Permits and Mitigation . . . . 3-46
and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
3.13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 Chapter 4: Coordination
3.13.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
3.14 Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 4.2 Agency Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
3.14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 4.3 Public Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
3.14.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 4.3.1 Public Scoping Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
3.14.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 4.3.2. Public Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . .4-2
3.14.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 4.4 Alternatives Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2
3.15 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 4.4.1 Alternatives Review Public Meetings . . . . .4-2
3.15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 4.4.2. Alternatives Review Public
3.15.2 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3
3.15.3 Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . .3-40 4.5 Additional Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
3.15.4 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-40 4.5.1 Community Coordination Team . . . . . . . .4-3
3.16 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 4.5.2 St. George City Community Open House . . 4-3
3.16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 4.5.3 Dixie Regional Transportation Expo . . . . . 4-3
3.16.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 Chapter 5: Preparers
3.17 Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
Chapter 6: Distribution
3.17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
3.17.2 Land Acquisition and Relocations . . . . . . 3-42
Chapter 7: References
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

List of Tables
Executive Summary Table 3.7-1: 2022-2023 City Sales and
Table ES-1: Summary of Long-term Property Tax Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-7 Table 3.7-2: Commercial Property
Acquisition and Direct Effects . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Chapter 1: Purpose & Need Table 3.8-1: Noise Abatement Criteria . . . . . . . 3-25
Table 1-1: Intersection Performance . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 Table 3.8-2: Measured and Predicted
Noise Level Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
Table 3.8-3: Summary of Noise
Chapter 2: Alternatives Abatement Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Table 2-2: Purpose of the Proposed
Table 3.9-1: Daily Vehicle Miles
Action Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Traveled and Fuel Consumption . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
Table 2-3: Purpose of the Proposed Action
Table 3.10-1: Minority Populations
Alternatives’ Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Table 2-4: Proposed Action Alternatives Traffic
Table 3.10-2: Low-Income Populations
Performance Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . .2-7
in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Table 2-5: Proposed Action Alternatives Traffic
Table 3.11-1: Finding of Effect for
Performance Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . .2-7
NRHP-Eligible Architectural Properties . . . . . 3-33
Table 2-6: Proposed Action Alternatives Level 3
Table 3.12-1: Section 4(f) Use of
Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
NRHP-Eligible Architectural Properties . . . . . 3-34
Table 2-7: Proposed Action Alternatives Level 3
Table 3.14-1: Hazardous Material
Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Site Probability of Contamination . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Table 3.16-1: Daily Fuel Consumption . . . . . . . . 3-41
Table 3.19-1: Required Permits and Clearances . . 3-46
& Environmental Effects Table 3.19-2: Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Table 3.2-1: Full Acquisition and Relocation of
Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Table 3.2-2: Potential Full Acquisition Chapter 4: Coordination
and Relocation of Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 Table 4-1: Agency Scoping Letter Recipients . . . . 4-1
Table 3.2-3: Partial Acquisition of Properties . . . . 3-8 Table 4-2: Public Scoping Meeting Notices . . . . . 4-2
Table 3.2-4: Perpetual Easements . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 Table 4-3: Public Comments by Type . . . . . . . . .4-2
Table 3.3-1: Land Use in the Study Area . . . . . . . 3-9 Table 4-4: Alternatives Review Public
Table 3.3-2: Conversion of Land Uses under Meeting Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
the Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 Table 4-5: Public Comments by Type . . . . . . . . 4-3
Table 3.5-1: Average Travel Times on 700 South
between 600 East and River Road . . . . . . . . 3-16
Chapter 5: Preparers
Table 5.1-1: List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
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

List of Figures
Executive Summary Figure 3.2-3: Land Acquisition and
Figure ES-1: 2021 and 2050 No-Action Relocations (ID 102 through 111) . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Interchange Worst-Case Peak Delay Figure 3.2-4: Land Acquisition and
and Off-Ramp Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2 Relocations (ID 112 through 138) . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Figure ES-2 Action Alternative Figure 3.2-5: Land Acquisition and
Screening Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3 Relocations (ID 150 through 162) . . . . . . . . . .3-5
Figure ES-3: Proposed Action Alternatives . . . .ES-4 Figure 3.2-6: Land Acquisition and
Figure ES-4: Refined Preferred Alternative . . . . ES-5 Relocations (ID 140 through 148 and 164
through 166) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Chapter 1: Purpose & Need Figure 3.2-7: Land Acquisition and
Figure 1-1: Logical Termini and Relocations (ID 168) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Proposed Action Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Figure 3.3-1: Land Use Study Area . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Figure 1-2: Planned Transportation Projects . . . . . 1-2 Figure 3.4-1: 2021, No-Action Alternative (2050),
Figure 1-3: Washington County Preferred Alternative (2050) Average Daily
Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 Traffic Volumes Percent Increase and
Figure 1-4: Major Development Patterns . . . . . . . 1-4 Intersection Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
Figure 1-5: 2021 and 2050 No-Action Interchange Figure 3.5-1: Social Environment Study Area
Worst-Case Peak Delay and and Public and Quasi-Public Places . . . . . . . 3-15
Off-Ramp Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 Figure 3.6-1: Existing and Planned Active
Figure 1-6: Travel Times from Points of Origin . . . . 1-6 Transportation Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Figure 1-7: Existing and Planned Active Transportation Figure 3.6-2: Estimated Daily Cyclist
Routes and I-15 Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 and Pedestrian Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
Figure 3.7-1: Economic Conditions Study Area
Chapter 2: Alternatives and Commercial Properties at
Figure 2-1: Action Alternative Screening I-15 and 700 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Figure 3.8-1: Typical A-Weighed Noise Levels . . . 3-24
Figure 2-2: No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . .2-3 Figure 3.8-2: Recommended Noise Barriers . . . . 3-27
Figure 2-3: Proposed Action Alternatives . . . . . . 2-5 Figure 3.10-1: Environmental Justice
Figure 2-4: Single Point Urban Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Interchange (SPUI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8 Figure 3.11-1: NRHP-Eligible Historical Buildings . . . 3-32
Figure 2-5: Offset Single Point Figure 3.13-1: Water Resources in the Study Area . 3-36
Urban Interchange (SPUI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9 Figure 3.13-2: Preferred Alternative Drainage
Figure 2-6: Offset Single Point Urban Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37
Interchange (SPUI) with Figure 3.14-1: Hazardous Material Sites
Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover . . . . . . .2-9 in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Figure 2-7: Offset Diamond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10 Figure 3.15-1: Key Observation Points . . . . . . . . 3-39
Figure 2-8 Refined Preferred Alternative . . . . . 2-15 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
Chapter 3: Affected Environment & Figure 3.15-4: KOP 3 (I-15 at Milepost 7.9) . . . . .3-40
Environmental Effects Figure 3.15-5: KOP 4 (900 South at 550 East) . . . 3-40
Figure 3.2-1: Land Acquisition Types . . . . . . . . . 3-2 Figure 3.17-1: Potential Cyclist and Pedestrian
Figure 3.2-2: Land Acquisition Detours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
and Relocations (ID 100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

List of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
and Transportation Officials NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
ACS American Community Survey NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
APE Area of Potential Effects NC Ineligible/Non-Contributing
CAA Clean Air Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
CCT Community Coordination Team NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NRHP National Register of Historic Places
CGP Construction General Permit O3 Ozone
CFR Code of Federal Regulations OP Ineligible/Out-of-Period
CO Carbon Monoxide Pb Lead
CO2 Carbon Dioxide PM Particulate Matter
dB Decibel RTP Regional Transportation Plan
dBA A-Weighted Decibel SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
DERR Division of Environmental Response and SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
Remediation
SPUI Single Point Urban Interchange
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
DWQ Division of Water Quality
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
EA Environmental Assessment
TNM Traffic Noise Model
EC Eligible/Contributing
UAC Utah Administrative Code
EIA Energy Information Administration
UDOT Utah Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Uniform Act Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
ES Eligible/Significant Property Acquisition Policies Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination
GHG Greenhouse Gas System
KOP Key Observation Point USC United States Code
Leq(h) Equivalent Continuous Sound Level per UST Underground Storage Tank
Hour VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
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

