The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2. T.H. 41 Minnesota River Crossing Corridor Presentation #:2- CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: T.R, 411Minnesota River Crossing E.I.S, DATE: July 24, 2007 INTRODUCTION: At the Council workshop on July 31 st, there will be a presentation by Lynn Clarkowski and Diane Langenbach of MnDOT regarding river crossing locations for the T,H, 41 E.I.S. BACKGROUND: This is a subject that has been studied over the past several months; Councilor Lehman has represented the City at the T.R. 41 Policy Advisory group discussions, and Michael Leek and Bruce Loney have represented the City on the Technical Advisory Group. Recently, a coalition discussion group made up of Scott and Carver Counties, and the Cities of Carver, Chanhassen, Chaska, and Shakopee, have met to review ways of supporting the project - this would be similar to the Bloomington Ferry Bridge Coalition during the 1980's and 1990's. On July 18th, that group (represented by Mayor Schmitt and myself) met in Chaska, in advance ofthe Carver County River Crossing public hearing, A presentation was made by the same MnDOT staff who will be speaking at Shakopee's meeting. Council should be aware that the other cities have significantly varying outlooks on where they prefer the location to be: Carver - It is vehemently opposed to W -2 - This is the westerly-most option. As I understand it, they are concerned that its proximity will have a negative impact on their historic downtown. They felt that Chaska, by virtue of its stated preference for W-2 (see below), was shifting Chaska's traffic issues west to them (a position Chaska denies), The Carver representatives in attendance stated that a "no build" alternative was preferable to W-2, Chaska-Chaska has gone on record at a meeting of July 16th, endorsing W-2 as their preferred alternative, with E-2 as a possible alternative, Their concern is that C-2 and C- 2-A come to close to their downtown, and will eliminate the use of their historic baseball field, Chanhassen - Chanhassen's position is that it will oppose any of the eastern alignments, as they have an impact on the Seminary Fen. Those are the alternatives closest to Shakopee, They feel that that environmental issue would significantly delay the project. Otherwise, they have taken no position on any of the other options. They did do an analysis of the alternative, a copy of which is attached. The termini in Scott County do not have the same levels of development impact as do the locations on the Carver County side, Each alternative presents its own set of compromises in terms of positive and negative impacts. In looking at the impact summary, the best reduction in traffic that can be seen from any of the alternatives vs. a "no build" alternative, is 12,000 ADT (129,000 vs. 141,100) on D,S. 169. T,H. 101 fares proportionately better, with 23,300 ADT for the E-2 option, vs, the 34,000 as no build. On July 31 st, staff will be attending a similar gresentation to the Scott County Board, The Coalition group will be meeting on August 8 , to share positions, and to see whether an agreement can be reached in terms of a consensus of location. ACTION REQUIRED: No decision is required on July 31 st; however, at the City Council of August 8th, a preferred alternative should be made by the City Council, should it chose to do so, That direction would need to be relayed to MnDOT by its August 10th comment period deadline, . 1MQ~1JdII Mark MeN eill City Administrator MM:th t,-i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager .. 'L. CHANllASSEN Bob Generous, Senior Planner~ 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: PO Box 147 Paul Oehme, City Engineer1,O, Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: D~' Administration July 23, 2007 "" Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 SUB]: Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement Building Inspections TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 BACKGROUND Engineering The study was prepared in response to a need for a new river crossing connect:ll11 Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 between US 169 in Scott County and new US 212, currently undetconstruction, in Finance Carver County. The City agrees that there is a need for a new river crossing, The no- Phone: 952.227.1140 build alternative is not a realistic option, Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreatilln The current study process began in 2002. The scoping decisions for the Phone: 952.227.1120 environmental reviews were made in February 2005 and revised in February 2006. Fax: 952.227.1110 The Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement for TH 41 Minnesota River Recreation Center Crossing (PElS) review and comment period ends on August 10, 2007. The end 2310 Coulter Boulevard result of the DEIS is to identify a preferred alignment for the new river crossing In Phone: 952.227.1400 the future, a Tier II Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared to evaluate and Fax: 952.227.1404 select a design for the river crossing, Planning & Natural Resources A copy of the complete report is available on-line at: Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.111 0 h ttP:/lproiects,dot.state, mn,usl srflO41/report/i ndex. h tml. Public Works DISCUSSION 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Comments on DEIS . Senior Center Section 1.7, page 1-10: The document should identify that the alignment should also Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 9522?7.1110 be included as part of the Metropolitan Council's future highway system so that it Web Sile would be eligible for Right-of-way Acquisition Loan (RALF) funds, which may be WI'III'.ci.chanhassen.mn.us used for the purchase of property within the right-of-way of a state trunk highway shown on an official map adopted pursuant to section 394.361 or 462.359 Minnesota Statutes, or for the purchase of property within the proposed right-of-way of a principal or intermediate arterial highway designated by the council as a part of the metropolitan highway system plan and approved by the council pursuant to section 473.166 Minnesota Statutes, The City 01 Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses. winding trails, and beaulilul parks. A great place to live. work, and play. Mr, Todd Gerhardt TH 41 River Crossing July 23, 2007 Page 2 Section 2.2.1.1, Table 2-1, page 2-3: The City of Chanhassen does not agree that Chanhassen's population will be 45,900 in 2040. The Metropolitan Council's 2030 population projection for Chanhassen is 38,000. We believe that number is also high, Section 2.2.4.2.2, page 2-18: Light rail transit opportunities are also provided within the new US 212 corridor. Commuter rail is being studied using the Twin City and Western rail corridor. Section 2.2.4.3.3, City of Chanhassen, page 2-20: The discussion should also add the need for improvement of the existing Highway 101 facility from TH 212 to Shakopee (river crossing). To help improve the river crossing in the short term, this corridor should be improved. Section 4.7.3, page 4-24: Light rail transit opportunities are also provided within the ... . . . ... ..new US 212 corridor, . Commuter rail-is being studied using the Twin City and .Western rail corridor, Section 5.1.1.1, Table 5-1, page 5-2: The City of Chanhassen does not agree that Chanhassen's population will be 45,900 in 2040, The Metropolitan Council's 2030 population projection for Chanhassen is 38,000, We believe this number is also high, . Preferred Alignment . . The preferred alignment should be both a cost effective solution and minimize social, economic and environmental impacts, In order to arrive at a preferred alignment, staff proposes that the alignments be ranked based on the following criteria: 1. Benefit Cost Ratio 2, Environmental Justice 3, Residential Units needed to be acquired 4, Residents need to be acquired 5, Business and employees impacted 6. Vegetation impacts (composite of ranked impacts) 7. Wetland Impacts W2 C2 C2A El EIA E2 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1 2. 3 6 5 4 Residential Units Acquired 1 2 3 6 4 5 Environmental Justice 1 2 3 5 4 6 Business Impacted 3 5 6 1 4 2 Employees Impacted 4 2 5 3 6 1 Vegetative Impacts (composite rank) 4 2 6 1 3 5 Wetland Impacts 3 2 6 1 4 5 Total 17 17 32 23 30 28 G:\PLAN\BG\TH 41 River Crossing\EIS comments 7-24-07\DEIS comment memo.doc My, Todd Gerhardt TH 41 River Crossing July 23, 2007 Page 3 In preparing these rankings, No, 1 represented the best alternative while a No.6 represented the worst alternative. The lowest total score represents the best alignment for the river crossing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council authorize staff to prepare and submit a comment letter on the DEIS consistent with the comments outlined above prior to the August 10, 2007 deadline, ATTACHMENTS 1. Map depicting alignment alternatives 2. Impact Summary Table 1-4 3, Tier I Environmental Impact Statement Process 4, Letter from City of Chaska dated July 2, 2007 G:\PLAN\BG\TH 41 River Crossing\EIS comments 7-24-07\DEIS comment memo.doc ..:~ " ~ Chaska July 2, 2007 Commissioner Carol Mohiau Minnesota Department of Transportation I 130 State Capital ! 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd. St. Paul, Mn. 55155 Dear Commissioner Molnau, ----. '-.... The Chaska City Council had the opportunity at a recent work session to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Highway 41 Minnesota River Crossing. After review of the EIS, the Council unanimously agreed that a new Highway 41 corridor is required and tliat the No Build Alternative is not viable. Given the current and forecasted traffic, flows, the existing corridor clearly fails and can no longer serve as a regional river crossing. It is evident to us that the State Highway and Chaska's downtown business district will not be able to coexist in the future. After reviewing the alternatives identified in the EIS, the City Council felt it was evident that corridors C-2, C-2A, E-1, and E-1A presented insurmountable problems to the community and should not be considered as preferred alternatives. Not only are these corridors inconsistent with the City's long"term land use planning, each of these options would cause significant disruption to the community. Corridors E-2, and espedally W"2, are viewed by the City as viable options, although a number of issues need to be addres~edon each layout. In reviewing the key criteria identified in the EIS, after excluding those factors where each of the alternatives are generally equal, the W-2 alternative would appear to be the preferred route. The W-2 alternative has: > Highest cost benefit ratio - 3.43 > Least impact on low and moderate income housing - zero )> Low impact on existing properties - 7 )> Low impact on existing businesses - 6 )> Least impact on City parks and trails - zero )> Least impact on Seminary Fen - zero Based on the draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluation and the Council's knowledge of the Chaska area, the Chaska City Council at its July City Of Chaska Minnesota One City Hall Plaza 55318-1962 Phone 952/448-9200 Fax 952/448-9300 . ,,~ " . 