CDOT Sends the Buc-ee’s Interchange Request to the Full Transportation Commission

Colorado’s chief transportation engineer will not decide the ramp changes Buc-ee’s needs at Interstate 25 and County Line Road himself. The state Transportation Commission will decide them, likely in spring 2027, after an Environmental Assessment. No state permit for the work can be issued before it acts.

Updated Oct. 19, 2026: Adds the Colorado Department of Transportation’s answers to The Independent’s questions.

Keith Stefanik, chief engineer of the Colorado Department of Transportation, told the Transportation Commission in a memo for its Oct. 15 meeting that he plans to send Buc-ee’s request to modify the interchange to the commission rather than rule on it himself. The memo also says CDOT will complete an Environmental Assessment (EA), the federal environmental review that, in CDOT’s words, “is performed as part of complying with” its interchange policy. Under CDOT’s rules an EA is prepared when a project’s impacts are not immediately clear; it ends either in a Finding of No Significant Impact or, if significant impacts are likely, in a full Environmental Impact Statement.

Under that policy, Policy Directive 1601, a change to an existing interchange is normally the chief engineer’s decision. Sending it to the 11-member commission puts the decision in public, after a public comment period. The memo says no permit for the work will be issued until the commission has acted, and that El Paso County, not Buc-ee’s, will apply for it. Buc-ee’s filings with the county show construction running from spring 2027 to fall 2028. The company’s own traffic study says both I-25 off-ramps would fail under the store’s traffic without new signals.

What the memo says

The memo runs two pages, the last in the commission’s 327-page packet. It is listed as an information item, with no action requested, and gives one reason for the move: “the technical complexity of the upcoming interchange modification request from Buc-ee’s.” It also sets out the history and the steps ahead:

• CDOT learned of the project in October 2024, from a referral on the proposed annexation into Palmer Lake.
• CDOT “reviewed, provided comment/corrections and approved the original” traffic impact study. The developer changed the site plan and resubmitted the study in March 2026. CDOT’s regional and headquarters traffic staff are reviewing it, and its data will go into a System Level Study of the interchange and the roads around it.
• No permit application has been filed. When one is, “the applicant for the permit will be El Paso County.” CDOT puts that, and the formal interchange submittal, about six months away, “dependent on El Paso County’s own development approvals and processes.”
• The submittal must include “a preliminary financial plan that identifies which parties are responsible for applicable costs,” along with a plan to manage travel demand.
• The public will be able to comment before the commission acts, and CDOT will publish a draft of the EA before finalizing it.

The memo cites one precedent: the commission’s approval in June 2026 of the Happy Canyon interchange, requested by the City of Castle Pines and Douglas County.

The memo is the first CDOT document The Independent has found that describes the department’s review of the traffic study. The Independent reported on Oct. 13 that the study filed with the county says the interchange design “was accepted by CDOT on July 1, 2025,” and that the county’s file held nothing from CDOT recording that acceptance. The memo does not mention that date.

Integrity Matters’ request

Integrity Matters, a group whose letterhead reads “Government Ethics and Accountability · El Paso County,” has fought a Buc-ee’s at this site since the Palmer Lake annexation. In January 2025 it brought a suit, with other plaintiffs, against the Town of Palmer Lake over the annexation. A district court dismissed it in October 2025.

On Sunday, Oct. 11, at 4:31 p.m., the group emailed Governor Jared Polis a memo asking him to direct “a comprehensive state review” of the project. The review it asked for covers traffic, wildlife, water and wildfire evacuation, coordinated by CDOT, the Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Division of Water Resources. It copied the heads of those agencies, among them CDOT’s executive director, Shoshana Lew. Its attached fact sheet says “a full NEPA review should be undertaken.” The memo also thanks Polis for a letter he signed in September 2025 with Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper asking Buc-ee’s to look elsewhere.