Executive Summary
ES 1.1 Introduction
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has Seeing the effects population growth has on I-15,
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) consistent particularly at the Bluff Street and St. George
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Title Boulevard Interchanges, UDOT began contemplating
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, the Proposed Action as early as 2017. Before this EA,
and 23 CFR 771 to evaluate the Proposed Action, which UDOT completed two planning studies in 2017 and
is to construct a new interchange on Interstate 15 (I-15) at 2019. These studies show that an interchange at 700
700 South in St. George City, Washington County, Utah. South would reduce the number of vehicles using the
interchanges at Bluff Street (approximately one mile
The environmental review, consultation, and other
to the south) and St. George Boulevard (approximately
actions required by applicable federal environmental
one mile to the north).
laws for this project are being or have been carried out
by UDOT pursuant to 23 United States Code (USC) 327 This EA will further evaluate the benefits and potential
and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated effects of the Proposed Action, and engage all necessary
May 26, 2022, and executed by the Federal Highway parties (governmental agencies, stakeholders, and the
Administration (FHWA) and UDOT. public) in the decision-making process.
This executive summary is intended to provide brief ES 1.3 Purpose and Need (see Chapter 1)
answers to the following questions: The purpose of the Proposed Action is to:
» What led to the idea of an interchange on I-15 at 700 » Improve operations of the I-15 Bluff Street and St.
South in St. George City? George Boulevard Interchanges compared to the 2050
» What is the purpose (or intended outcome) of the No-Action condition.
Proposed Action? » Improve access from I-15 to regional destinations in St.
» What is the need (or reasons) for the Proposed Action? George City.
» How did UDOT select the Preferred Alternative for the » Improve mobility options for a broad range of users,
Proposed Action? including pedestrians and cyclists.
» What are the potential effects of the No-Action
Alternative and Preferred Alternative? To understand the need for the Proposed Action
» How did UDOT involve governmental agencies, better, UDOT analyzed the current and 2050 traffic
stakeholders, and the public? conditions. The 2050 condition, also referred to as the
2050 No-Action Alternative, assumes that all planned
The reader can refer to Chapters 1 through 4 of this EA transportation projects from the Dixie Metropolitan
for more detailed answers to these questions. Planning Organization 2019-2050 Regional Transportation
Plan are built, except for the Proposed Action. The
ES 1.2 Background
analysis assessed the transportation needs for the
The St. George metropolitan area has experienced Proposed Action by focusing on delay and queue lengths
unprecedented growth since the 1990s and was recently at the St. George Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges
ranked as the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the and travel times to destinations in St. George City.
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 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. and construction impacts and it is the easiest and least
Through preliminary screening and traffic analyses, UDOT expensive to construct.
concluded none of these action alternatives meet the
The Preferred Alternative includes the major features
purpose of the Proposed Action or would perform as well
described and shown on Figure ES-4 (see page ES-
as the Proposed Action Alternatives.
5). Following selection of the Preferred Alternative,
Through Level 1 screening, UDOT eliminated 7 of the 12 UDOT modified the design to address pedestrian safety
Proposed Action Alternatives; the Single Point Urban concerns. 700 South is a popular route for students
Interchange (SPUI), Offset SPUI, Offset SPUI with walking to and from Dixie High School (350 East 700
Eastbound-to-Northbound Crossover, Offset Diamond, South) and Dixie Middle School (929 South 100 East). To
and Tight Diamond advanced to Level 2 for in-depth enhance pedestrian safety and comfort on the south side
traffic analysis (see Figure ES-3 on page ES-4). Level 2 of 700 South, UDOT added a four-foot-wide park strip
traffic analyses revealed the Tight Diamond Alternative between the sidewalk and shoulder to increase the buffer
to be the only Proposed Action Alternative that does between vehicles and pedestrians.
not reduce off-ramp queue lengths at the St. George
In addition, the Preferred Alternative introduces eight
Boulevard Interchange; it was therefore eliminated.
new conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at
Because the remaining Proposed Action Alternatives the proposed on- and off-ramps, two of which are
have similar Level 2 traffic performance results, Level 3 unsignalized (i.e., there is not a traffic signal to control
results ultimately determined the Preferred Alternative vehicle movements while pedestrians are crossing).
for the Proposed Action. Level 3 criteria focused on These unsignalized crossings occur at both free right-
right-of-way acquisition, environmental justice impacts, turns onto the northbound and southbound on-ramps.
constructability, active transportation (number of conflicts To address this concern, UDOT added a traffic signal,
between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists), and cost. similar to the example shown on Figure ES-4 (see page
The SPUI Alternative is the Preferred Alternative for the ES-5), to the westbound to southbound free right-
Proposed Action because it balances property impacts turn, which turns red when the pedestrian button is
activated. UDOT also added traffic signals
Figure ES-2 Action Alternative Screening Process
at the remaining right turns to enhance
Charettes Agencies
pedestrian safety further.
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 Eliminate Alternatives
Level 2
Purpose & Need/
Traffic Performance
S CR E E NI NG Eliminate Alternatives
15–30% Level 3
Impacts & Design <----- Public Input
Considerations
30%
Preferred Alternative

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
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

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. 4 Widen 700 South east and west of I-15 to provide dual 7 Provide a 12-foot-wide shared-use trail on the north side
left-turn lanes. of 700 South that begins at 800 East and extends east
2 Replace the existing I-15 bridges with longer bridges
through the interchange to 1000 East.
over 700 South. 5 A dd a cul-de-sac at southern end of 800 East.
3 Raise I-15 to accommodate the longer bridges. 6 Add dual left-turn lanes at 700 East and 900 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
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 » Would
shorten regional and local emergency
emergency response times. response times compared to the No-Action
Alternative.
» Would
increase traffic congestion and
the number of failing intersections in » Would
provide more convenient access
downtown St. George City and reduce to downtown St. George City for regional
700 South’s effectiveness as an east- drivers; however, local travelers could
west local connector. experience diminished access.

Table ES-1: Summary of Long-term Environmental Effects (Continued)
Cyclists and » Would maintain existing bicycle and » Would introduce eight new vehicle conflict
Pedestrians pedestrian routes and planned routes points with cyclists and pedestrians.
(see Section 3.6) in downtown St. George City. » Would increase the time for a pedestrian to
» Would not affect the time for a cross 700 South up to 28 percent.
pedestrian to cross 700 South. » Would diminish pedestrian safety with
» Would diminish pedestrian safety increases in average daily traffic volumes
with increases in average daily traffic on 700 South compared to the existing
volumes on 700 South compared to condition.
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.
Economic Conditions » Would not affect existing commercial » Would acquire and relocate four commercial
(see Section 3.7) activities and trends along 700 South. properties.
» Could make 700 South less desirable » Would potentially acquire and relocate one
to travel on and decrease patronage commercial property.
to businesses due to worsening traffic » Would restrict unsignalized left turns into
congestion on 700 South. 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.
Traffic Noise » Would increase noise levels over » Would exceed the noise abatement criteria
(see Section 3.8) existing conditions with an additional threshold at 379 receivers representing 690
travel lane in each direction on I-15. receptors. Noise barriers are recommended
Noise barriers are recommended to to decrease the noise levels.
decrease the noise levels.
Air Quality » Would not exceed National Ambient » Would

not exceed National Ambient Air
(see Section 3.9) Air Quality Standards. Quality Standards.
» Would improve vehicle emission rates, » Could
have higher localized mobile source
despite increases in traffic congestion air toxic (MSAT) emissions relative to the No-
and delay, due to increasingly Action Alternative, but there are also offsets
stringent U.S. Environmental due to increases in speed and reductions in
Protection Agency regulations congestion which are associated with lower
regarding vehicle emissions. MSAT emissions.
» Would result in a GHG emissions social » Would
result in a GHG emissions social cost
cost of $15,393 per ton of C02 emitted of $15,933 per ton of C02 emitted into the
into the atmosphere in 2050. atmosphere in 2050.
Environmental Justice » Would not have disproportionately » Would not have disproportionately high and
(see Section 3.10) high and adverse effects. adverse effects.
Cultural Resources » Would not affect cultural resources. » Would have a finding of No Adverse Effect
(see Section 3.11) to seven properties eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places.