16th meeting unanimously endorsed W-2 as the preferred alternative and urged MnDot to selected W-2 as the preferred alternative in the final EIS. Other than the impact on the Federal Fish and Wildlife land, the W-2 corridor is clearly the alternative with the least environmental impact. The W-2 alternative would fragment the US Fish & Wildlife Refuge. However, an opportunity exists to mitigate for the proposed W-2 alignment through the elimination of an existing crossing through the refuge area. The Union Pacific has a rail spur that starts south of the Minnesota River parallels a significant length along the Minnesota River, then crosses the river at Carver and then proceeds into Chaska. Earlier this year, one of the three bridges on that spur collapsed. into the Minnesota River, and due to the high cost of replacement Union Pacific is working to abandon the line. The acquisition of this rail. line would reconnect the refuge to a significant length of the Minnesota River. The City of Chaska stands willing to work with MnDot to preserve this mitigation opportunity for the W-2 alternative. Although Chaska realizes that selecting a preferred alternative is difficult given the scope of the project, our hope is that MnDot would be able to reach an agreement with each of the interested parties in order to select a corridor in the near future. Immediately following. identification of the preferred route, we would urge you to initiate right-of-way _ acquisition to preserve the corridor prior to development. The City of Chaska is committed to being a partner with MnDot in identifying a new river crossing and initiating construction in the foreseeable future. Chaska also looks forward to working in an evolving coalition of area Imcal governments with one of its objectives seeking to reach a local consensus on a preferred corridor. Continued reliance on the existing Trunk Highway 41 river crossing is not an option, given the increased traffic volume along the corridor and development in this section of the region. Prior to closure of the public comment period, C;haska will be providing a more formal response to the EIS. If you have any questions concerning Chaska'sposition on the Environmental Impact Statement, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Gary Van Eyll Mayor, City of Chaska GVE:ms ~ ml ~ecial Public Notice us Army Corps of Engineers ISSUED: July 13, 2007 St Paul District EXPIRES: August 13, 2007 Applicant: Minnesota Department of Transportation REFER TO: 2006-2250-JJY SECTION: 404-Clean Water Act NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 41 TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND A PROPOSED CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404 REVIEW PROCESS l. PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC NOTICE, The purpose of this public notice is to invite public comment on the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the purpose of selecting a new Trunk Highway 41 Minnesota River crossing in the vicinity of the Cities of Chaska, Carver, and Chanhassen, and Dahlgren Township in Carver County and the City of Shakopee and Jackson and Louisville Townships in Scott County, The approximate decimal degree coordinates for the center of the project area are Latitude 44.76 and Longitude -93,62. __......._._._~_._..__...___~.____m~.._.____.___._~____~_._,_~__________....._____,. ___ ___'__~'_...__~_~._."___._,._____._______"'_"________.______ _ _.__...__.___........ .0_ __ .. ~____....._ __._. __... _.._____ __ __~_ o. __ __ The attached figures, labeled 2006-2250-JJY 1 of 6 thr~ugh 2006-2250-JJY 3 of 6, show the study area and the alternative corridors that have been evaluated in the DEIS. The Army Corps St. Paul District (Corps) is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the TH 41 Tier 1 EIS, and will be applying Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 evaluation criteria to the.DEIS and the selection of a corridor for the TH 41 improvements. The Corps has consulted with the FHWA, MnDOT / the U,S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) in proposing a process to conduct a CWA Section 404 review concurrently with the tiered EIS process, The attached figures, labeled 2006-2250-JJY 4 of 6 through 2006-2250-JJY 6 of 6, provide a comparison of the environmental impacts among the alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, .- (~~ ~ 2, BACKGROUND, Section 404 of the CWA prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States unless. the .work.has been authorized by a Department of the Army per~it. Waters of the United States may include rivers, lakes,'ponds, streams, wetlands and other aquatic resources, The Corps' evaluation of a CWA Section 404 standard permit application is a three-part analysis that (1) determines whether the proposal complies with the Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines, under 40 CFR Part 230,10, (2) evaluates the proposal's impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , under Appendix B of 33 CFR Part 325, and (3 ) determines whether the proposal is contrary to the public interest, under 33 CFR Part 320.4(a). The proposed project is not currently programmed for construction within the next 20 years, However, FHWA and MnDOT have identified a need to preserve a corridor that best meets the project objectives as soon as possible, since the rapid development of the study area would further limit available options for meeting the transportation need. Therefore, FHWA and MnDOT are using a "tiered" two-step environmental review process (as permitted by the National Environmental policy Act (NEPA) regulations and by Minnesota Rules 4410AOOO) for the proposed project" The Tier 1 EIS will address the social, economic and environmental issues associated with alternative corridor locations in order to identify a preferred corridor for the project. A Tier 2 environmental process, .which will be initiated at a time closer to project construction, will address project-specific issues and focus on the proposed project's design alternatives, environmental impacts and mi tigation. FHWA and MnDOT requested that the Corps serve as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Tier 1 EIS, and review the EIS for consistency with CWA Section 404 requirements, In addition, because this proposal is being studied as a tiered process, with the location decision being made during the Tier 1 process and the specific design decisions being made during the Tier 2' process, FHWA has requested that the Corps document their concurrence or non-concurrence at major milestones during the development of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 EIS. 2 Due to the forecasted development in the study area, it is anticipated that there would be less opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the U.S, and aquatic resources if the tiered EIS process were not used to preserve a corridor, Therefore, the Corps has agreed to conduct a CWA Section 404 review concurrently with the tiered EIS process, 3, CONCURRENT REVIEW PROCESS. The Corps intends to carry out the following actions to implement a CWA Section 404 review concurrently with the TH 41 tiered EIS process. a. Solicit public input, by issuing this special public notice, on the proposed incorporation of CWA Section 404 requirements into FHWA and MnDOT's selection of a preferred river crossing location as part of the Tier 1 DEIS. b. Address comments received in response to this public notice, and hold a state/federal interagency meeting to discuss agency comments on the tier 1 DEIS, After fully considering public comments and agency input, the Corps will determine whether the purpose and need and the alternatives analysis in the Tier 1 DEIS satisfy CWA Section 404 requirements. c. Upon notification by FHWA and MnDOT of .tl1eir selectee!. alternative, hold a state/federal interagency meeting to discuss the preferred alternative, and solicit agency input whether the selected alternative, on a corridor level, would satisfy CWA Section 404 requirements, In addition, potential mitigation options would be discussed on a conceptual level, d. Issue a second special public notice, summarizing comments received on first PN, announcing the availability of the Tier 1 Final EIS, identifying FHWA and MnDOT's selected alternative, and the Corps' determination whether the selected alternative would satisfy CWA Section 404 requirements on a corridor level. This notice would also include a 30-day public comment period. e, Prepare an administrative record of this process, addressing comments received in response to the second public notice. This administrative record would be closed until FHWA and MnDOT initiate the tier 2 EIS process. 3 ".~ 4, DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY. This public notice is available on the Corps' internet web site at . http://www.mvp.usace,army.fuil/regulatory/. The Tier 1 DEIS and other information and analysis is available on the MnDOT internet web site at http://projects.dot.state.mn.us/srf/041/report/index.html. 5. FEDERALLY-LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED WILDLIFE OR PLANTS OR CRITICAL HABITAT, This proposal is being coordinated with the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service. Any comments it may have concerning Federally-listed threatened or endangered wildlife or plants or their critical habitat will be considered in our final assessment. 6, HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL, This public notice is provided to the National Park Service, the State Archaeologist, and the State Historic Preservation Officer to help determine whether there are known cultural resources which me:y be present in the Tier 1 DEIS study area, 7, REGULATORY AUTHORITY. Conducting a CWA Section 404 review concurrently with the tiered EIS development process does not guarantee that the analysis done would result in a permittable project. It only gives an indication whether, based on the available information, the analysis done would likely satisfy CWA Section 404 review requirements, Use of this merged review process in no way precludes the Corps from exercising any provision of its authorities and policies during any subsequent permit evaluations, 8. REPLIES/COMMENTS. The Corps invites public comment on both the Tier 1 DEIS and the proposed implementation of a concurrent CWA Section 404 review process and tiered EIS process. 4 i r Interested parties are invited to submit to this office written facts, arguments, or objections within 30 days of the date of this notice, Replies may be addressed to St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers, ATTN:' OP-R!JJY, 190 Fifth Street East, St, Paul, MN 55101-1638, Questions about the proposal may be directed to Joseph Yanta, at telephone (651) 290-5362, email address joseph.j.yanta@mvp02.usace.army.mil, or fax (651) 290-5330. ~ 'f: L)~~' Robert J, Whiting r Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosures NOTICE TO EDITORS: This public notice is provided for your information only and is not a request for publication. 5 " ~'\ ! i ; . L': J{" ~ .: PI~,(~.... r\ I . ... .... ..~: i r~,c'T'\, '" . .......L'j.J ' - l r~IA - II iJ! t 1%, L '{ 1.....,,'^ Li~' ?' j~1' '. ~ \~~,1.=.. ~ .1; ,rJil?\'LL Hennepil'! - , i ,J,i L,.. ~';:,. ~L ", [l~ "'/' ~'iI~@:;'\i:' i' i .1' 'f~' I; l ,I L1' "'f I,,' T ......) <\~ii~lt '.,. ...~ ~ IeW Project = /, ", \ ~. · p~ . ,I IT, ~-)., y~,:,~., . iN... .. . 00 Area , ..c 'C~';~:';' !:t iJ W ;,!,ifhf""'~ . ~~ ,w... ~.,...,..'C1. .,<<~"""" i, . ~W~? i . .....t....l. . F...0.1...'..........~........,"'....,.,',..'i r::I:' "''':'''''h<". ::'1;"<' , ".... ;;],,1, lit "Eden Prame;J"l' W .'" i - , i}!_ .. ~r'L~l h'L' ( ;'~I .' ..It....' L~i .. J::~::,:,. ; .. ' 'PI:,.;;,' ," .~ Ar4~,." .'."', Lena _ ,1'1'."i, i ("" ,,' "';;:',(;"1 .... - ,', ..', . ...,..... ..... >, II ". ." ~,.i..,~4i;".flJ;l'~ ". :,%Shakopee"'~)" ..~ : J 4@ II~, rl,~.. <:'llitek" ,,~~ 1 . . ' 'c 12, 1\'k1'~.J " : . I, j, ..,:l:"'" i'l . },,?Jtf" ',:;\,; "'I' ' r------, i J ": I ia;1~ i r" r ;~:i'lli, l,.> " " I j " ". .., .' .". ;,}:"1!;! ~~ J lil,rT :\,~>\~ ,BumSvi/le,<' J.. ~! Anoka !.-."..--)' . ',' t:, \. X, \'" ;."" ('~"""'t,: '. )~ 1 j. i. iT .,> .,' L ' ,'I.Y('} i, i. ,iA' &if_ ,,,'c, ,r [;:'_.