The commission’s meeting packet, as last saved at 1:12 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 12, ran to 325 pages and listed no Buc-ee’s item. A revision saved at 4:28 p.m. that day added the chief engineer’s memo and a line for it on the agenda. CDOT posted that version as the “October TC Packet Oct 13 – updated.” The memo does not say what prompted it.

Asked what role its request played, Integrity Matters said in an email that it has worked with CDOT, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Division of Water Resources and Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the past two years, and that “additional voices” had recently joined the effort. “We were delighted to see this escalated to the CDOT Transportation Commission,” the group said. It said it had not heard back from the governor’s office or CDOT since Oct. 11.

On Oct. 13 the group filed a written comment supporting “the Chief Engineer’s decision to elevate this request to the Commission and CDOT’s decision to prepare an Environmental Assessment.” It asked that the review:

• check the traffic forecast against counts at operating Buc-ee’s stores;
• assign every interchange cost to the applicant;
• study evacuation from Palmer Lake;
• weigh water supply, wetlands and big-game habitat near the site;
• consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on protected species.

It also asked CDOT to hold public meetings before setting the assessment’s scope, and to treat the store and the interchange as “a single connected action.” The group said it will keep up the work it has done for two years “to ensure this moves forward.”

Thursday’s meeting

Every speaker in the commission’s public comment period addressed Buc-ee’s: about 40 minutes, a dozen speakers in the room and online, all opposed to the store at this site.

• Integrity Matters: Katherine Gayle, the group’s chief legal counsel, spoke first, in person. Dana Duggan, its president, spoke online.
• From Palmer Lake: trustees Atis Jurka and Roger Moseley, each speaking as a private citizen; and former trustee Karen Stuth.
• Also speaking: Laurel Schow of Woodmoor, Matt Grubesic, Gene Kalesti and Debbie Hall, among others.

Their requests overlapped with the group’s. They asked CDOT to study the store and the interchange together; to plan for wildfire evacuation and for winter closures on Monument Hill; to hold early public meetings in the Tri-Lakes; and to make Buc-ee’s pay for the work.

Opening the comment period, the official presiding said the commission typically does not respond to public comment in session, and it did not. Stefanik passed on his chief engineer’s report “in the interest of time,” and no commissioner mentioned Buc-ee’s during the meeting.

What it means for construction

CDOT’s permit covers work on the state highway. The State Highway Access Code requires a permit to build or modify an access “where such work will be within highway right-of-way,” and says “construction may not begin until a Notice to Proceed is approved.”

El Paso County’s rules govern building on the store’s own parcel. A building permit requires an approved site development plan, which county staff decide without a hearing. The county’s construction permit requires “all other required County permits and approvals.” The Independent found no provision in the Land Development Code or the Engineering Criteria Manual that holds either permit until CDOT acts. One section of the manual comes close: where an access lies within the influence zone of an interchange, “CDOT concurrence shall be provided by the applicant.” It does not say at what stage. Buc-ee’s plan includes a right-turn-only exit onto County Line Road about 590 feet west of the southbound ramp.

Opening is a different question. The traffic study filed with the county says that, with the store’s traffic and today’s stop signs, both off-ramps would fail, with average delays of more than 300 seconds. It recommends signals at both ramps “with construction of the project.”

Who pays for the ramp work is still open. The access code puts the cost of work a permit requires on the permittee. Where a private development needs improvements at the point a local road meets a state highway, “the permittee may either be the local jurisdiction, the developer or a combination, at the discretion of the local authority.” Here, that authority is El Paso County. The draft development agreement Buc-ee’s filed with the county covers only the county portions of Beacon Lite Road and County Line Road.

Two questions decide how much of this touches Buc-ee’s schedule: whether the county will require CDOT’s concurrence before it approves the site plan or issues permits, and whether the store could open before the ramp work is done. The Independent put both, and the question of who will pay, to El Paso County and to CDOT on Oct. 15.