Table ES-1: Summary of Long-term Environmental Effects (Continued)
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) The comments UDOT received during the Public Scoping
ES 1.6.1 Public & Agency Scoping and Alternatives Review Period and Alternatives Review Period informed the
alternative development and screening process and
Public and agency coordination began with the Public
environmental impact analyses.
Scoping Period that occurred between April 18, 2022, and
May 17, 2022. During this time, agency letters were sent to ES 1.6.2 Additional Outreach
federal, state, and local agencies and Native American Tribes UDOT assembled a Community Coordination Team
who might have an interest in the Proposed Action. None (CCT) composed of business owners and residents who
of these entities replied to UDOT’s formal request for input. represented diverse interests and perspectives. UDOT met
Approximately 261 people attended the two Public Scoping with the CCT on June 28, 2022, and on November 20, 2022,
Meetings that were held on May 3, and May 4, 2022. UDOT to obtain vital input from the group and to determine how
received 247 comments during the Public Scoping Period. accurately UDOT was capturing public sentiment.
Numerous Public Scoping comments requested more UDOT also attended the following forums to broaden public
transparency and involvement in the decision-making outreach to a regional audience:
process. In response, UDOT held two additional public » St. George City Community Open House on October
meetings on November 15, 2022, and November 16, 13, 2022, at the Desert Color community (attended by
2022, to review the four Proposed Action Alternatives approximately 150 people).
that advanced to Level 3 of the action alternative » Dixie Transportation Expo on February 7, 2023, at the
screening process. Approximately 184 people attended Dixie Convention Center in St. George City (attended by
the Alternatives Review Meetings. UDOT received 269 approximately 961 people).
comments during the 30-day comment period that began
on November 11, 2022, and ended on December 10, 2022.

CHAPTER 1
Purpose & Need
1.1 Introduction 6.8). This terminus is the southernmost endpoint for
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is potential I-15 improvements (e.g., auxiliary lanes)
preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) consistent associated with a new interchange at 700 South.
with the National Environmental Policy Act, Title 40 of »N
orth Terminus: I-15 at the St. George Boulevard
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, and 23 Interchange southbound on-ramp and northbound off-
CFR 771 to evaluate a new interchange on Interstate 15 (I- ramp (approximate milepost 8.4). This terminus is the
15) at 700 South in St. George City, Washington County, northernmost endpoint for potential I-15 improvements
Utah. This EA also conforms to the UDOT Environmental associated with a new interchange at 700 South.
Manual of Instruction. »E
ast Terminus: 700 South and River Road intersection.
River Road is the first north-south arterial east of I-15
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions and a major traffic generator.
required by applicable federal environmental laws for this »W
est Terminus: 700 South and 700 East intersection.
project are being or have been carried out by UDOT pursuant 700 East is the first signalized intersection west
to 23 United States Code (USC) 327 and a Memorandum of of I-15 and is the eastern terminus for a separate
Understanding (MOU) dated May 26, 2022, and executed by planned project to widen 700 South (see Section 1.4,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and UDOT. Transportation Planning).
By the end of this chapter, the reader should understand: These termini, as described and shown on Figure 1-1, meet
» How the Proposed Action is defined. the requirements of 23 CFR 771.111(f) because they are
» The historical context and planning background sufficiently spaced to assess the environmental impacts
supporting the Proposed Action. Figure 1-1: Logical Termini and Proposed Action Area
» The effects of not constructing the Proposed
Action on the transportation network in the
year 2050. St. George Blvd.
1.2 Proposed Action North
Terminus
The Proposed Action would construct a new
interchange on I-15 at 700 South in St. George
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 is the designated organization responsible for coordinating
alternatives for other transportation improvements. Based the transportation planning process in the urbanized area
on these termini, the Proposed Action has independent of Washington County. The Dixie MPO works with UDOT,
utility, meaning the Proposed Action functions Washington County, and the cities in its jurisdiction to
independently of other planned transportation-related prioritize projects in phases based on need and available
projects in the region. 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). 1.5 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The Dixie MPO’s current RTP was adopted in 2019. The The purpose of the Proposed Action is to:
RTP organizes project delivery into three phases: Phase » Improve operations of the I-15 Bluff Street and St.
1 (2019-2030), Phase 2 (2031-2040), and Phase 3 (2041- George Boulevard Interchanges compared to the 2050
2050). Figure 1-2 (see page 1-2) shows the planned No-Action condition.
transportation projects in or near the Proposed Action » Improve access from I-15 to regional destinations in St.
area, including the Proposed Action (project number 145). George City.
» Improve mobility options for a broad range of users,
Following its adoption in 2019, the Dixie MPO amended
including pedestrians and cyclists.
the RTP to move the Proposed Action from Phase II
to Phase I. In 2021, the Utah State Legislature passed 1.6 Need for the Proposed Action
House Bill 433 authorizing funds to widen I-15 between I-15 is a major transportation corridor in the western
mileposts 6.0 and 8.0 (project number 129). United States that connects St. George City to populated
1.4.2 Previous Studies areas to the north along the Wasatch Front in Utah and the
south in Nevada and southern California. Locally, I-15 is the
In 2019, UDOT commissioned the I-15 MP 7 Interchange
primary route to regionally significant destinations in St.
Study to determine the benefit of an interchange at 700
George City and Washington County. As such, I-15 serves
South. The study indicated that an interchange could
as a vital link to move goods and people throughout
benefit the transportation system by reducing 2050
Washington County and the western United States.
traffic volumes at the St. George Boulevard Interchange
and Bluff Street Interchange by 17 percent and 7 percent, 1.6.1 Population Growth and Development Context
respectively. Multiple interchange design concepts Population growth puts increased demand on the
were also developed to determine the feasibility of an transportation system. The St. George metropolitan
interchange. The concepts showed that an interchange area has experienced unprecedented growth since the
could be constructed at 700 South with varying impacts 1990s and was recently ranked as the fastest-growing
on the surrounding environment (UDOT 2019). These metropolitan area in the United States (U.S. Census
concepts, along with others developed for this EA, are Bureau 2022). Figure 1-3 shows that Washington County’s
described in Chapter 2, Alternatives. population is projected to more than double by 2050.
Putting this in perspective, Washington County is poised
In 2013, FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
to become the fourth most populated county in Utah
for the I-15 South EA, which evaluated alternatives and
behind Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Davis County
impacts associated with widening I-15 between milepost
(Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2022).
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 401,757
400,000
interchange at 700 South (the
Proposed Action) was not included. 350,000
337,326
300,000
250,000 265,865
200,000
182,111
150,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2022