-1_ c /' . '/.1 1 \ C' F::. ,J 1 ~ " I. i.. i i j. . dY' . iIJ ..J' Ii " r~ I .,. Ramse .~ ~ 'i !Y 't', rTf. iit:;' Mi' (, ,,;1 ,____,i Hennepin 1 -:ii I ~ I" ~ P"t; !t'''. i> ." ",' l1"'r'ft'i " r I . \ '~ ~, :>!i( 7~g~\\. :7 j;;;:<,r'ls:;' II i", ('i:~~:~':, II' carv~.-!iE" 'm'~~Z:ct )0. . j ~''-'" C' ........ I'i; ";'( b!- ~ 1 F:) rmti r' . ~~ i f,: ....l.....~ """""..~L_..., . Scott \ . Dakota I ~ (' i..,. I ,,,. ~. ,_.. ] i"'''' l' I.,.,,'i 1 ,,''''' j' ~' L\" .) ,''; .......... : ." ..... j" .1 I :.'d I I tf.,lm "",--_._.-,-",,1 rwJ ~ i :1 ..' . \. \. r I fl.) I ) \' i TV-",/ I (II r~ ........\ i@llti\ , ,II"1 I" ,x").._,,; j 11\1 I ..., l_._"w STA TE / COUNTY LOeA nON MAP TRUNK HIGHWAY 41 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING Figure 1-1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement S.P. #1008-60 Minnesota Department of Transportation 2006-2250-JJY -Page 1 of 6 ". \ ), " /' - /' .->'\ / /1 ".........~.. ", , It '" =<, '" I!l "", fi B "', '" 0. 8' I!? '" .2> u.. '" ~ .B' € ffi 0 m '" ~ (i} R STUDY AREA MAP Figure '1-2 TRUNK HIGHWAY 41 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING Draft Environmental impact Statement 2006-2250-JJY.Page 2 of 6 S.P. #1008-60 Minnesota Department of Transportation ~,~' ,.., .c I t .... 0 .... ~---- , -.. ,_ I I I I 1 I _ 1t001"UI" rOlPT _ l1li 1E1UIIJ$ I _ __Ulll Em 1t'....UIIIS I Em_FtII c:::J MDKSOTA YIUD.IUT'l. nULIJ'[ MEJU:[ Ii III_A YlII.U1': ~T1'" Mv. FtIIPllGltCTIlIC_ _ IlUll.lft_ HISlCRIe 1)[stRlCTs. $ SOCSlTM SPEeltS I I ~ I ~ i $ I ~ I 1 I i .1 I I ~ I ~ , > < I BUILD AL TERNA TlVES, WITH KEY FEA TURES - . FIgur9 1.3 TRUNK HIGHWAY 41 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING Draft Environmentellmpact Statement S.P. #1008-60 2006-2250-JJY -Page 3 of 6 Minnesota Department of Transportation TABLE 1-4 IMPACT SUMMARY I ALTERNATIVES I Nl>-Build I W-2 C-2 I C-2A I E-I I E-IA .:-2 TRANSPORT A nON AND FISCAL IMPACfS Cao2lcitv ImDroVem~n[ and Relief to Other River CrossiDes New TII41 Avera.e Daily Tramc (ADT\l2040) NIA 45 000 48 000 43 000 56 000 56,000 59 000 Other Riyer Cros,in8' ADT (2040) . CSAH 9/45 . 25,100 19,200 . 21,600 . 21,300 . 20,800 . 21,300 . 21,300 . TIl41 . 36,500 . 24,700 . 22,000 . 24,800 . 23,800 . 25,100 . 24,200 . Highway 101 . 34,000 . 10,400 . 30,000 . 29,900 . 24,800 24,300 . 23,300 . US 169 . 141,000 . 135,000 . 135,000 . 135,000 . 13 1,000 . 129,000 . 129,000 . 1-35W . 133000 . 133 000 . J33 000 . 133 000 . 132 000 . 132000 . 132000 Hours of Congestion (2040) . . Exi,tingTIl41 noI1l1 of existing US 212 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . Existing TH 41 river crossing . 10 . 3 . 2 . 3 . 2 . 3 . 2 . Existin. Hi.hway 101 river crossin. . 10 ' 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 5 Regional Efficienc'Y (2040) . -. . VMT (difference from No-Build) . N/A . 310,000 . 314,000 . 354,000 . 309,000 . 285,000 . 292,000 . YilT (difference from No-Buildl ' N/A -3,900 . -3500 . -3100 . -3600 . -4 000 -4 000 .-. ...- SafeI\' -... Crashes (2040) . freeway . 996 . 1,058 . 1,052 . 1,058 . 1,052 . 1,055 . 1,053 . Non-Freeway . 9,430 . 9,433 . 9,460 . 9,468 . 9,435 . 9,444 . 9,438 . Downtown Chaslo.:a . 35 . . 24 . 22 . 24 . 23 . 24 . 23 Other . Grade-separated rail crossings increase safety and decrease number of stops for transports carrying hazardous/flammable materials. . . Substantial improvements in emergency response times, especially during flood conditions. . Reduced notential for vehicle-bic -de or vehicle-Dedestrian conflicts. -. Trucks per day ('/. of ADT) (2040) . NewTH41 . N/A . 2,360(5) . 2,350 (5) . 2,210(5) . 3,650 (7) . 4,130(7) . 4,040 (7) . Existing 11-1 41 . 2,700 (7) . 900(4) . 700(3) . 800(3) 700(3) . 700(3) . 700 (3) . Highway 101 . 1,400(4) . 1,500(5) . J.5oo (5) . 1,300(4) . 1,300(5) . J ,30~ ~~) . 1,000 (4) . US 169 -.. . 8900(6) -. . 8700 i6\ . 8700(6) . 9100i7\ . g 300 i6\ . 8200 6\ . 81ooi61 Fiscal Cost (in 2005 dollars) (rounded to $IOM) .- . Construction . $335-S390M . $305-$355M . S345-S405M . S375-S460M (low profile) . S410-S490M . $370-$440M (low profile) . S395-S485M (high profile) . S375-S450M (high profile) . RighI of way N/A . S 55-S 80M . $ 75-S105M . S 65-$ 90M . Sloo-SI35M . $ 55- S75M . $ 60- 80M . Total . S390-$470M . $380-S460M . $410-S495M . S475-S495M (low profile) . S46S-S565M . S43o-S520M (low profile) .-. . S495-S620M (hloh orofil~\ f . S435-$530M (hi.h Dlofil~\ Benefit/Cost Ratio N/A 3.43 3.39 3.29 233 272 2.84 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENT AI. JMPACfS Right ohuy I' 258 acre. . 320 acres . 301 acres I 360 acres . 214acres . 194 acres . 44 affected parcels. . 59 affeCled parcels: . 133 affected parcels: . 204 affected parcels: . 84 affected parcels. . 34 .fleeted parcels: I . 7 residential . IS residential . 69 residential . 144 residential . 3S residential . 42 residential N/A ' 17 agricultural ' 15 agricultural ' 17 agricultural II agricultural ' 10 agricultural 9 agricutrural I 7 industri!ll/commercial . IS industrlallcontmercial . 16 industrial/commercial 6 industriallcommerci al . 13 industriaUcOmme.rcial - 56 industriallcornmcrcial 9 public ' 11 public ' 16 public 39 public ' 25 public . 24 public 4 other 3 other . 15 other -. 40thet I other I other Residentiall1nits Acauired(l) . 13 . 29 ' 7g . 261 136 . 210 Busine.s/employrcs N/A 6 businesses I t businesses 12 businesses 3 businesses 7 businesses S businesses .-. 125 emoloyees 114 emoloyces 134 emoloyees 115 emoloyees 264 emnlovees 99 emuloyees Fh:cal , Annual tax loss (Scou Coun~~\ . $25,150 . SI62,200 . SI66,750 . S25.000 . 533,700 . $44,200 . Annual lax; loss iCarver Coon ..- .- ' $15350 . S 17450 . $ 45900 . S45900 . $84350 . 532150 Environ.mtntal Justice NlA No disproportionate impacts 18 households - 38 households- . Up to 126 households - Mobile . Up to 113 households- Mobile . Up to 182 households - Mobile Jackson Heights Jackson Heights Manor, Bonnevista and Manor. Bonnevistjl. and Manor. Bonnevista and Riverview"[emce Riverview Terrace Riverview Terrace III Includes Single ranul) homes, 10\\MOmeS and mobIle home 00115. Does not 1Rclude farm houses. TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-13 2006-2250-JJY-Page ~r~ary 2007 Draft Envlfonrncntallmpact Stalement - Cooperating Agency Review Draft ,"'Ii, TABLE 1-4 continued IMPACT SUMMARY I ALTERNATIVES . I No-Build I W-2 I C.2 I C-2A I E-l I E-IA I &2 SOCIAL. ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACfS Neighborhoods N/A . River Bluff Estates (Carver) . Jackson Heigh.. . Jackson Heights . Mobile Manor. Bonncvisla and . Mobile Manor. Bonnevista and . Mobile Manor, Bonnevista, and Rivervicw Tenace Rivervicw T enace Riverview Terrace . Separates smaU portion of . Heights of Chaska . Heights of Chaska . Separates established . Separates Chaska and . Separates Chaska and Chanhassen Carver . Separates Carver and Chaska . Separates Carver and Chaska neighborhoods east and west of Chanha..en Audubon Road Community Facilities N/A . Renaissance Festival (private) . No impact a Chaska maintenance facility . Church, church residence . School propeny . St. John's Cemetery expansion (minor land acquisition) area . School nronertv . .. . School DrOoeny Access -.. N/A .- . ExistiDg US 2[2 realigned . Affects de.ign of US 1691 . Affects de.ign of US 1691 . Affects de.ign of US 1691 . Affect. de.ign of US 1691 ' Affects design of US 169/ exi.ting 1H 41 intetchange and existing TIl41 interchange and eKisting TII41 interchange and existing TII 41 interchange and existing 111 41 interchange and , Mt. Hope Road extended to US 169/CSAH 69 interchange US I 69/CSAH 69 interchange US 169/CSAH 69 interchange US 169/CSAH 69 interchange US 169/CSAH 69 interchange realigned exi.ting US 212 . Assumes existing . Assumes existing . Numerous local roadway 1H 41/CSAH 78 realigned to the m 41/CSAH 78 realigned to alterations nceded to restore west the Wcst access to affected parcels . Local ramps at New . Local ramps atNew .. US 212/CSAH II imerchange US 2J2/CSAH \I interchange , reconstructed reconstructed Cultural Resources Walnut Street Effect cannol be determined at ' Addetic Field (a.ka Chaska Effect cannot be determined at No adverse effect No adverse effect, assumes align.. No adverse effect; assumes align~ Historic District this time Cub. Ball Field) this time menl Will avoid'archeological site menl will avoid archeological site (downtown Chaska) . Effect on other resources cannot be determined at this time ! Parks, Trails, ReueatioRal.Areas (St'Ction 4(1) . 20.4 acres MVNWR . 8.5 acres ~fVNWR '.36.1 acre.MVNWR ' 120 acre. MVSRAIMV Trails . 12.0 acre. MVSRAlMV Trails . 4.2 acre. MVSRA/MV Trail. , 30.6 acre. MVSRAIMV . 22.3 acre. MVSR AfMV Trail. ' 5.4 acre. MVSRAlMV Trails . ]0.4 acres Pioneer Park! . 2.7 acres J)ioneer Parkl Chaska ' 1.1 acre. Pioneer Park! Cha.ka Trails Chaska High School/ Pioneer High Schooll Pioneer Ridge High School! Pioneer Ridge Ridge Freshman Center Fre.hman Center Complex Freshman Center Complex Complex N/A . 3.5 acres - Athletic Park, Chaska . 1 A miles (1.3 acres) Audubon . 1,000 feet (0.2 acre.) Auduhon ' 1,000 feel (0.2 acre.) Audubon (possibly all g acre.) Trail Trail Trail . 4,200 feet (0.8 acre.) Cha.ka ' 800 feet (0.2 acre.) City of . 800 fee, (0.2 acre.) City of Trail Se.ment. Chaska Trail Seuments Chaska Trail Settmenls Threatened and Endlngend Species No adverse impacts . O)otential) freshwater mussel . None listed within Ih mile . None Ils1ed within ~ mile . None listed within l/~ mile Sterile sedge (federal threatened and Sterile ,edge (federal threatened and to rare species have concentrations endangered) and other plant species endangered} and other plant species been ob.erved . Kitten Tails (state threatened) . Tier n mussel swdy . Tier Jl mussel study . Tier II mussel study associated with Seminary Fen native associated with Seminary Fen native recommended recommended recornmended plant communi~es and siles of plant communities and sites of , Hill. Thisde (.tate biodiversity biodiversity endangered. . Regal Fritillary bUllcrlly (stale special concern) . Tier II mussel study recommended VegttationlRabitat Communities N/A . Shading effeclS . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading e!Tects . Shading effects .- . Shading effects . Salt spray, tmh, debris, and . Salt spray. trash. debris, and . Salt spray. trash,. debris, and . Sail spray, Ira.h, debris, and . Salt spray, trash, debri s, and . Salt spray, trash, debris. and opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species . Bridge piers may create . Bridge piers may create . Bridge piers may create . Bridge piers may create . Bridge piers lUal create obstacles . Bridge piers may create obstacles ob.tacle. for wildlife; blidge obstacles for wildlife; bridge ob.taple. for wildlife; bridge ob.tacles for wildlife; bridge for wildlife; bridge creates flight for wildlife; bridge creates flighl . creates tlhlht barrier for birds creates fli l'ht barrier for birds creates fliohl barrier for birds creates flillhl barrier for birds barrier for birds .-. barrier for birds , Floodplain Fore.t/Old Growth Floodplain 25 acres 16 acres 21 acrcs(bal colony within Vi mile) 1 acres 7 acres 9 acres Forest . Maple-Basswood Forest o acres 11 acres 22 acres 10 acres 11 acres 13 'acres . Oak Forest S acres 4 acres 2 actes -4 acres 6 acres J acre , Oak-Woodland bru.h o acres o acres 9 acres o acres 5 acres 8 acres . Lowland Hardwood Forest J acres 6 acres J 2 acres 1 acre 8 acres 2 acres . New Edge 14,350 feel 12,300 feet 19,500 feet 8,600 feet 12,700 feet 14,300 feet . Native Vegetation Carver Marsh and Chaska Lake MVNWR MVNWR Nyssen's Lake (3 acres) Nyssen'. Lake (3 aore.) and St'WC Nyssen'sl..ake (7 aor..) and SFWC TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-15 2006-2250-JJY-Page ~rRary 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Cooperatinp, Agency ReView Draft TABLE 1-4 continued IMPACT SUMMARY I .