CDOT answered on Oct. 19. Asked whether its permit reaches beyond its right-of-way, the department said that, generally, the permit’s terms and conditions “would be associated with proposed roadway infrastructure items within CDOT right-of-way and associated roadway approaches.” Asked whether the store could open before the ramp work is done, it said that because it “has not received an application thus far regarding this specific property, phasing questions associated with a permit cannot be answered.” The county’s communications office has said it will respond; its answers will be added here.

What happens next

The chief engineer will bring the request to a commission workshop once a System Level Study and a demand-management plan are submitted to CDOT, and will give the commission the draft EA for its information. CDOT expects those first workshops, where the commission begins discussing the ramps, in spring 2027. By Buc-ee’s filings with the county, that is also when construction starts.

Correction, Oct. 16, 2026: An earlier version of this article said that Palmer Lake Trustee Atis Jurka spoke as a private citizen but did not say the same of Trustee Roger Moseley. Moseley also spoke as a private citizen.

Sources & further reading

The Independent’s own coverage: Buc-ee’s Files Its Site Plan; Construction Would Run from Spring 2027 to Fall 2028, the plan, the schedule, the traffic study and the draft development agreement · Buc-ee’s Opponents Take the County’s Decision to Court, the lawsuit and the 2025 Palmer Lake case

CDOT: Chief Engineer’s memo, “Notice of Intent to Elevate to TC – 1601 Interchange Approval,” Oct. 15, 2026, in the October Transportation Commission packet, pp. 326–327 · October 2026 meeting materials · Meeting video, Oct. 15, 2026 · State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1

Integrity Matters: written comment to the Transportation Commission, dated Oct. 14 and submitted by email on Oct. 13, 2026, with Attachments A and B · memo to Governor Polis, “Comprehensive State Review of Proposed Buc-ee’s in El Paso County,” sent Oct. 11, 2026. Both provided to The Independent by Integrity Matters.

County record: PPR2628 file, EDARP (traffic impact study, draft development agreement) · Engineering Criteria Manual, §§ 2.2.5, 5.3 and 5.9 · Land Development Code, § 1.13 · El Paso County statement on the Aug. 27 decision

Background: The Gazette, “Gov. Jared Polis joins voices against Buc-ee’s in Palmer Lake,” Sept. 2025

Methodology

CDOT’s memo was read in full. The packet’s timing comes from the PDF file itself. The file posted by CDOT contains two saved revisions. The first, last saved at 1:12 p.m. on Oct. 12 according to the timestamps the software records, has 325 pages and no Buc-ee’s item on its agenda. The second, saved at 4:28 p.m. the same day, adds the two memo pages and the agenda line. The timestamps show when each version was saved, not why the memo was added. The original packet file CDOT first posted is no longer online.

Integrity Matters’ written comment (five pages) and its memo to the governor (two pages) were read in full. The memo is dated Oct. 12; the email that carried it was sent Oct. 11. The group’s own figures on traffic, water and evacuation are left out because The Independent could not verify them. The group answered The Independent’s questions by email on Oct. 15. The Colorado Department of Transportation answered by email on Oct. 19 and asked that its answers be attributed to the department.

The account of the meeting comes from a transcript The Independent made of CDOT’s video using automatic speech recognition, read in full. Machine transcription misrenders names, garbles figures and carries no speaker labels, so speakers’ names and roles were checked against the video.

The statements about county rules come from the Land Development Code (Supplement 3, August 2024) and the Engineering Criteria Manual (Supplement 3, January 2025) as published on Municode. Both were searched in full for references to CDOT, state highways and access permits, and the sections cited were read in full. The county’s procedures manual, which is not on Municode, was not searched. The access code passages were read from the Secretary of State’s official text.

Using this reporting? Credit The Monument Independent and link to this article: https://monumentindependent.com/government/bucees-interchange-transportation-commission/. Our guidelines are at Using Our Reporting.