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

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.
TRAVEL TIME northbound direction and 17 percent in the southbound
Travel time is how long it takes for a vehicle to travel direction by 2050 (see Figure 1-6).
from one location to another. Travel time is used to
1.6.3 Need for Active Transportation Improvements
measure and compare existing and future conditions to
understand better how a corridor is performing. UDOT defines active transportation as human-powered
travel (e.g., walking, biking, personal electric-assisted
The excessive delays at the St. George Boulevard and travel) to travel from one location to another (UDOT
Bluff Street Interchanges are expected to prolong 2022). UDOT’s Inclusion of Active Transportation UDOT
travel times to destinations near I-15 and 700 South. 07-117 mandates the needs of cyclists, pedestrians, and
Comparing the current and future average travel times other active transportation users to be considered in
from Green Springs Road and Brigham Road via I-15 all project development phases (UDOT 2013). Adhering
to multiple destinations near 700 South indicates that to this policy, UDOT recognizes the importance of
travel time is expected to increase by 18 percent in the active transportation, and is committed to considering
reasonable active transportation
Figure 1-6: Travel Times from Points of Origin improvements as part of the
Proposed Action.
SOUTHBOUND
POINT OF ORIGIN 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
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 The need for the Proposed Action is based on:
infrastructure better. Figure 1-7 shows that a shared-use » Excessive delays at the St. George Boulevard and Bluff
path and bike lanes are planned on 700 South under I-15. Street Interchanges that lead to off-ramp queues at all
Other planned improvements in the Proposed Action area but the Bluff Street southbound off-ramp extending onto
include pedestrian tunnels under I-15 at 200 South and mainline I-15, resulting in unsafe travel conditions.
400 East, bike lanes, shared roadways (i.e., a street not » Longer travel times via I-15 from origin points north and
designated or marked as a bike route but open to bikes south of St. George City to regional destinations in
and vehicles), and a bike boulevard (i.e., a street with St. George City due to excessive delays at the
low traffic volumes and speeds that is designated and St. George Boulevard and Bluff Street Interchanges.
designed to give cyclists priority). » Limited east-west active transportation routes in the
Proposed Action area. I-15 is a barrier that separates
1.7 Purpose and Need Summary
residents east of I-15 from popular destinations to the
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to: west. Current crossings under I-15 are limited to 700
» Improve operations of the I-15 Bluff Street and South and a pedestrian tunnel at 400 South.
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.

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

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

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

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
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
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

LEVEL 2: TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE leads to the safety concerns on mainline I-15 described in
SCREENING RESULTS Section 1.6.2, Need for Travel Demand Improvements (see
The screening criteria for Level 2 is divided into two parts. Off-ramp Queue Lengths). At St. George Boulevard in
The first part focuses on achieving the traffic related particular, reduced weave distance creates a northbound
purposes for the Proposed Action (see Table 2-2) and queue between the northbound on-ramp from 700 South
the second part focuses on the 700 South interchange and the off-ramp due to the diamond interchange releasing
performance, including how the interchange could affect traffic on the freeway to keep storage between the ramp
I-15 and 700 South (see Table 2-4 on page 2-7). intersections clear.
Comparing the 2050 traffic results for each Proposed The remaining Proposed Action Alternatives advance for
Action Alternative to the No-Action Alternative in Table 2-3 further consideration because they reduce interchange
reveals that only the Tight Diamond fails to meet each delay and off-ramp queues at the St. George Boulevard
purpose of the Proposed Action. The Tight Diamond is and Bluff Street Interchanges and shorten travel times
eliminated from further consideration because off-ramp compared to the No-Action Alternative.
queues are expected to extend onto I-15 mainline, which
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

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

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

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
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
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.

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
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

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

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

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

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

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.

» 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

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.

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.

River Rd.

2 of 6

700 East
800 East
134 138
112 114 116
120
700 South
River Rd.

3 of 6
700 South
160
156 158 162
150
900 East
154
152
Morningside Drive
River Rd.

4 of 6

Figure 3.2-6: Land Acquisition and Relocations (ID 140 through 148 and 164 through 166)
148
146
142
144
164
166
140

River Rd.

5 of 6
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)

River Rd.

6 of 6

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

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

3.3 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
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.

3.3.3 Environmental Effects 3.4 Transportation
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 3.4.1 Introduction
The No-Action Alternative would not convert This section compares the traffic volume changes between
existing land uses to a transportation use and future the No-Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative and
development could proceed as planned. describes the effect the changes would have on the road
network shown on Figure 3.4-1 (see page 3-13).
DIRECT EFFECTS The average daily traffic volumes presented in this
The Preferred Alternative would require the partial or section are provided by the Dixie Metropolitan Planning
full acquisition of properties adjoining the Preferred Organization (Dixie MPO) Travel Demand Model (CITILABS
Alternative (see Section 3.2, Land Acquisition and CUBE Version 3). Computer simulation software programs
Relocations). These acquisitions would convert existing Synchro and Vissim provide intersection Level of Service
residential, commercial, and vacant land uses to a (LOS)—a method for measuring intersection performance—
transportation use (see Table 3.3-2). The Preferred with traffic volumes developed from the Travel Demand
Alternative would not acquire properties designated as Model. LOS measures the performance of an intersection
public or quasi-public land uses. on a scale from A to F, with A representing the best
performance and F the worst. LOS E or F indicates the
Table 3.3-2: Conversion of Land Uses under the
intersection is not able to handle the number of vehicles
traveling through during a specific time of day. The LOS
Acres Percent of the Total
Converted to Acres in the Study presented in this analysis represents operations during the
Land Use Transportation Area PM peak, which is the highest volume of afternoon/evening
Residential 1.0 0.6 traffic for a continuous hour during a typical weekday.
Commercial 3.7 2.1 3.4.2 Affected Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.


3.6 Cyclists and Pedestrians 3.6.2 Affected Environment
3.6.1 Introduction The cyclists and pedestrians study area extends beyond
Cyclists and pedestrians require defined paths such the direct limits of the Preferred Alternative to allow for
as sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use trails for safe a greater understanding of nearby active transportation
travel. UDOT’s policy, Inclusion of Active Transportation routes and existing connectivity in the vicinity of the
UDOT 07-117, requires that all active transportation users, Preferred Alternative (see Figure 3.6-1).
including pedestrians and bicyclists, be considered in the
Existing Active Transportation Facilities
planning, design, construction, and all other elements of
Sidewalks (without park strip buffers) are the only
UDOT transportation facilities. This section addresses the
pedestrian facilities along 700 South. The closest bike
cyclist and pedestrian improvements proposed with the
lanes are on 600 South, a parallel route one block north
Preferred Alternative and the effects these may have on
of 700 South. All signalized intersections along 700
connectivity to existing and planned routes, and cyclist
South, and three non-signalized intersections at 100 East,
and pedestrian safety and comfort.
200 East, and 300 East have crosswalks. The crossings
Current and planned facilities were identified through at non-signalized intersections lack pedestrian crossing
aerial imagery, field visits, and consultation with the Dixie protection devices (such as crossing beacons). The only
MPO Regional Active Transportation Plan and the St. pedestrian crossing of I-15, other than at 700 South, is the
George Active Transportation Plan. The origin-destination pedestrian tunnel at 400 South (see Figure 3.6-1).
function in Streetlight Data, an analytics platform that
Planned Active Transportation Facilities
uses mobile data, provided data used to estimate the
The Dixie MPO Regional Active Transportation Plan and
daily average number of cyclists and pedestrians who use
the St. George Active Transportation Plan identify planned
700 South to cross under I-15.
Figure 3.6-1: Existing and Planned Active Transportation Routes
EXISTING 400 SOUTH

PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
9000 East
400 East
700 East
400 South
600 South
River Rd.
700 South
Dixie
High
School
Study Area
Dixie
Middle
900 South
Preferred Alternative Footprint
School
Planned Buffered Bike Lane
Planned Bike Lane
Planned Sidepath/Shared-use Path
PLANNED 400 EAST Planned Shared Roadway
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
Existing Sidepath/Shared-use Path
Existing Bike Lane
Source: Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization 2019, St. George City 2017
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.