- ALU;RNATIVES I No-Build I W-2 I C-2 I C.lA I E-I I E-IA I E-1 GENERAL IMPACTS Seminary Fen/Assumption Crrt:k N/A Noimpacr No impact N,? impact No impact toCFC Areas t or3. No impactS to CFe Area I No impacls to CFC Area ] Waler table drawdown 0 I ft to Potential contamimJtion on Potential contamination on small portion of CFC Area 2 transport 10 CFC Area 3. Major transport to CFC Area 3 Major . imnact to CFC Area 2 Imnacllo CFC Area 2. Surface Walor Quality/Storm Wa'er Runoff . fmpcrvious .8wface N/A . 44.1 acres . 47.7 acres . 60.3 acres . 48.3 acres . ~2.9 acres .47.7 acres . Permanent ponding stof~ge requiremenl o lOA acre-ft. (33.6) 0 13.9 acre-fl. (3I.9) o 17.2 acre-ft. (24.0) o 15.0 acre-fl. (33.2)- High o 14.9 acre-ft.( 26} (both profile o 14.Sacre-li (29.6) (botlt profile (% in floodplain) Profile options} options} o 14.7 acrdi. f381- Low Profile Wetland Impacts N/A 129 acres 12.9 acres 17.S acres 9.4 acres (Iwlh profile options) High: 162 acreS 22 5 acres (both profile options) Low: lS.9acres Wild and Scenic River N/A JmDact on scenic value INQI~: this sec"on orthe Mmnesota Rf\,-er IS not cummtl Jes;~at#d as 4 Wild and Scenic RIVer, but II ;$ on the National RJwr In\.''rnto~'. Hoodplain/Waterbodies . Floodplain encroachment o 7,920 feet (Minnesota River} o 7,250 feet (Minnesota River) o 6,500 feet (Minnesota River) . 5.730 feet (Minnesota River) o 5,716 feet (Minnesota River) o 5,934 feel (Minnesota River) NIA o 1,464 feet (BlulT Creek) o 163 feet (BluITCreek) o 166 feel (BlulT Creek) . Increase in flood elevation o 001 foot o 0.02 foot o 001 foot o o 02 fool o 0.02 foot o 0.01 fOOl Groundwater N/A Potential dewatering or direct Potential dewatering or direct Potential dewatering or direct . Potential dewatering or direct . Potential dewatering or ~lrcct . Potential dewatering or direcl impacts to groundwater, not impacts to groundwater, nor impacts 10 BroundWiJer, not impacts 10 groundwater, limited impacts to groundwater,limited lmpacls to groundwater. limited excessive excessive excessive wirh assumed pier consrruction with assumed pier cons~ru.ction with assumed pier construction o High profile less potential for o High profile less potential for o High profile less potential for immel lban Low nrofile imnact Ihan LOw nrofile imnact than Low nrofile Physical . Noise (daytime) (2040) . " J dBA over exist~ . Stale slandards exceeded by 4 to . State standards exceeded by t to o Stale standards exceeded by 1 to o State standards exceeded by 4 to . State standards exceeded by 110 o Stale standards e..eeded by 4 10 ing conditions 16 dBA at 5 receptors 6 dBA at 5 receplors 8 dBA at 12 receptors 12 dBA at live receplors 9 dBA at 6 receptors 7 dBA at 6 receptors . would exceed . Noise levels near downtown . 5 of 13 receptors lower than . 7 of 15 receptors lower than . 5 of 13 receptors lower than . 4 of 13 receptors lower than . 4 of9 receptors lower than Federar slandards Chask. are 4 dBA lower than No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build o Downtown Chaska 4 dBA . Downtown Chaska 3 dBA o Downtown Chaska 4 dBA . Downtown Chaska 4 dB..\. lower . Downtown Chaska 4 dBA tower Jower than No-Build lower than No-Build lower than No~BlIild than No-Build Ihan No-Build -. Air Oualitv Reduced MSA T emissions in the immediate area of the nioieet eJ<nected relative to No-Build due to reduced VHT and EP A's MSA T reduction nroorams. Soil, Water Contamination 4 tow risk sites - . 22 low risk sites . . 22 low risk sites . 10 low risk sites . lOlowrisksites . 5 low risk sites . 43 medium risk sites 0 2 medium risk sites 0 2 medium risk sites 0 8 medium risk sites 0 8 medium risk sites . 5 medium risk sites 0 2 hi~h risk sites 0 9 hicl1 risk sites 9 hi.h risk sites 0 4 hillh risk sites 0 4 hieh risk sites . 3 hifr!h risk sites Visual nllalitv- NIA ... - Substantial nermanent imnacts hhi!:hlv visible to nej~hbors, travelers and riverwa users Steep Slopes, Erodible Soils - Length of 550 feel 1,950 feel 4,980 feet 3,000 feel 4,700 feel 2,610 feet erodible soil crossiolil I Farmland N/A . 9 land owners 0 14 land owners 0 14 landowners 6 land owners 6 land owners 7 land owners . 17 agricultural parcels 0 IS agricultural parcels 0 17 agricultural parcels 11 agricultural parcels 10 agricultural parcels 10 agricultural parcels -. '- . 91 acres . 148 acres . 101 acres 50 acres 92 acres '80 acres ExcessIBorrow NlA Preliminary esdmates indicate that un to 3.J miIHM cubic yards of!:-r;;';ow may be renuired forthis nro' eel. OTHER .... Construction ImnaC"ts N/A Local trame con .estion and access hi-macts' noise near sensitive reccotors' temnniani'th8l1lieh:>bstrnclions' imDacts to aauatic species habitat IndirUl Impacts N/A o Assumed US 169 south fronlage o Assumed US 169/existing o ASSUI11!'ll U~169/existi~g Reduction in atTordable housing Reduction in alfordable housing Reduclion in aITordable housing road removes commercial TH 41 interchange removes TH41. interchange removes may affect businesses, broader may affect businesses, broader may affect blJsinesses. broader building 3 homes 3home$ . . 0 low-moderate income families low-moderate income families low':moderate income families . Reduction in affordable housing . Reduct~Qflin ~ffor~able housing may affect businesses, broader m~y. ..Il'e~t b~~ine~s~s...broader Jow-moderate income famiHes low..moderateincome families . Increased development intensity near corridor~ potential induced development beyond study area . VeSletationlhabitat effects '. Cumulativt Imp.ds N/A o MVNWR o MVIIIWR o MVNWR . Social . Social . Social , Social . Social . ImpaQS to Mobile Manor . Impacts to Mobile Manor . Impacts to Mobile Manor o Athletic Park . Semi nary Fen . SeminaJV fen . Seminarv Fen Potential imoacts to cultural resources hmd develoDment VC2etation witdlife. threatened and endant!er'ed snedes and YledcU'lds. TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-17 2006-2250-JJY-Page ~r~ary 2007 Draft EnvlTonmentallmpact Statement - Cooperating Ag.ency Re"i~\lo! Or~ft - '- .~ Chaska July 2, 2007 Commissioner Carol Molnau Minnesota Department of Transportation 130 State Capital 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd. St. Paul, Mn. 55155 Dear Commissioner Molnau, The Chaska City Council had the opportunity at a recent work session to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Highway 41 Minnesota River Crossing. After review of the EIS, the Council unanimously agreed that a new Highway 41 corridor is required and that the No Build Alternative is not viable. Given the current and forecasted traffic flows, the existing corridor clearly fails and can no longer serve as a regional river crossing. !tis evident to us that the State Highway and Chaska's downtown business district will not be able to coexist in the future, After reviewing the alternatives identified in the EIS, the City Council felt it was evident that corridors C-2, C-2A, E-l, and E-1A presented insurmountable problems to the community and should not be considered as preferred alternatives, Not only are these corridors inconsistent with the City's long-term land use planning, each of these options would cause significant disruption to the community. Corridors E-2, and especially W-2, are viewed by the City as viable options, although a number of issues need to be addressed on each layout. In reviewing the key criteria identified in the EIS, after excluding those factors where each of the alternatives are generally equal, the W-2 alternative would appear to be the preferred route. The W-2 alternative has: ~ Highest cost benefit ratio - 3.43 ~ Least impact on low and moderate income housing - zero ~ Low impact on existing properties - 7 ~ Low impact on existing businesses - 6 ~ Least impact on City parks and trails - zero ~ Least impact on Seminary Fen - zero Based on the draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluation and the Council's knowledge of the Chaska area, the Chaska City Council at its July City Of Chaska Minnesota One City Hall Plaza 55318-1962 Phone 952/448-9200 Fax 952/448-9300 . ~ 16th meeting unanimously endorsed W-2 as the preferred alternative and urged MnDot to selected W-2 as the preferred alternative in the final EIS. Other than the impact on the Federal Fish and Wildlife land, the W-2 corridor is clearly the alternative with the least environmental impact. The W-2 alternative would fragment the US Fish & Wildlife Refuge. However, an opportunity exists to mitigate for the proposed W"2 alignment through the elimination of an existing crossing through the refuge area. The Union Pacific has a rail spur that starts south of the Minnesota River parallels a significant length along the Minnesota River, then crosses the river at Carver and then proceeds into Chaska, Earlier this year, one of the three bridges on that spur collapsed into the Minnesota River, and due to the high cost of replacement Union Pacific is working to abandon the line. The acquisition of this rail line would reconnect the refuge to a significant length of the Minnesota River. The City of Chaska stands willing to work with MnDot to preserve this mitigation opportunity for the W-2 alternative. Although Chaska realizes that selecting a preferred alternative is difficult given the scope of the project, our hope is that MnDot would be able to reach an agreement with each of the interested parties in order to select a corridor in the near future. Immediately following identification of the preferred route, we would urge you to initiate right-of-way acquisition to preserve the corridor prior to development. The City of Chaska is committed to being a partner with MnDot in identifying a new river crossing and initiating construction in the foreseeable future. Chaska also looks forward to working in an evolving coalition of area local governments with one of its objectives seeking to reach a local consensus on a preferred corridor. Continued reliance on the existing Trunk Highway 41 river crossing is not an option, given the increased traffic volume along the corridor and development in this section of the region. Prior to closure of the public comment period, Chaska will be providing a more formal response to the EIS. If you have any questions concerning Chaska's position on the Environmental Impact Statement, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Gary Van Eyll Mayor, City of Chaska GVE:ms EIS TrunkHighway WJ ouer Minnesota River Tier I Environmental Impact "'"'iuatement Process , . . ~#~. ~~~':~~ What: The Project · Mn/DOT proposes new future river crossing - in vicinity of existing TH 41 - Connecting US TH 212 in Carver County with US 169 in Scott County Current Status 1974, never finalized with FEIS Mn/DOT, Met Council plans One Possible Overall Timeline for a New TH 41 MN River Crossing We are here! 1 2002 2007/2008 2020+? 2028+? Tier I EIS Results/Next Steps: Tier II EIS Results/Next Steps: ------------------ ------------ Preserve corridor for future Tier II Avoid. minimize and Future crossing; limit development and EIS mitigate impacts Possible future impacts Process Develop layout, Construction For construction limits. Time Design and finalize design (bridge is And Not Construction Currently Of In MnIDOT's Why: Serve future forecast TH 41 travel demand . Today over 18,000 veh/day ~expected to double in orecast) . One of highest traffic volume 2-lane roads in Minnesota . One of the heavy traffic Why: Provide crossing above 100syear floodplain · Flooding is frequent · During floods problem - Congestion on other · Closures 1993-2001 bridges, Only 2 - TH 41: 46 days crossings above 100- - Hwy 1,01,: 74 days year flood Jevel within 14 miles {TH 25, US 169) - Disruption of commuter traffic, goods movement lengthens EIS Why: Freeway connecting new US 212 and US 169 · Need identified 30 years ago · Principal arterials adequately spaced to s.erve regional trips 169 Study Process - To Date . Current study - New study needed due to change in conditions, issues, regulations - Began in 2002 - Scoping Decision (Feb. 2005): alternatives and studies to be included in Tier I Draft EIS Decision (Feb, 2006): revised alternatives (C-2) to minimize EIS Trunk Who: TH 41 DE IS Public Involvement and Agency Coordination . Study committees comprised.of Mn/DOT, FHWA, Local Cities/Counties, Natural Resource and Permitting Agencies, and other various stakeholders - Project Advisory Committee (PAC) - Project Management Team (PMT) - Study Advisory Committee (SAC) Group various stakeholder groups DEIS - Work to Date Understanding the Impacts of No-Build Alternative Refinement of Build Alternatives . Traffic forecasts and operations . Preliminary design to ensure engineering feasibility Cost Ranges for R/W and Construction potential social, economic and EIS Trunk DEIS Build Alternatives · Freeway design, system interchange access only · Full directional interchanges for US 169, New US 212 · Planned US 212 local access interchanges all retained (modified as needed) . · Potential future US 169 local access interchanges accommodated Ili~lf~ill~fij~io;~ang,n;:ent S;I,;::d " ':::';:, t,;~ ::<,~);~,':;b~J:,':: t- V""" i" '.,~~i" .. ',- ;;i,c'.' "',: .., p:~i :":_,:;_;~<;,;,; '.'-:",y ;' ',. ).;::-~ ~- -,.7'"i':'.::{;:: EIS Trunk i(;j'\'<":- DEIS - Traffic Impacts River YEAR YEAR 2040 Forecast (veh/day) Crossing 2000 No-build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-1 E-1A E-2 TH 41 18,500 36,500 24,700 22,000 24,800 23,800 25,100 24,200 New US 41 45,000 48,000 43,000 56,000 56,000 59,000 Hwy 101 21,400 30,400 30,000 29,900 24,800 24,300 23,300 135,000 135,000 135,000 131,000 129,000 129,000 2040 DEIS Build Alternatives ~\~':~flt':.s''''' :~=',1:lltl.._."......._....",,-._. ~~'-'- ,....-... ........' -....... ...... ...... ~~e~~:::==:.=,~~=:;;[i':;::;V' r.n:.'I'.r.'I::l',t'J'::ir.':.:.o:..~'~n''::'lll'''..:t:- tmDI~U'Y'OOf TRUOVBnn~==AaJVD @ Alternative W-2 . Connects to: us 169 one mile west of existing TH 41 (near CSAH 14), new US 212 near existing US 212 . 3.1 mile roadway, 10,550 ft bridge length and 86 piers . Crossing would serve 45,000 veh/day . 20 acres of MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge impacted (USFWS) l}i~~~Vj:fl~i;~;::;: !~ ,,;;,~~t;? Alternative C-2A . 3.9 mile roadway, 9350 ft bridge and 76 piers . Connects to: US 169 at existing TH 41, new US 212 at Engler Blvd, . Crossing would serve 43,000 veh/day . 36 acre impact to MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge, near Chaska Lake · 5 acre impact to MN Valley State \.)!.~~*~~~~igp.5~~~(!BNR) , ,,,'~}1.iGires~i~n~rnmemti-Cl!Jrved to avoid -,,, '"' f ."",,-:,:!<,;~,1~*\')~:iAt ~';<<--;'~-.-~~~~ ~@",/'M~.;"l~-~~H<," ,,';~~\"cemeje~:aillmr,fjj0~'jlt0Ilirn)' .- .,\_ -:11wr,J.~'q&;~7w,';:~2 ~ >::',%~tw~ >;~]\"'" ::j):f\~ ~,~ , ~ . "'""8"'~'''''~'-'''~\\\ -'liD'" 'f'''-'''- "far-" 61 ,".'f:(j1 . ,liacnes~rna .!ia "~e!ile 111mI' acres !:;':> ';i(ftrtt,,;rl~i'lrt~i{~t"\~h'l6::~~res wetland erf; \"'1&t''1il'~':flt"'''f[:!':Srf6:';M~~","1l!$-~~::w~,,,,,,p<-~k<>~1~9:;::l:'''''''''' >,~ 'iI'~ ~'\ N"~"" ..,tm" .' '"'jjS@. N;;;";r~ '>,/>6f'r";::;- H C I~;. ,: :~Iil'itIDi~i~,lResc:lmi;:CeZeffedts'.irimkrno,lNm '\, ~ ~, ...:47J?j ~,~~.zr"''S::>~~;t.~~''''~~{:''~~, if!.,," 't;""M> v"1'~<>;c"-,~~r-.~ ,'{~-;:;..,~, ~"''';;i. > ~'~;liil~esj~3'~ti~f~osl,JI~fiGms;t(ft:8~'"irncICJ(jj irnef' po;.:~~%' " Alternative C-2 . 3.0 mile roadway, 9,550 ft bridge length and 80 piers . Connects to: US 169 at existing TH 41 , new US 212 at existing US 212 . Crossing would serve 48,000 veh/day . Follows existing TH 41 corridor south of MN River, structure elevated 40 feet · 9 acre impact to MN Valley National 'I~Ri~i~i~~!:\<)>(,> ' ;.:d:',,; (,'{i j~;;'/: ," .... Alternative E-1 . 3.2 mile roadway, 10,800 ft (low) or 11,300 ft bridge (high) and 94 piers . Connects to: US 169 near CSAH 69, new US 212 near Audubon Road . Crossing would serve 56,000 veh/day . No impactto MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS) . 12 acre impact to MN Valley State REl(;rElCition ArealTrails ~lIi~~ii~~:U~: :~~'T;jE~j~lr6nmemtal Justice: 48% Alternative E..1 A . 3,6 mile roadway, 13,500 ft bridge length and 112 piers . Connects to: US 169 at CSAH 69, new US 212 near Bluff Creek Drive . Crossing would serve 56,000 veh/day . Direct impact to Seminary Fen, a rare calcareous fen with highest level of protection (31 acres of outstandiilg bjoc1i~7r~ity impact) ;. . i@;t/1j;~f',m"Ci!~,t9~.iirnRQct~; 49 acre native ""i:';";'1'';i(,(f,-i",,,,,,,,';''V'";;..I'f';''-'<'''':''''':''-'''"."'.,,.,.......:,,:.,.,.,.:-:,.....;. <,,;' .",~~~,~..,~;~I,~~n~{I'~t~;?t, 12 acre ~' :c)}m~w'f0tesf e(!J'!fe"':1~!S1,aGftes. of wetland I, -' \'J:~Jj~1I~o.<,,;;%:t~i\'f.' '~'",., J:&':"'~1l~~"f'",-?,;;;,"",...~_,~4 \ ,'~~" '. ~,""'''. ~~""'!!ll"'I'~"B~" "'-'[" ". ;~,; ,4j~ga~eJil!J1l~ac ~J,f0! fih~a le,M State '" ,J'" :if"'''!l\i.''' .;Jl'MilI. ;;:~,.1!tWr/ ""'!'t'11'i1Jt;s' W11ly . ecnaa '10 ,-. Ilea"" ',' ., ;;a :", acre r.""""'Willl1"'W;$;~~""j;j,.I~~lIiX"wl;"'ll',~.",JjJ,,. " f,;::<im{i"EiG ,I'Q" -.jQ i eeJi&m:.JWt~tli'8s~a,;biI.S. l?-:'< ~';':-:':fu;f?"$,~~\;~~IM-","},mit&"{1:!i1~ ;'\'t<'<-"'>\1t?':;:l~ ';;t .~,* ".'''' >J,i, - j; if <ii(, '!l'd'[th.;,-<.' J~ t~.",./,\,~~',"""i*,>'t~"r-/; l' ~ "e-;;{<(~k^,(:' ;! ~,1 ,~ 1~::;~~~"IL,~I~.J~~li~~~'i~~~. !@,~\',~~~lilr~~':,effecl.' ~ "',~if'r'18'lidjllliAg arcfflae01mgical site jf,1~~l~ ~;\t;":{ . to1 Wf",''''''",'1; ,,-,""';;, ~, "" ~~\\ ;njq~F~siClier:ltll\lt~~~!$iti€lr:ls including ~?~ ' ilI1\iffiilelJl:f€lme"lrrrpacts ~!{.v~}"~;;.tv<;'\",,,y,... 'j"t'Environmental Justice: 83% Alternative E...2 . Most similar to 1974 DEIS alternative . 3.2 mile roadway, 12,000 ft bridge length, and 98 piers . Connects to: TH 169 nearCR 69, new US 212 near Bluff Creek Drive . Crossing would serve 59,000 veh/day . Direct impact to Seminary Fen, rare calcareous fen with hi~hest level of ~{~~1~~~Lt{~~;~~q~;O outstanding !~".,A~tffie~~ma~j~t~imgaCts; ,59 acres of natural, 'SVf'it."!~f.@I~~,~~,"""'~:<;'0,f'?':'...>""'<(r~'" '!.";}..,tJP~~,.w.'<;(;~,?~:','__"..,_ ".,,< i;::;:irii;~V~g~fatl@l\l~\;2i1':aCIle,f~r;e$t;1,O.acre new. . ~.ti.' i,,,~;1~~2t~[9.~resi(1jentia'l~ae~Iii:isitI€lmswitl1.mobile ~\"!llt~~liropaetsi\::i!,'?",':".., ,'lw4'''EnVlronmental Justice: 87% I' ,~, I Water Resources Impacts Build Alternatives Impervious surface (W-2, C-2, E-2, E-1, E-1 A, C-2A) 44-60 acres Pond storage req'd (W-2, C-2, E-1 ,E-2,E-1A, C-2A) 10-17 acre-feet Wetland impacts (E-1, W-2/C-2, E-1A, C-2A, E-2) 9-16 acres '''':';'/~:'::' :":"::: >'.,'j . 5,700-7,900 feet ~19Q91i!Iit6Qn~rqclcqll1ent (MN River) :~!~~:;;:~'2"_'";b',;~\y,,,,,),, k::t~ ':t'-:: {".o1:">-,',':!;)-:' ',k:':,~:,,, ",- ,':' ," l:ill,J:~~n~~~ll\'~~~!L', ',.: .01-.02 feet (1fIISJiB1.'5mlii~ietion areas C-2A, E-1, E-1 A, E-2 I Habitat Impacts · All alternatives - remove habitat - create new "edge" - opportunity for invasive species - pose soil erosion issues in steep slope areas mussels (threatened-endangered) barrier between bodies of water aqLJ.~~i(D;i(~p~,cies c;;:,' :.J :;\;;k?' :;;/,'~':/:\0:_ ',<i'~"~; EIS Trunk Habitat Impacts: Natural Community (acres) Natural Build Alternative Corridors Community W-2 C-2 C-2A E-1 E-1A E-2 Aspen 0 1 0 0 0 0 Woodland Floodplain 25 16 21 7 7 9 Forest Park Impacts · Federal "Section 4(f)" requirements apply to refuge, state park, local parks, trails · All alternatives - directly affect 2 or more park resources noise impacts Park (Section 4(f)) Impacts (acres) W-2 C-2 C-2A E-1 E-1A E-2 Minnesota Valley National 20 9 36 0 0 0 Wildlife Refuge Minnesota Valley State 31 22 5 12 12 4 Recreation Area Socioeconomic Impacts (Environmental Justice) W-2 C-2 C-2A E-1 E.1A E-2 Neighborhoods, business areas X X X X X X - Neighborhood division X X X X X X - Residential Units 13+ 29 78 261 136 210 - Businesses 6 11 12 3 7 5 X X X X X X X ~2~ff~i, ;'\l~~~~%,: iij~i~f';l EIS Bridge Heights 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 W-2 C-2 C-2A E.1 E-1A E-2 W-2 C-2 C-2A E-1 E.1A E.2 Over Railroad near TH 169 Over River Right of Way Imp~cts Parcels by type (number) Structures by type (number) 250 300 200 250 150 200 150 100 50 0 W-2 C-2 C.2A E.1 E.1A E-2 Cultural Resources Impacts · Federal "Section 106" requirements apply to historic and archeological properties, historic districts eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) · Locally-designated historic resources also of concern · NRHP eligible properties: 1 archeological site; 11 historic sites properties on Walnut St. Historic no adverse Seminary Fen Study - Characterization · Areas 1, 2 and 3: distinct areas within the Seminary Fen wetland complex meet criteria to be "calcareous fen" (ORVW, highest protection under state law). Seminary Fen Study - Impact Assessment Findings · W-2, C-2, C-2A: no impact · Eastern alternatives: no direct impacts to Area 1 · E-1: no direct impact to calcareous fen; very limited groundwater impacts · E-1A and E-2: very limited groundwater impacts; major direct impact to Area 2 ""';i . Re~,t~:~~.ti.~.~....,.op~~~.~.~it.i~.s..:...... .i.~~~~~~:~~t~i~,~~.i~}~~jJ~i~;jji~~~~\~~~~ speeres....iGl\r9frna~~.fl~~,)~\~t~.~.,..,;{ mitigationf0.ra'fr~i;a{ig:rn:~~~t~';;'; EIS Trunk ~ig~~ff(ill~;'~:J~~~~i'~ Ml"n~sol:8' Riyec:: \': Range of Total Cost Estimate~ Total Estimated Cost Ranges* Alignment (R/W and Construction) W-2 $390-410M C-2 $380-460M C-2A $410-495M $475-620M $465-565M $430-530M How and when w.iU a decision be made? . Receive and categorize all public comments (August 2007) . Meet with Study Teams/Stakeholders to review findings and consider public comments (September 2007) - Are there alignments that can be eliminated or refined to further reduce impacts? - What impacts have highest levels of protection? What can be mitigated? - Is more study needed to make an informed decision? . Based on discussions, findings, etc, Mn/DOT and FHWA will propose a preferred alternative (Fall 2007) ~i\;$~~clY;U'1~~rnS,;~eFrr:litting Agencies and other Stakeholders discuss ~;;:;;~~ii(\j'~,~~~~~el!j~Ii!~~f~Jill~JII;alt~ro~1ive and work together to develop informed \\'-""'\"""~M';'f~l!.t'r"'2@'(i)rr.:~E" ; 1'2'0t~8) II!l!I~~~'~~~:~I;rt~~~::~,:: t~''''''''\9j\Fi';!;WA ReC0Ila:,C!)f"6eclslon (June 2008) ....'i,.'.. ......... .,,, "'.', ~2"\.:ir~\r~i:,~'>:'{i'\"'" . EIS Tr~~~ :;;.~~:~.~€:;'t,\,;"~;~~~jl TH 41 Tier I EIS Process - Where are we? lipa/"l$portpliPnstL.I(lies/alt dev. "RaiI2QA!~~'~qrfin,~r?~~~,.. Open House Spring 2003 ,. _ _ ',_' _ ,_ ,", ',_ . n'_" '" . '" ,,,,OO_",, _ _ _,_, _, ,"_ SG()pingfor:[)EIS:(wZp.ubncrnearings)$p~ing.2'()@4-.,.'\V{YJ;irnter?-~O$ ....' ."_ _ ," ',' " ",' _ _,_' _ '_ _ -, _,' , .,' ~.' /,- ,__ '_" .,.,. '_'/'" '. ,..'..."d.C,..C..."'.'. ,c" Draft EIS studies Spring 2005-Summer 2006 .G>pem.,HOUSf:}s.. Late...200ti&SRring.2@.oe..... ','""",,,-- ,.'" . ','-,',--,'... , " '. '. '" ',',>.'_ " ,,' ,..-"C"'."._ ":.,:".' ,'...', ,'r."'--' '"C' po"-.'" "'.""~"'. ,'~" , Draft EIS public comment period June 18 - August 10, 2007 '!~.r~ft'~ISRu9Iic;he~rings Identify preferred alternative 'RinaFI;I$distrib~tio~'< FHW A Concurrence/ROD (Tier I) {Be!ili~Ri.ght.of\1\ta~acqllisition..with willing sellers' EIS Trunk Highwa!i[ill~.d?~:,Sc;,!, , ~r "'~~,~~.Ola Rtvcs~'"."