3.6.3 Environmental Effects The Preferred Alternative would widen 700 South
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE between 600 East and 100 East to accommodate
Under the No-Action Alternative, the existing bicycle and additional through lanes and left-turn lanes, which would
pedestrian routes and distances to cross 700 South would increase the crossing distance at 700 East and 900 East
remain the same (see Table 3.6-1). The Dixie MPO and St. (see Table 3.6-1). The distance to cross 700 South would
George City would carry out their plans for further active increase up to 40 feet (approximate), which means it
transportation routes. would take the average person walking at 2.5 miles per
hour up to 11 seconds (or 69 percent) longer to cross.
As described in Section 3.4, Transportation, average
daily traffic volumes would increase on 700 South. The INDIRECT EFFECTS
Highway Safety Manual 1st Addition indicates there is Beyond 600 East and 1000 East, the existing sidewalks
a correlation between traffic volumes and pedestrian would remain in place and connect to the new sidewalks
safety (AASHTO 2010): As traffic volumes increase, the and a shared-use path proposed under the Preferred
likelihood of vehicle-pedestrian collisions also increases. Alternative. The crossing distance at all designated
Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would diminish crosswalks at 100 East, 300 East, 400 East, and River
pedestrian safety along 700 South. Road would not be affected.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE As described in Section 3.4, Transportation, daily traffic

DIRECT EFFECTS volumes on 700 South between Bluff Street and 900
The on- and off-ramps of the Preferred Alternative would East would decrease or remain the same compared to the
introduce eight new vehicle conflicts with cyclists and No-Action Alternative. Therefore, the likelihood of vehicle-
pedestrians. The Preferred Alternative would implement pedestrian collisions would be similar. However, between
a shared-use path and additional cyclist and pedestrian 900 East and River Road daily traffic volumes, and
safety features described Section 3.6.4 to navigate the consequently the likelihood of vehicle-pedestrian collisions,
new conflict points. would increase, compared to the No-Action Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative incorporates a 12-foot-wide
shared-use path on the north side of 700 South that begins To enhance cyclist and pedestrian safety on 700 South,
at 800 East and extends east through the interchange to the following design features shall be implemented if the
1000 East to be consistent with the Dixie MPO Regional Preferred Alternative is constructed:
Active Transportation Plan and the St. George Active » Traffic signals at all ramps as proposed in Section 2.5.5,
Transportation Plan. This shared-use path provides a safer Description of the Preferred Alternative for the Proposed
option for cyclists to travel through the interchange by Action, to protect cyclists and pedestrians traveling
separating them from the vehicle travel lanes. UDOT chose through the interchange when the pedestrian button is
to place the shared-use path on the north side because: activated.
» It gives cyclists the quickest access to 600 South (one » Four-foot-wide park strip between the sidewalk and
block to the north) and its existing bike lanes, which shoulder on the south side of 700 South to increase the
St. George City designated as the primary bike route buffer between vehicles and pedestrians.
instead of 700 South. » Signal timing adjustments at 700 East and 900 East to
» The data shown on Figure 3.6-2 indicates the north side give pedestrians enough time to cross 700 South.
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 Time to Cross 700 South
Intersection with Existing Proposed Increase Existing Proposed Increase Percent
700 South (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Seconds) (Seconds) (Seconds) Increase
700 East 60 98 38 16 27 11 63
900 East 68 108 40 19 29 10 59

3.7 Economic Conditions Beyond the economic conditions study area, the St.
3.7.1 Introduction George Metropolitan Statistical Area has approximately
84,000 jobs and 7,000 businesses (St. George Area
This section describes the local economic context and the
Chamber of Commerce 2023).
effects on the local economy. The Utah Geospatial Resource
Center, the Washington County Assessor’s office, and aerial Major employers near the economic conditions study
imagery provided data for this analysis. area include:
» Intermountain Healthcare (4,000 to 4,999 employees).
»W ashington County School District (3,000 to 3,999
The economic conditions study area boundary is the employees).
same as described in Section 3.3, Land Use (see Figure »U tah Tech University (1,000 to 1,999 employees).
3.3-1 on page 3-9). Commercial properties occupy all four »S t. George City (1,000 to 1,999 employees).
corners of 700 South where I-15 crosses over the street. »S kyWest Airlines (500 to 999 employees).
These commercial properties include restaurants, a gas »H armons (250 to 499 employees).
station, retail stores, storage units, and professional and (Utah Department of Workforce Services 2022)
medical offices (see Figure 3.7-1). The largest of these,
Morningside Professional Plaza, is a 6.1-acre property with St. George City relies on property and sales tax as reliable
11 commercial buildings. revenue sources to fund essential services, with property
and sales tax revenue accounting for a significant
Drivers access commercial properties on 700 South percentage of the its annual budget (see Table 3.7-1 see
using signalized intersections at 700 East and 900 East, page 3-22). The remaining revenue sources consist of
and non-signalized driveways at all other locations. All licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenue, charges
turning movements are currently allowed into and out for services, fines and forfeitures, and other revenues.
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
1100 East
800 East
700 South
Morningside
Cmart Storage
Riverside Dr. Strip Gas
Mall Station The 700 South
Building
700 South
Morningside
900 East
Professional Plaza
St. George
Medical Park
Study Area
Commercial
Property

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
displaced businesses relocate to another city.
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.

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 thereby potentially reducing the private revenue for the
Under the Preferred Alternative, a new interchange with property owner and tax revenue for St. George City. The
northbound and southbound on-and-off ramps would removal of parking stalls at Morningside Professional
provide direct access to 700 South for drivers on I-15. Plaza is unlikely to reduce the number of tenants and
This access could potentially allow for new highway- patrons, however, because this property currently has a
dependent development and/or redevelopment of parking surplus according to St. George City’s off-street
commercial properties on 700 South adjacent to I-15. parking requirements.
Furthermore, major employers near the economic study
area would benefit economically from increased exposure
and improved access to and from I-15. 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,

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
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
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
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

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

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.

Figure 3.8-2: Recommended Noise Barriers pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), particulate
matter (PM), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
100 South lead (Pb), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Washington
County is currently in attainment for all NAAQS
criteria pollutants.
BARRIER 3
River Rd.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
20 Feet Tall
In addition to NAAQS, the U.S. Environmental
400 East
Protection Agency (EPA) regulates air toxics.

700 East Most air toxics originate from human-made
BARRIER 4 sources, including on-road mobile sources,
18 Feet Tall
non-road mobile sources (e.g., locomotives,
(Average)
construction equipment, and airplanes)
700 South
and stationary sources (e.g., factories or
BARRIER 1 refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)
18 Feet Tall are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by
(Average)
900 East
the CAA. MSAT are compounds emitted from

900 South highway vehicles and non-road equipment.
Greenhouse Gases
BARRIER 2
Study Area Global climate change is an important
18 Feet Tall
Barrier Recommended national and global concern that the federal
(Average)
for Balloting government is addressing in several ways. The
Riverside Dr.
transportation sector is the second-largest
3.9 Air Quality source of total greenhouse gases (GHG) in
3.9.1 Introduction the United States and the largest source of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions, which is the predominant GHG.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 regulate air quality throughout In 2018, the transportation sector was responsible for 27
the United States (42 USC 7401 et seq.). To evaluate the percent of all CO2 emissions produced in the United States
effects the Preferred Alternative may have on compliance (EPA 2022a). The human-made source of carbon emissions
with the CAA and CAAA, UDOT conducted an air quality is the combustion of fossil fuels, which account for about
evaluation, with the full results of this analysis included in the 80 percent of human-made emissions of carbon worldwide.
Air Quality Summary in Appendix A, Reports and Clearances. 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.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Areas in which air quality meets (i.e., is below) National 3.9.3 Environmental Effects
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) standards for NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
a given pollutant are considered “in attainment” for Vehicle emission rates would improve due to increasingly
that pollutant. Areas exceeding these standards (i.e., stringent EPA vehicle emissions regulations, which would
are above) are “nonattainment” areas. A “maintenance” help improve air quality in the air quality study area.
area was previously a nonattainment area and has
subsequently been redesignated as an attainment area. The No-Action Alternative would have a slight increase
in per-vehicle emissions due to continuing congestion
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) and delays in the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative;
Division of Air Quality operates a network of air quality however, anticipated improvements in overall air quality
monitoring stations throughout Washington County that would likely outweigh these increases.
monitor air pollution levels for the six NAAQS criteria

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
Alternative (see Figure 3.10-1 on page 3-29).