~,: .:, c""y Final Conclusions · All build alternatives meet purpose and need and are financially responsible .. BOTH build and no-build alternatives have impacts · Competing interests of key community resources on every cOrridor - no ideal alignment . consent to select a preferred forward to FEIS Mn/DOT and to decide EIS Trunk 1 l' TABLE 1-4 IMPACT SUMMARY . Alternatives No-Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-l E-lA E-2 N/A Roadway length: 3.1 miles Roadway length: 3.9 miles Roadway length: 3.0 miles Roadway length: 3.1 miles Roadway length: 3.6 miles Roadway length: 3.2 miles Bridge length: 10,550 feet Bridge length: 9,550 feet Bridge length: 9,350 feet Bridge length: Bridge length: 13,500 feet Bridge length: 12,000 feet DESCRIPTION No. of piers: 86 No. of piers: 80 No. of piers: 76 10,800 feet [low profile] No. of piers: 112 No. of piers: 98 11,300 feet [high profile] No. of piers: 94 TRANSPORTATION AND FISCAL IMPACTS Capacity Improvement and Relief to Other River Crossine:s New TH 41 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) (2040) N/A 45,000 48,000 43,000 56,000 56,000 59,000 Other River Crossings ADT (2040) . CSAH 9/45 . 25,100 . 19,200 . 21,600 . 21,300 . 20,800 . 21,300 . 21,300 . TH 41 . 36,500 . 24,700 . 22,000 . 24,800 .. 23,800 . 25,100 . 24,200 . Highway 101 . 34,000 . 30,400 . 30,000 . 29,900 . 24,800 . 24,300 . 23,300 . US 169 . 141,000 . 135,000 . 135,000 . 135,000 . 131,000 . 129,000 . 129,000 . 1-35W . 133,000 . 133,000 . 133,000 . 133,000 . 132,000 . 132,000 . 132,000 Hours of Congestion (2040) . Existing TH 41 north of existing US 212 . 0 . O. . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . Existing TH 41 river crossing '10 . 3 . 2 . 3 . 2 . 3 . 2 . Existing Highwav 101 river crossing . 10 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 5 Regional Efficiency (2040) . VMT (difference from No-Build) . N/A . 310,000 . 314,000 . 354,000 . 309,000 . 285,000 . 292,000 . VHT (difference from No-Build) . N/A . -3,900 . -3,500 . -3,100 . -3,600 . -4,000 . -4,000 Safety Crashes (2040) . Freeway . 996 . 1,058 . 1,052 · 1,058 . 1,052 . 1,055 . 1,053 . Non-Freeway . 9,430 . 9,433 . 9,460 · 9,468 . 9,435 . 9,444 . 9,438 . Downtown Chaska . 35 . 24 . 22 . 24 . 23 . 24 . 23 Other . Grade-separated rail crossings increase safety and decrease number of stops for transports carrying hazardouslflammable materials. . Substantial improvements in emergency response times, especially during flood conditions. . Reduced potential for vehicle-bic cle or vehicle~pedestrian conflicts. Trucks per day (%of ADT) (2040) . New TII 41 . N/A . 2,360 (5) . 2,350 (5) . 2,210 (5) . 3,650 (7) . 4,130 (7) . 4,040 (7) . Existing TH 41 . 2,700 (7) . 900 (4) . 700 (3) . 800 (3) . 700 (3) . 700 (3) . 700 (3) . Highway 101 . 1,400 (4) . 1,500 (5) . 1,500 (5) · 1,300 (4) . 1,300 (5) . 1,300 (5) . 1,000 (4) . US 169 . 8,900 (6) . 8,700 (6) . 8,700 (6) . 9,100 (7) . 8,300 (6) . 8,200 (6) . 8,100 (6) Fiscal Cost (in 2005 dollars) (rounded to $ 10M) . $375-$460M (LOw Profile) . Construction (higher figure risk assessed for . $335-$390M . $305-$35SM . $345-$405M . $41O-$490M . $370-$440M (Low Profile) factors including mitigation) . $395-$485M (High Profile) . $375-$450M (High Profile) . Right of way N/A . $ 55- $80M . $ 75-$105M . $ 65- $90M . $100-$135M . $ 55- $75M . $ 60- $80M . Total . $390-$470M . $380-$460M · $41O-$495M . $475-$495M (Low Profile) . $465-$565M . $430-$520M (Low Profile) . $495-$620M (High Profile) . $435-$530M (High Profile) Benefit/Cost Ratio N/A 3.43 3.39 3.29 2.33 2.72 2.84 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Right of way . 258 acres . 320 acres . 301 acres . 360 acres . 214acres . 194 acres . 44 affected parcels: . 59 affected parcels: · 133 affected parcels: . 204 affected parcels: . 84 affected parcels: . 34 affected parcels: , - 7 residential - 15 residential - 69 residential - 144 residential - 35 residential - 42 residential N/A - 17 agricultural - 15 agricultural - 17 agricultural - 11 agricultural - 10 agricultural - 9 agricultural - 7 industriaIlcommercial - 15 industriaVcommercial - 16 industriaVcornmercial - 6 industriaVcommercial - 13 industriaIlcommercial - 56 industriaIlcommercial - 9 public - 11 public - 16 public - 39 public - 25 public - 24 public - 4 other - 3 other - 15 other - 4 other - 1 other 1 other Residential Units Needed to be Acauired(j) . 13 . 29 . 78 . 261 . 136 . 210 Business/employees N/A 6 businesses 11 businesses 12 businesses 3 businesses 7 businesses 5 businesses 125 employees 114 employees 134 employees 115 employees 264 employees 99 employees Fiscal . Annual tax loss (Scott County) . $25,150 . $162,200 . $166,750 . $25,000 . $33,700 . $44,200 . Annual tax loss (Carver County) . $15,350 . $ 17,450 . $ 45,900 . $45,900 . $84,350 . $32,150 (1) Includes single family homes, townhomes and mobile home units. Does not include farm houses, Note: Agricultural parcels include seven properties that will be classified as residential before the anticipated build-year, TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-19 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement t 1t . TABLE 1-4 continued IMPACT SUMMARY Alternatives No-Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E.l E-lA E-2 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Environmental Justice N/A No disproportionate impacts 18 households - 38 households- . Up to 126 households - . Up to 113 households - Mobile . Up to 182 households - Mobile Jackson Heights Jackson Heights Mobile Manor, BOIUlevista Manor, BOIUlevista and Manor, BOIUlevista and Riverview and Riverview Terrace Riverview Terrace Terrace Neighborhoods .N/A . River Bluff Estates (Carver) . Jackson Heights . Jackson Heights . Mobile Manor, BOIUlevista . Mobile Manor, BOIUlevista and . Mobile Manor, Bonnevista, and . Separates northeast portion . Separates corner of Heights of . Divides Heights of Chaska and Riverview Terrace Riverview Terrace Riverview Terrace of Carver from remainder of Chaska from remainder . Separates Carver and Chaska . Separates established Chaska . Separates Chaska and . Separates Chaska and Chanhassen City . Separates Carver and Chaska neighborhoods east and west Chanhassen of Audubon Road ... Community Facilities N/A . Renaissance Festival . No impact . Chaska maintenance facility . Church, church residence . School property . St. John's Cemetery expansion (private) ~ (minor land acquisition) . School property area . . School property Access N/A . Existing US 212 realigned . Affects design of US 1691 existing . Mfects design of US 1691 . Mfects design of US 1691 . Mfects design of US 1691 . Mfects design of US 1691 . Mt. Hope Road extended to TH 41 interchange and existing TII 41 interchange and existing TH 41 interchange existing TH 41 interchange and existing TH 41 interchange and realigned existing US 212 US 169/CSAH 69 interchange US 169/CSAH 69 interchange and US 169/CSAH 69 US 1691CSAH 69 interchange US 169/CSAH 69 interchange . Assumes existing TH 41/ CSAH 78 . Assumes existing TfI 411 CSAH interchange realigned to the west 78 realigned to the west . Numerous local roadway . Local ramps at New US 212/CSAH . Local ramps at New alterations needed to restore 11 interchange reconstructed US 212/CSAH 11 interchange access to affected parcels reconstructed Cultural Resources Walnut Street Effect cannot be determined at . Athletic Field (a.k.a. Chaska Cubs Effect cannot be determined at this No adverse effect No adverse effect; assumes align- No adverse effect; assumes align- Historic District this time Ball Field) time ment will avoid archeological site ment will avoid archeological site (downtown Chaska) . Effect on other resources cannot be detenuil;1ed at this time Parks, Trails, Recreational Areas ;N/A . Temporary construction . Temporary construction impacts to . Temporary construction impacts . Temporary construction . Temporary construction impacts . Temporary construction impacts (Section 4[f]) impacts to Canoe and Canoe and Boating route to Canoe and Boating route impacts to Canoe and Boating to Canoe and Boating route to Canoe and Boating route Boating route . 8.5 acres MVNWR . 36.1 acres MVNWR route . 12,0 acres MVSRA/MV Trails . 4,2 acres MVSRAIMV Trails . 20.4 acres MiIUlesota Valley . 22.3 acres MVSRAIMV Trails . 5.4 acres MVSRA/MV Trails . 12.0 acres MVSRA/MV . 2.7 acres Pioneer Park! Chaska . 1.1 acres Pioneer Park! Chaska National Wildlife Refuge . 3.5 acres - Athletic Park, Chaska Trails High School! Pioneer Ridge High School! Pioneer Ridge (MVNWR) (possibly all 8 acres) . 10.4 acres Pioneer Park! Freshman Center Complex Freshman Center Complex . 30.6 acres MiIUlesota Valley Chaska High School! Pioneer . 1,000 feet (0.2 acres) Audubon . 1,000 feet (0.2 acres) Audubon State Recreation Areal Ridge Freshman Center Trail Trail Minnesota Valley Complex . 800 feet (0.2 acres) City of . 800 feet (0.2 acres) City of (MVSRA/MV) Trails . 1.4 miles (1.3 acres) Audubon Chaska Trail Segments Chaska Trail Segments Trail . 4,200 feet (0.8 acres) Chaska Trail Segments Threatened and Endangered Species No adverse impacts . (Potential) freshwater mussel . No TIrreatened and Endangered . No TIrreatened and Endangered . No Threatened and Endan- · Several species that are part of . Several species that are part of the to rare species have concentrations species listed within Yz mile species listed within Yz mile gered species listed within the Seminary Fen native plant Seminary Fen native plant been observed . Kitten Tails (state threatened) . Shovelnose sturgeon (state special . Shovelnose sturgeon (state Yz mile community, including (but not community, including (but not . Hills Thistle (state special concern) special concern) . Shovelnose sturgeon (state limited to): limited to): concern) . Tier II mussel study anticipated . Tier IT mussel study anticipated special concern) - sterile sedge (state threatened) - sterile sedge (state threatened) . Regal Fritillary butterfly . Tier II mussel study - low nutrush (state threatened) - low nutrush (state threatened) (state special concern) anticipated - beaked spikerush (state - beaked spikerush (state i . Tier II mussel study threatened) threatened) recommended - white lady's slipper (state - white lady's slipper (state special concern) special concern) - twig rush (state special - twig rush (state special concern) concern) . Shovelnosesturgeon (state special . Shovelnose sturgeon (state concern) special concern) . Tier II mussel study anticipated ~ Tier II mussel study anticipated TH 41 MiIUlesota River Crossing 1-21 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement TABLE 1-4 continued IMpACT SUMMARY ... Alternatives . No-Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-l E-lA E-2 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . , nIH b'tat N/A . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading effects Vegetabo a 1 . Salt spray, trash, debris, and . Salt spray, trash, debris, and . Salt spray, trash, debris, and · Salt spray, trash, debris, and . Salt spray, trash, debris, and . Salt spray, trash, debris, and opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species opportunistic invasive species . Bridge piers may create . Bridge piers may create . Bridge piers may create . Bridge piers may create obstacles . Bridge piers may create . Bridge piers may create , obstacles for wildlife; bridge obstacles for wildlife; bridge obstacles for wildlife; bridge for wildlife; bridge creates flight obstacles for wildlife; bridge obstacles for wildlife; bridge creates flight barrier for birds creates flight barrier for birds creates flight barrier for birds barrier for birds creates flight barrier for birds creates flight barrier for birds . Native vegetation 51.7 acres (3)* 54.8 acres (3) 81.6 acres (4) 29,9 acres (2) 48,9 acres (3) 59.3 acres (4) . High quality native vegetation (BC rank or 33.3 acres (4) 36.3 acres (4) 44.9 acres (4) 2,8 acres (1) 28.1 acres (2) 34.2 acres (4) better) " . State rarity ranking of native vegetation 48.8 acres (4) 38.1 acres (2) 61.4 acres (4) 28.9 acres (2) 35.9 acres (2) 48.9 acres (4) . Outstanding biodiversity area 0.0 acres (0) 0.0 acres (0) 0.0 acres (0) 0,5 acres (1) 30.6 acres (4) 26.0 acres (4) . Forested areas 33.9 acres (3) 38.6 acres (3) 61.3 acres (4) 22.3 acres (2) 33.0 acres (3) 26.3 acres (2) . Impacts to forest interior 24.9 acres (4) 20,8 acres (1) 33.6 acres (4) 12.2 acres (1) 20.1 acres (2) 21.8 acres (2) . Creation of new forest edge 15.9 acres (4) 13.6 acres (4) 23.3 acres (4) 7.0 acres (2) 11.6 acres (3) 10.2 acres (3) Seminary Fen! Assumption Creek N/A No impact No impact No impact No impact to CFC Areas 1 or 3. No impacts to CFC Area 1. No impacts to CFC Area 1. (3 calcareous fen component (CFC] areas) Water table drawdown 0.1 ft. to Potential contamination transport . Potential contamination transport small portion of CFC Area 2 to CFC Area 3. Major impact to to CFC Area 3. Major impact to CFC Area 2. CFC Area 2. Surface Water Quality/Storm Water Runoff . Impervious surface N/A . 44.1 acres . 47.7 acres . 60.3 acres . 48.3 acres . 52.9 acres .47.7 acres . Permanent ponding storage requirement . 10.4 acre-ft. ( 33;6) . 13.9 acre-ft. (31.9) . 17.2 acre-ft. ( 24.0) . 15.0 acre-ft. (33.2) (High Profile) . 14.9 acre-ft. ( 26) (both profile . 14.8 acre-ft. (29.6) (both profile (% in floodplain) . 14,7 acre ft. (38) (Low Profile) options) options) Wetland Impacts N/A 11.7 acres 10.9 acres 16.1 acres 9.0 acres (both profile options) 14.9 acres (High Profile) 15.7 acres (both profile options) . 14.6 acres (Low Profile) Wild and Scenic River N/A Impact on scenic value (Note: this section of the Minnesota River is not currently designated as a Wild and Scen.ic River, but it is on the National River In.ventory and is a candidate for potential National Wild and Scenic River) FloodplainIW aterbodies . Floodplain encroachment . 7,920 feet (Minnesota River) . 7,250 feet (Minnesota River) . 6,500 feet (Minnesota River) . 5,730 feet (Minnesota River) . 5,716 feet (Minnesota River) . 5,934 feet (Minnesota River) N/A . 0.Q1 foot (Minnesota River) . 0.02 foot (Minnesota River) . 1,464 feet (Bluff Creek) · 0,02 foot (Minnesota River) . 163 feet (Bluff Creek) . 166 feet (Bluff Creek) . Increase in flood elevation . 0.01 foot (Minnesota River) . 0.02 foot (Minnesota River) . 0.01 foot (Minnesota River) Groundwater N/A Potential dewatering or direct Potential dewatering or direct Potential dewatering or direct . Potential construction dewatering . Potential construction . Potential construction impacts to groundwater, not impacts to groundwater, not impacts to groundwater, not or permanent direct impacts to dewatering or permanent direct dewatering or permanent direct excessive excessive excessive groundwater, limited with impacts to groundwater, limited impacts to groundwater, limited assumed pier construction with' assumed pier construction with assumed pier construction . High profile less potential for . High profile less potential for . High profile less potential for impact than Low profile impact than Low mofile impact than Low orofIle Physical Noise (daytime) (2040) . 1 dBA over exist- . State standards exceeded by 4 to . State standards exceeded by 1 to . State standards exceeded by . State standards exceeded by 4 to . State standards exceeded by 1 to . State standards exceeded by 4 to ing conditions 16 dBA at 5 receptors 6 dBA at 5 receptors 1 to 8 dBA at 12 receptors 12 dBA at five receptors 9 dBA at 6 receptors 7 dBA at 6 receptors . would exceed . Noise levels near downtown . 5 of 13 receptors lower than . 7 of 15 receptors lower than . 5 of 13 receptors lower than . 4 of 13 receptors lower than . 4 of 9 receptors lower than Federal standards Chaska are 4 dBA lower than No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build . Downtown Chaska 4 dBA . Downtown Chaska 3 dBA . Downtown Chaska 4 dBA lower . Downtown Chaska 4 dBA lower . Downtown Chaska 4 dBA lower lower than No-Build lower than No-Build than No-Build than No-Build than No-Build Air Qualitv Reduced MSAT emissions in the irrunediate area of the proiect expected relative to No-Build, due to reduced VHT and EPA's MSATreduction programs. Soil, Water Contamination 3 High risk sites 2 High risk sites 2 Medium risk sites 5 Medium risk sites 5 Medium risk sites 2 Medium risk sites 7 Hie:h risk sites 7 Hie:h risk sites 1 High risk sites 1 High risk sites I High risk sites Visual Quality N/A Substantial permanent impacts, highly visible to neighbors, travelers,and riverwa users Steep Slopes, Erodible Soils - Length of 550 feet (3.8 acres) 1,950 feet 13.4 acres) 4,980 feet (34.3 acres) 3,000 feet (20.6 acres) 4,700 feet (32.3 acres) 2,610 feet (18.0 acres) erodible soil crossing (acres) Fannland N/A . 9 land owners . 14 land owners . 14 land owners 6 land owners 6 land owners 7 land owners . 17 agricultural parcels . 15 agricultural parcels . 17 agricultural parcels 11 agricultural parcels 10 agricultural parcels 10 agricultural parcels . 91 acres . 148 acres . 10 1 acres 50 acres 92 acres 80 acres Excess/Borrow N/A Preliminary estimates indicate that up to 3.3 million cubic yards of bon-ow may be required for this nroiect. *Number in ( ) indicates ranking of potential for impacts. (0) represents least potential for impacts/no impacts; (4) represents greatest potential for impacts, TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-23 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ., TABLE 1~4 continued IMPACT SUMMARY . Alternatives No-Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-l E-lA E-2 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OTHER Construction Impacts N/A Local traffic congestion and access impacts; noise near sensitive receptors; temporary channel obstructions; impacts to aquatic species habitat Indirect Impacts N/A . Assumed US 169 south frontage . Assumed US 169/existing . Assumed US 169/existing Reduction in affordable housing Reduction in affordable housing Reduction in affordable housing road removes commercial TH 41 interchange removes TH 41 interchange removes may affect businesses, broader may affect businesses, broader may affect businesses, broader building 3 homes 3 homes low-moderate income families low-moderate income families low-moderate income families . Reduction in affordable housing . Reduction in affordable housing may affect businesses, broader may affect businesses, broader low-moderate income families low-moderate income families. . Increased development intensity near corridor; potential induced development beyond study area . Vegetationlhabitat effects Cumulative Impacts (greater potential) N/A . MVNWR - visual, noise, . MVNWR - visual, noise, . MVNWR - visual, noise, . Mobile home parks . Mobile home parks . Mobile home parks habitat fragmentation, storm habitat fragmentation, storm habitat fragmentation, storm . Seminary Fen health . Seminary Fen health . Seminary Fen health water water water . Mobile home parks . Mobile home parks . Athletic Park Potential impacts to cultural resources, land development, vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species and wetlands. TH 41 Mi?llesota River Crossing 1-25 June 2007 Draft EnVIronmental Impact Statement ..~..,.~ I' ~ 2000 0 2000 .....--- , .00111 teet ~ :;; ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ;0 BUILD AL TERNA T/VES, WITH KEY FEA TURES I TRUNK HIGHWAY 41 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING Draft Environmental Impact Statement Figure 1-31 S,P. #1008-60 Minnesota Department of Transportation I ~~ j..' : , ' , 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed action is the future construction of a new Minnesota River crossing connecting US 169 in Scott County and New US 212 (under construction at the time of this DEIS), north of the existing US 212 corridor in Carver County in the vicinity of existing TH 41. Project planning and environmental review are being conducted in conformance with state and federal environmental review requirements. . (Note: The proposed project is referred to in earlier documents as TH 41 Over the Minnesota River.) 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Statute 42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires that social, economic and environmental considerations be included in the planning of projects that receive federal funding. Similarly, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEP A) (Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410) requires review of potential environmental impacts for . proposed projects that exceed state regulatory thresholds. The extent of the proposed improvements requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared to: discuss the purpose of and need for the proposed project; consider alternatives; evaluate environmental effects of alternatives; explore methods for avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts; and obtain public and agency input, to aid in the identification of a preferred alternative for further study in the Final EIS (FEIS), The FEIS will summarize public involvement during the DEIS process; respond to substantive comments received on the DEIS; identify the preferred alternative; and, if necessary, provide more detail on the environmental impacts of the preferred alternative and describe potential mitigation measures to the extent that is appropriate for a "tieted"process as discussed below. Per Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEP A (40 CFR 1508.28), environmental documentation may occur through a "tiered" two-step review process. The tiered EIS process has been determined to be appropriate for the proposed action because, while the construction of the project may not occur for 20 or more years, the project area is rapidly developing and future development will likely encroach on potential corridor locations, resulting in greater potential for social and economic impacts at the time the project is funded if an alignment location is not protected in the near future. The notice of intent to prepare a Tier I EIS was jmblishedin the Federal Register January 10,2003. The Tier I EIS identifies and evaluates the social, economic and environmental issues associated with alternative corridor locations, as a basis for identifying a preferred alignment corridor that can be preserved for future use. The Tier I EIS is a corridor-level document, with analysis based on an assumed standard corridor width of 300 feet. A Tier II EIS process will be initiated in the future, as the project moves forward for implementation, The Tier II process will focus on preferred alignment design alternatives, updated assessment of environmental impacts to address a higher level of design, and identification of mitigation. TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-1 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement , ,P.