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
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
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.
6 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2718 753 26
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2021b

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

3.11 Cultural Resources Sites and buildings that are potentially eligible under
3.11.1 Introduction one of the four previous criteria must also be evaluated
for integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
This section describes the identified cultural resources
workmanship, feeling, and association. To be eligible for
in the cultural study area. For additional details, see the
the NRHP, a site/building must possess integrity of those
Selective Reconnaissance Level Survey in Appendix A,
elements directly related to the criterion or criteria under
Reports and Clearances.
which it would be determined eligible.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54
U.S. Code 3001-3071) outlines the national policy and In Utah, historic buildings are further evaluated using a
procedures regarding historic properties (e.g., districts, rating system established by the Historic Preservation
sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in, Program at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office
or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (SHPO). This system assigns one of the following four
(NRHP)). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal ratings to buildings based on the degree to which they
agencies to consider the effects of their actions on such retain historic and architectural integrity:
properties by following 36 CFR 800, which is overseen by » Eligible/Significant (ES): Built in the historic period
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. If adverse and retains integrity; excellent example of a style or
effects to these resources result from the action, UDOT is type; unaltered or only minor alterations or additions;
required to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any individually eligible for the NRHP under criterion “C”;
adverse effects. also buildings of known historical significance.
» Eligible/Contributing (EC): Built in the historic period
For this analysis, cultural resources include the following: and retains integrity; good example of a style or type,
» Archaeological resources: Prehistoric or historic but not as well-preserved or well-executed as “ES”
remains of past human activities—including objects, buildings; more substantial alterations or additions
features, artifacts, and linear historic sites, such as than “ES” buildings, though overall integrity is
canals and railroads—that are at least 45 years old. retained; eligible for the NRHP as part of a potential
» Architectural resources: Historic sites, buildings, historic district or primarily for historical, rather than
culverts, or structures that are at least 45 years old. architectural, reasons.
In accordance with 36 CFR 60.4, cultural resources must » I neligible/Non-Contributing (NC): Built during the historic
be evaluated for their eligibility for the NRHP under four period but has had major alterations or additions; no longer
specific criteria and with consideration for seven elements retains integrity.
of integrity. A cultural resource site or building may be » Ineligible/Out-of-Period (OP): Built outside the
considered eligible for the NRHP if it meets one or more of historic period.
the following criteria: In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4, the cultural study area
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant for archaeological resources and historic buildings is
contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or referred to as the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Both
B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our direct and indirect impacts are included in the APE.
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.

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
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
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.

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

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
Mansard style apartment
Six one-story Ranch style
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
garage style and plan house
9 630 South 700 East 1970 EC/Eligible
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
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

3.12 Section 4(f) impacts). Uses that result in minor impacts without adverse
3.12.1 Introduction effects are “de minimis.” A temporary occupancy use is
considered an exception if meets the requirements of 23
Section 4(f) refers to the original section in the U.S.
CFR 774.13(d).
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303),
which requires UDOT to consider Section 4(f) properties NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
during transportation project development. Section 4(f) Construction on 700 East would not occur; therefore,
implementing regulations found in 23 CFR 774 define a there would not be a use of Section 4(f) properties.
Section 4(f) property as “publicly owned land of a public
park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
national, state, or local significance, or land of a historic DIRECT EFFECTS
site of national, state, or local significance” (23 CFR 774.17). The Preferred Alternative would result in a de minimis
Archaeological sites only qualify for protection under Section impact to three NRHP-eligible properties (see Table 3.12-
4(f) if they warrant preservation in place (23 CFR 774.13(b)). 1). A temporary occupancy would occur at four NRHP-
eligible properties; each of these meet the requirements
3.12.2 Affected Environment of 23 CFR 774.13(d). The Utah SHPO concurred with these
The Section 4(f) study area is the same as the APE for historic determinations in the Determination of Eligibility and
sites. There are 12 historic properties eligible for listing on Finding of Effect that was prepared by UDOT on January
the NRHP (see Figure 3.11-1 on page 3-32). Public parks, 19, 2023. This correspondence is available in Appendix A,
recreation areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges that meet Reports and Clearances.
the requirements of 23 CFR 774.17 are not present.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
3.12.3 Environmental Effects The Preferred Alternative would not result in indirect effects
This section evaluates the “use” of Section 4(f) properties. on 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 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
684 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)

3.13 Stormwater, Floodplains, and assesses surface waters to determine if they are
and Water Quality meeting standards for their designated beneficial use or if
3.13.1 Introduction they are considered impaired and, therefore, are included
on Section 303(d) list for impairment. A Total Maximum
Water resources include stormwater, floodplains, and
Daily Load (TMDL) study is required for impaired waters
surface water quality. Although groundwater (e.g., aquifers
to establish a management plan not to exceed the total
and drinking wells) is also considered a water resource,
amount of any pollutant allowed in the water.
according to the Utah DEQ, aquifers and drinking water
sources are not in or near the Stormwater, Floodplains, and The Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Water Quality study area (DEQ 2022). Therefore, neither (UPDES) is the Utah version of the National Pollutant
groundwater nor drinking water resources are discussed in Discharge Elimination System, which is the permit system
this section. mandated by the Clean Water Act to control pollutants
in surface waters, including stormwater. The UPDES
Stormwater refers to any type of surface runoff
regulates stormwater discharges from three potential
originating from precipitation that does not infiltrate the
sources: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4),
ground. Runoff typically comes from roadways, sidewalks,
construction activities, and industrial activities.
parking lots, paved streets, and park strips. A stormwater
(or storm drain) system is a network of structures, The DWQ oversees the MS4 permitting program in Utah.
channels, and underground pipes designed to collect An MS4 permit is issued by the DWQ to municipalities,
stormwater runoff. Detention and retention basins are construction sites, and industrial facilities that operate
stormwater management facilities designed to capture a MS4. The permit requires these entities to implement
and store rainwater during heavy rain. Detention facilities controls to minimize the discharge of pollutants into
detain, or capture and slowly release, stormwater runoff surface waters from their stormwater systems.
to prevent downstream flooding, while retention facilities
hold water for irrigation or recharge. Both types of
facilities also improve water quality by settling sediment The Stormwater, Floodplains, and Water Quality study
out of the water column and allowing for chemical area, shown in Figure 3.13-1 (see page 3-36), is broad
processes that enhance water quality. A well-designed enough to include the stormwater system affected by the
storm drain system controls the quantity, timing, and Preferred Alternative and extends south to include and
distribution of stormwater to ensure roadway safety and evaluate any effects on the Virgin River.
mitigate the chance of flooding and property damage.
STORMWATER
Floodplains are normally dry areas that occasionally flood Impervious surfaces include I-15, local streets, parking lots,
due to high snowmelt, stormwater runoff, or high lake sidewalks, and driveways. The St. George City stormwater
water. Floodplains have been assessed for the project system consists of underground pipes, culverts, deep
per 23 CFR 650, and Executive Order 11988 Floodplain gutters on roads, catch basins, and the roadways
Management (42 CFR 26951), which requires agencies to themselves that act as methods for channeling the
reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of stormwater from the city into the Virgin and Santa Clara
floods on humans, and to restore and preserve the natural rivers (Bowen Collins & Associates 2022). Standards set
and beneficial values served by floodplains. forth by St. George City require storm drain pipelines to be
large enough to manage stormwater without overflowing
Surface water quality is regulated through the Federal into the roadway during a 10-year storm event with a
Clean Water Act. The EPA has regulatory authority 3-hour duration (Bowen Collins & Associates 2022).
over the Clean Water Act and delegates portions of
its enforcement to the Utah DEQ’s Division of Water Current deficiencies occur due to the limited number of
Quality (DWQ). In Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act north-to-south crossings of I-15 and insufficient trunk line
(33 USC 1313), the DWQ must establish standards for diameters. For example, in the event of a 100-year storm,
designated beneficial uses. As such, the DWQ monitors the existing roadways cannot effectively move the water

past I-15 to the Virgin River, causing the accumulation (EPA 2022b). Boron is considered a non-point source
of water with maximum depths greater than six feet pollutant, meaning that the source of the pollution
along the north and west side of I-15 (Bowen Collins & is likely attributable to a broad area as opposed to a
Associates 2022). single location. To date, a TMDL for boron has not been
approved and a source for the contamination has not
FLOODPLAINS
been identified. Boron is not typically associated with
The area west of I-15 is designated Flood Zone X, which
highway runoff but is likely caused by the weathering
means it is outside of a designated floodplain but has a
of rocks and nearby agricultural use (EPA 2008, FHWA
0.2 percent (or moderate) annual chance of flooding. A
2016). There are approximately 30.2 acres of undeveloped
floodplain exists along the Virgin River, south of River
or agricultural land that could be contributing to the
Road. This floodplain is designated AE, indicating it is
water quality issues in the Virgin River (see Figure 3.13-1).
an area that would be flooded by a 100-year flood, and
where the base flood elevations have been derived from a Due to resource limitations, DWQ must prioritize which
detailed hydraulic analysis. waters are assessed as part of its three-year review of the
state’s surface waters. As such, no additional assessment
WATER QUALITY
details for the Virgin River are available.
The Virgin River is part of the Lower Colorado River
Watershed Management Unit. The river has been UDOT’s current MS4 permit (UTS000003) authorizes it
assessed by the DWQ and is included on the DWQ Clean to discharge stormwater to surface waters from existing
Water Act 303(d) list of impaired waters for warm water and new outfalls (if installed and operated according to
aquatic life, other aquatic life, and agriculture (Tetra the permit). To meet permit requirements, as it relates
Tech, Inc. 2004). This is due to elevated levels of total to the Preferred Alternative, precipitation for events
dissolved solids, boron, and increased temperature up to the 80th percentile (i.e., equal to or exceeded by
80 percent of all storm events) must be
Figure 3.13-1: Water Resources in the Study Area managed using retention or other methods
Utah defined in the permit.
Tech
University 3.13.3 Environmental Effects
River Rd.
400 East
700 East
1100 East
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.
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

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
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.

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

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

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


Key Observation Point 2 3.15.3 Environmental Consequences
As seen in Figure 3.15-3, looking east on 700 South, I-15 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
crosses over 700 South and obstructs views of the bluffs Under the No-Action Alternative, I-15 would be widened to
overlooking St. George City. The sides of the interstate include an additional travel lane in each direction, which would
are vegetated with green low-lying shrubs, giving it a reduce or remove the median swell shown in KOP 3. Widening
natural aesthetic. Grey columns support the steel and I-15 would neither be noticeable from the other KOPs, nor
concrete bridges over 700 South. Chain link fences line would it modify the urban character on 700 South.
both sides of the road and sidewalks rise above the
roadway in both directions. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 3.15-3: KOP 2 (700 South at 800 East) 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.

The I-15 bridges spanning 700 South would be replaced
with longer bridges that would not require columns for
As seen in Figure 3.15-4, looking south on I-15, drivers are
support. The vegetated slopes of the interstate would be
met with views of multi-colored bluffs in the distance and an
replaced with 29-foot-tall concrete retaining walls, which
urban landscape in the foreground. Light tan dirt and sparse,
could obstruct views of the surrounding landscape from
yellow grasses cover the median swell and outside slopes.
residents near the interchange. The new shared-use path
Utility and light poles, billboards, and buildings of varying
on the north and sidewalk on the south would be at the
size, shape, color, and texture form the urban surrounding.
same elevation as the roadway.
Figure 3.15-4: KOP 3 (I-15 at Milepost 7.9)
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
Key Observation Point 4 setting would not be affected.
As seen in Figure 3.15-5, looking northeast on 900 South,
the sparsely vegetated ground rises to meet I-15 in the Key Observation Point 4
foreground. The Pine Valley Mountains in the background Modifications to the visual character from this KOP are
tower over St. George City and contrast with the urban not anticipated. I-15 would remain at the same elevation
setting in the foreground. Utility poles line both sides of I-15. as the existing condition; therefore, views of the Pine
Valley Mountains would not be obstructed.
Figure 3.15-5: KOP 4 (900 South at 550 East)
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Alternative.


3.16 Energy Cars and light-duty vehicles currently travel approximately
3.16.1 Introduction 483,000 miles per day and experience a combined 15.2
hours of delay. This amounts to approximately 19,016
This section describes the estimated energy that would
gallons of gasoline used per day.
be used, specifically petroleum products consumed by
vehicles for the No-Action Alternative and the Preferred 3.16.3 Environmental Effects
Alternative. The Dixie MPO Travel Demand Model NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
(CITILABS CUBE Version 3), the U.S. Energy Information Under the No-Action Alternative, daily VMT and network
Administration (EIA), and the Center for Transportation delay would increase by 2050 for all vehicles (see Table
Analysis Energy and Transportation Science Division 3.16-1). Daily fuel consumption would decrease as fuel
provided data for this analysis. economy continues to improve in light-duty vehicles.
The energy study area is the same as described in Section DIRECT EFFECTS
3.4, Transportation (see Figure 3.4-1 on page 3-13). The Daily VMT, network delay, and fuel consumption would be
Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 40 was reviewed similar to the No-Action Alternative (see Table 3.16-1).
to identify the current average fuel economy for light-duty
vehicles (i.e., cars, motorcycles, and lights trucks with INDIRECT EFFECTS
two axles and four tires), which is then used to calculate Indirect effects would not occur under the Preferred
the current estimated vehicle fuel consumption. The Alternative.
Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050 was 3.16.4 Mitigation Measures
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.
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)

3.17 Construction Impacts UDOT will develop a Public Involvement Plan before
3.17.1 Introduction construction starts so area residents and commuters
are aware of potential traffic delays, rerouting, and
Although previous impact assessments in this chapter
temporary lane closures. Area residents and commuters
have considered the long-term effects of the Preferred
will be reminded that businesses will remain open during
Alternative, construction impacts focus on the temporary,
construction. Public involvement activities may include:
short-term effects on local resources that could degrade
» Performing door-to-door visits to business owners and
the quality of the human or natural environment. The
tenants along the corridor.
appropriate avoidance and minimization measures
» Distributing fliers.
identified below will also be included in the Preferred
» Developing a project website with construction updates.
Alternative’s environmental commitments.
» Updating social media.
3.17.2 Land Acquisition and Relocations » Maintaining a project hotline.
The Preferred Alternative would require temporary 3.17.5 Social Environment
construction easements. UDOT would temporarily use
Modern life requires complex infrastructure to provide
parts of properties during construction and compensate
fresh water, reliable energy sources, and materials
the property owner for the use. Properties that are
management (including sewers). Disruption of these
planned to be used temporarily will be regraded and
services may occur during project construction, which
revegetated as agreed upon with the property owner
could temporarily diminish quality of life for those directly
when construction is complete or when the use of the
affected. The Preferred Alternative would:
property is no longer required.
» Relocate approximately 0.5 miles of a high-voltage
3.17.3 Land Use transmission line that parallels the west side of I-15.
Construction activities could require temporary access » Relocate telecommunication, sewer, water, electric, and
closures to properties adjacent to 700 South, 700 East, natural gas lines below 700 South, 700 East, 800 East,
and 900 East. To the extent possible, the contractor will and 900 East.
coordinate with St. George City and property owners to » Sever and reconnect utilities to adjoining properties.
maintain access to these properties. UDOT will coordinate with utility providers to coordinate
3.17.4 Transportation the relocation of utilities to minimize the disruption of
these services.
Area residents and commuters may experience
temporary impacts such as limited access to community 3.17.6 Cyclists and Pedestrians
facilities, commercial and residential areas, traffic delays, The pedestrian tunnel under I-15 at 400 South would be
rerouting, and temporary lane closures. UDOT and the closed during construction of the southbound off-ramp.
construction contractor will develop and implement During this time, pedestrians would likely be rerouted to
a Traffic Management Plan to ensure that residences, 100 South, the closest location to cross I-15, to avoid the
businesses, and community facilities and services along ongoing construction activities at 700 south. This detour
local roads are accessible during construction. The Traffic would be approximately 1.1 miles long and take the average
Management Plan will include the placement of signs person walking 3 mph approximately 26 minutes longer to
identifying access points. The signs will indicate that cross I-15 (see Figure 3.17-1 on page 3-43).
businesses will remain open during construction.
Pedestrian and bicycle access—including access to
If I-15 detours are required to accommodate construction
sidewalks—along 700 South would be disrupted during
activities, such as raising I-15 or constructing new bridges over
construction. If sidewalk closures occur while the
700 south, UDOT would reroute traffic to state highways,
pedestrian tunnel at 400 South is also closed, cyclists and
including Bluff Street (State Route 18) and St. George
pedestrians would not have a viable detour to cross I-15. If
Boulevard (State Route 34). This would increase traffic on
the 400 South pedestrian tunnel remains open while the
these routes, which could cause drivers to find alternate
sidewalks on 700 South are closed, this detour would be
routes, thereby increasing traffic on other local roads.

approximately 1.3 miles long and take the average person include establishing the hours that construction equipment
walking 3 mph approximately 31 minutes longer to cross can be operated and permissible sound levels at those times.
I-15 (see Figure 3.17-1). Pedestrian access will be maintained
UDOT has developed specifications that establish
through I-15 at 700 South and 400 South pedestrian
construction noise control. Noise suppression techniques
tunnel to the maximum extent practicable. Any closure of
will be applied during construction in accordance with
pedestrian access is subject to the approval of the engineer.
UDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction activities will be phased to avoid simultaneous
Construction, Section 00555, Prosecution and Progress,
closures of pedestrian crossings across I-15 on 700 South
Part 1.9, Limitation of Operations.
and the 400 South pedestrian tunnel.
3.17.9 Air Quality
As part of the Public Involvement Plan described in
Section 3.17.4, Transportation, UDOT will notify area Measures will be taken to reduce fugitive dust generated
residents of the pending closures and provide details on by construction when the control of dust is necessary for
the proposed detours. the protection and comfort of motorists or residents. Dust
suppression techniques will be applied during construction
Figure 3.17-1: Potential Cyclist and Pedestrian Detours in accordance with UDOT’s Standard Specifications for
400 South Detour Road and Bridge Construction, Section 01355 Environmental
700 South Detour 100 South 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

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

Activities such as clearing vegetation, grading, stockpiling, 3.17.14 Visual Resources
and material staging can disturb vegetation and cause Construction equipment operating in or next to the
erosion. Runoff from disturbed areas could temporarily roadway, lane closures and lane shifts, construction
increase pollutant loading into receiving waters. Pollutant signs, and modifications to business access points during
loading, largely in the form of discharged sediment, can construction could temporarily affect visual quality.
be minimized with the use of best management practices,
which minimize soil from leaving the construction site. 3.17.15 Energy
Construction would primarily depend on fossil fuels
UDOT and its construction contractor will:
(gasoline and diesel fuel) to support roadway construction
» Comply with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination
activities, including maintenance of traffic, clearing
System Utah Construction General Permit (CGP) by
vegetation, grading, delivering and spreading fill, excavating
preparing the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
unusable soils and associated disposal, constructing
(SWPPP) during project design, and will provide
drainage structures, laying base material, paving, relocating
the SWPPP to the contractor before Notice to
utilities, and landscaping.
Proceed. The SWPPP will be prepared consistent with
UDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Potential traffic delays during construction would
Construction, Section 01355 Environmental Protection, increase fuel consumption as vehicles passing through
Part 1.14, Stormwater Management Compliance. construction areas would operate at less-than-efficient
» The project contractor will comply with the CGP by speeds and experience longer idle times.
finalizing the SWPPP before beginning any earth
3.17.16 Public Transit
disturbing activities; will submit the Notice of Intent; and
will implement and maintain the project SWPPP according Construction activities could temporarily affect access to
to CGP requirements throughout project construction. public transit along 700 South. Removing sidewalks, curb
and gutter, and asphalt and the presence of construction
3.17.13 Hazardous Materials
equipment at or near Suntran bus stops could make it
Contaminated soil may be encountered during difficult for pedestrians, particularly the elderly or those
construction on or near properties known to have stored with disabilities, to access bus stops.
hazardous materials. Coordination with the Utah DEQ may
be necessary if a discovery is made. Procedures will be To minimize these effects, UDOT will coordinate with
applied in accordance with UDOT’s Standard Specification Suntran to ensure that some bus stops are always
for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 01355 accessible by placing signs near bus stops that inform
Environmental Protection, Part 1.7, Hazardous Waste. transit riders of stop closures; show locations of nearby
The contractor will consult with UDOT and the DERR to available bus stops; and show alternate routes to avoid
determine the appropriate remedial measures. construction activities.
3.17.17 Invasive Species

If previously unidentified sites or contamination areas are
encountered during construction, work will immediately Construction activities, including earthwork, grading,
stop in the contaminated area, in accordance with UDOT’s and landscaping, could introduce noxious weeds into
Standard Specifications 01355 Part 1.7, Hazardous Waste, disturbed areas and natural landscapes adjacent to the
and the contractor will consult with UDOT and the DERR construction site.
to determine the appropriate remediation.
To minimize these effects, UDOT will include Statewide
Hazardous materials spills by the contractor will be handled Special Provision Section 02924S Invasive Weed Control in
according to UDOT’s Standard Specifications 01355 Part the contract documents to require the proper cleaning of
1.8, Spill of Petroleum-Based Produce and Used Oil, and the earthmoving construction equipment (before mobilizing
requirements and regulations of the Utah DEQ. 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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
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
300 South Rio Grande Street (450 West)
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Victor Iverson
Chairman
Washington County
197 East Tabernacle Street

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

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/.

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
Bluff Street to St. George Boulevard

I15-St George Improved EA - April 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I15-St George Improved EA - April 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I15-St George Improved EA - April 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I-15 St.

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

I-15 St. George Improved | PIN 18218

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

limited to 700 South and a pedestrian 4,050 Feet

to the Proposed Action (different ideas

10% S C R E E N I N G Eliminate Alternatives

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

700 S 700 S 700 S 700 S

700 S 700 S 700 S 700 S

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

a Added four-foot-wide park strip

Northbound b Added traffic signal to protect pedestrians

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

Land Use » Would not convert existing land uses » Would

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

Air Quality » Would not exceed National Ambient » Would

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

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

City, Washington County, Utah.

1.3 Logical Termini and Proposed

Action are as follows:

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

The Proposed Action area is completely 145

wide depressed, gravel median.

The width and number of lanes on 700 South

Sidewalks exist on both sides of 700 South

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

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

Utah Tech University Unacceptable Delay

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

the AM peak hour and at the St. George

Traffic queues extending onto the I-15 175 Feet

from popular destinations to the

for active transportation users

NORTHBOUND Furthermore, the 2019-2050

St. George Blvd.

PLANNED 200 SOUTH

EXISTING 400 SOUTH

PLANNED 400 EAST

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

This chapter is a summary of more detailed reports that

2.2 Screening Methodology

Proposed Action. This process is applied to the

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

Selecting the Preferred Alternative for the Proposed

2.3 Public and Stakeholder Input

This outreach led to the evaluation of Alternatives to the

Widening Widening Widening

Improvements Road Widening

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

2.5.2 Screening of the Proposed Action Alternatives

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

700 S 700 S 700 S 700 S

700 S 700 S 700 S 700 S

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

Land Use » Would not convert existing land uses » Would

Air Quality » Would not exceed National Ambient » Would

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

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