___ 1.3 PROJECT SETTING The study area is in the southwest portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, The study area is bordered on the south by United States Highway (US) 169; on the north by New US 212; on the west by County State Aid Highway 14 in Scott County and west of the City of Carver, in Carver County; and on the east by Highway 101 (Note that Highway 101 is a state trunk highway in Carver County and a county state aid highway in Scott County.). See Figures 1-1 and 1-2, United States Highway 169, within the Trunk Highway (TH)41 study area, is a state principal arterial route running parallel to the south side of the Minnesota River. United States Highway 169 is on the National Highway System (NHS), and is designated as a High Priority Interregional Corridor. MnIDOT's Interregional Corridor system was developed to connect regional trade centers in Greater Minnesota with the Twin Cities metropolitan area. These connections are considered essential to long-term economic growth and activity within the state, as well as important transportation corridors that promote mobility and safety. The US 169 corridor management plan (CMP) proposes future conversion of US 169 to a freeway facility within the project study area. United States Highway 212 is a state principal arterial route running parallel to the north side of the Minnesota River. It also is on the National Highway System (NHS) and designated as a High Priority Interregional Corridor. These designations will be assigned to the New US 212 corridor (north of existing US 212) when it is complete (fall 2008). New US 212 will be a freeway facility and will connect to existing US 212 at the west end of the study area. United States Highway 169 and US 212 are currently connected by two river crossings within the study area, at existing TH 41 and Highway 101. Both of these crossings are located within the lOa-year floodplain. Existing TH 41 is a two-lane facility that widens to four lanes through downtown Chaska. Trunk Highway 41 currently connects to US 169 and US 212 at at-grade signalized intersections, however, future construction of an interchange at US 169 is part of the US 169 CMP, and is assumed for purposes of this study. Details of US 169 improvements will be developed under a separate project Trunk Highway 41 will connect to New US 212 north of Chaska with an interchange. The TH 41 corridor through downtown Chaska bisects a nationally designated historic district Highway 101 is a two-lane facility (county highway south of the river; state highway north of the river) that connects downtown Shakopee and US 212. In Shakopee, Highway 101 tees into CSAH 69 at a signalized intersection; CSAH 69 connects to US 169 at an at-grade signalized intersection at the western edge of Shakopee. From its intersection with US 212, Highway 101 continues north on a winding alignment up the river bluff, crossing the New US 212 alignment in the vicinity of CSAH 18 and eventually connects to TH 5 in Chanhassen. Highway 101 will be connected to New US 212 by an interchange. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that the future connection between US 169 and CSAH 69 will be an interchange. . TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-2 June 2007 Draft Environmenta11mpact Statemet;t ~. Ji 1- TH 25' .t-I"---. . . ~ Lr to _ r\r)~ L_ piC ) ~ 2- CSAH 9/45' . '-----.,~-., I ~ ~ I, L- Ll 3- TH41 , ! L 0G ~ \; ~ ............ , 4- HWY 101 ~ l t r['l1".;q- II . "- 5- TH 169 . l ~ '- ~ 'fZ~I!' ~Lf ~. 6- 1-35 I ! I ~ -...;' 1 q - ~ -- I .'. ::..- - !!I ! II. ..:::j <- I ,"1\ ~ ~ Hennepl!! CountY. .' I, , ~ '::;:>I", A:"L_ '. ~ .... } .L ~ (' i ~l I ,{ MM,mneapOI/5..r ~! i ~ ~ -r:r 4Y t~ ,.. . _) e---{-..,. ~ ..._'" .. "", -U .dfJ'fT r~l \-JJ_ ~ . _ 7 '-l~. ..'" ~~ " J: mr\1 ,~9~ :c;J.. ~'f" 'f r~ ~ y' ~ Project r: I, _ \ ~ ,'/- I ." f.i t',,':;""":"! .. Ll.~'!----oJ" l'>l Area -1[% I l~-\'" , ~., ..' 'Z. . -~- ./ 7'i'1" .. Lr7'- , '. ' ., " .", i ~ " ..{,~ '" 'i'" -n;;:;;"" , I . JJii!:., >J#' "" ., ''''' ..",,-,- I-r-t ~c~~nty" ~ . .. l\W .~. ~j>~p!'~h!,"d= j" ~ ! ,. '" . , ' ~ 'C).~ ~:n. .. .,=-:::l -;r.; · I-- ~~" -. . '\l!l- i 1J':l.'" .z--.. Eden'Prairi;":b.. ,? ':" ,",,'{' ~~ '-:.Ii ,. 'fit. t > I'Wit ' , '..' . . . ...~ I, "'..,, _ '. ;:1.,"'. ~ .:'" ~ ~i%h '1 ('.~ _' ~4~!llon" U"i /~proJect Ar~a h- Chaska _I~:.t ~"-. I .. j...Lu...... '/ ~ ~ I r -.........~ _ ".""'" ~~!iL u' I I~ ' \ '1_ 1.;-'_'" ,.- .. :/ Shakopee.' ~ ..,~ I;p> , iW~, " , .. ~169 " i'l1''''T' . ,. 1i . "" 1'~" " I 'I ..-1--"..2 I _ i--- ~ ,~~ Carve~ ~ rr- ''!iit-o 1i1.... . l,) ~ 1_ .,j,}- I ""f '-:t! ~~J ~ ...;'~ J;, . Burnsville fL ~ Anoka _ I F';'-~0': ~ ti: · 11..-. " ,Dakota COUnty ,,-{ 5 . /~ "/""" ,\..:..:-...L. - < 11 7;. . }P .~. '" .# ,~l ~ _'t.:?<: lJ ' Ramse\ ..~ . g. /" I.. ...,! LtJ' l'ltr . ( II '" .;""4.' r- Hennepin {;i ~ ...~., /. I rL ~ 1.--c"1t, _' - t1l . ~ N" I""~ :.:;:... ';i;"l!-:..:;:.'$i.,'I;, I-- J"";;'- Project $: ~: ~ ~ ,C' ''-'-'- --1 $~Jtt!county ..!',?':~ ";1- ~ - 1ft ~ _ ~arver Area 1 -~"r'L r -- Yl ~v- r+ _ _ ~ ~_~~( 'z,-:::.. l ~ 1Y - N - ~ r1:=i _f-7 .. r \ . r-h:.lL ' I Scott I Dakota '" ~ I ( j H ".... kr I )- -! ~ ---L.... I "1 j '/ 0 11.. /-1-- I r - - L,:1. . - -l I i. (\ (1 rr--L.f-re- ~H-~..J H l~ ?H ~.l~ r:-I ~ I J -" 1 ! . . 1 ~\- ~ I r: - ~ -; .'"" ,I \ I k-J-- . STATE/COUNTYLOCATION.MAP . TRUNK HIGHWAY 41 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING Figure 1-1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement S,P, #1008-60 Minnesota Department of Transportation "0 g ci. '" ::;: ",, l!! ~ :0 .i3 ~I ~I 0 r5 .2' u. ;;; l!! :::> en ;;;; 'l'1 s: 0 '" .., * c. '" ;[ STUDY AREA MAP TRUNK HIGHWAY 41 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING Figure 1-2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement S,P. #1008-60 Minnesota Department of Transportation 1:- [: Beyond the boundaries of the study area, crossings of the Minnesota River include: TH 25, 14 miles west of TH 41; CSAH 9/45 6 miles west of TH 41; Highway 101, 3.5 miles east of TH 41; US 169 (Bloomington Ferry Bridge), 10 miles east of TH 41; and 1-35W, 5 miles east of US 169. The study area is currently characterized by urban- and suburban-density development, agricultural activities, and natural resource areas most notable being public lands within the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR) and the Minnesota Valley State Recreation area, the Seminary Fen/Assumption Creek wetland complex, and remaining other tracts of native vegetation within the study area. Figure 1-3 .depicts key features in the project area. . As discussed in Section 2.2, the population of Scott County grew by 54 percent and the population of Carver County grew by 46 percent during the 1990s. Rapid growth in the southwestern metropolitan area, including the study area, is projected to continue. 1.4 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN THE DEIS The Build alternatives that were studied in the DEIS are depicted in Figure 1-3 and briefly described below. Alternatives for study in the DEIS resulted from a scoping process, described in the Scoping Document (SD), with the final decision documented in the Scoping Decision Document (SDD) (approved February 18,2005, amended March 17,2006), 1.4.1 No-Build Alternative The No-Build alternative is defined as future conditions that include programmed improvements to the regional transportation system. This alternative does not include construction of a new TH 41 riv.er crossing. The regional highway network improvements assumed under N 0- Build conditions are described in Chapter 4. While the No-Build alternative would not adequately address the need for the project (detailed in Chapter 2), it is analyzed as the basis for comparison of the other DEISalternatives. .1.4.2 Build Alternatives Each of the six Build alternatives is a freeway design with an interchange at US 169 and at New US 212. 1.4.2.1 Alternative W-2 Alternative W-2 is located in the western portion of the study area. This alternative intersects with US 169 one mile west of existing TH 41/CSAH 78 and connects with New US 212 at the New US 212/CSAH l1(CR 147)1 interchange. 1 When construction of New US 212 is complete (scheduled fall 2008), CR 147 will be redesignated CSAH 11. It is referenced to as CSAH II throughout the remainder of the DEIS, including on figures. TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-5 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1.4,2.2 Alternative C-2 Alternative C-2 is in the central/western portion of the study area. This alternative connects to US 169 at the planned US 169/existing TH41 interchange (the design assumes a realigned existing TH 41/CSAH 78) and connects to New US 212 at the New US 212/CSAH 11 interchange. 1.4,2.3 Alternative C-2A Alternative C-2A is located in the centt:al portion of the study area. This alternative connects to US 169 at the planned US 169/existing THAI interchange (the design assumes a realigned existing TH 41/CSAH 78) and connects to New US 212 at CSAH 10lEngler Boulevard. 1.4.2.4 Alternative E-1 Alternative E-1 is in the eastern portion of the study area. This alternative connects to US 169 at the planned US 169/CSAH 69 interchange, and connects with New US 212 at CSAH 17/ Audubon Road. This alternative assumes that US 169 is realigned south of its existing alignment in the vicinity of CSAH 69. 1.4.2.5 Alternative E-1A Alternative E-IA is located in the eastern portion of the study area. This alternative is identical to Alternative E-1 south of the Minnesota River, therefore also assumes that US 169 is realigned south of its existing alignment in the vicinity of CSAH 69. North ofthe river, this alternative follows the bluffline and connects to New US 212 near Bluff Creek Road, 1.4.2.6 Alternative E-2 Alternative E-2 is located in the eastern portion of the study area. It is the easternmost alignment of all the Build alternatives, This alternative connects to US 169 at the planned US 169/CSAH 69 interchange and connects to New US 212 near Bluff Creek Road, This alternative assumes that US 169 is realigned south of its existing alignment in the vicinity of CSAH 69. 1.5 RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnlDOT) is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the development of the proposed project with respect to state environmental review requirements and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) is the lead federal agency, TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-6 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1.6 COSTS/FUNDING Table 1-1 presents estimated construction and right of way costs (in 2005 dollars) for each of the proposed Build alternatives. Note that mitigation costs are not estimated, but that the higher number in the cost range represents an added risk assessment percentage to account for several currently unknown factors, including mitigation, TABLE 1"1 COST ESTIMATES (2005 DOLLARS)(1) Alternative Cost W-2 C-2 C-2A E-1 E-IA E-2 335- 305- 345- Low Profile 375-460M 410-490M .Low Profile 370-440M Construction(2) 390M 355M 405M High Profile 395-485M High Profile 375-450M 55- 75- 65- Low Profile 100-135M 55-75M Low Profile 60~80M Right ofWay(3) 80M 105M 90M High Profile 100-135M High Profile 60-80M 390- 380- 410- Low Profile 475-595M 465-565M Low Profile 430-520M Total 470M 460M 495M Hie:h Profile 495-620M Hie:h Profile 435-530M \Ii Rounded to nearest $5 million (2) Range provided with high number representing construction cost with a roadway risk-assessment percentage added following Mn/DOT peer review of cost factors, (3) Includes right of way acquisition and relocation costs. No right of way differences between low and high profile options, Section 5,2,2,2,2 provides detailed cost estimates. Funds from a variety of regional, state and federal sources are anticipated for this project. The project is included in the Mn/DOT Metro District's fiscally constrained Transportation System Plan (TSP) for preservation of right of way. The .Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area also includes right of way preservation for this project. It is shown on the 2030 constrained Metropolitan System Plan of Investment Priorities. Upon determination of a preferred alternative, Mn/DOT will reevaluate needs and timing of right of way and construction funding during future TSP updates, which occur approximately every three years, 1.7 SCHEDULE The following is the anticipated project schedule for completion of the TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing Tier I EIS and Tier II EIS. TABLE 1-2 SCHEDULE Task! Activity Completion Date Distribute Tier I DEIS for agency/public comment; start of DE IS comment period June 2007 Public Hearing on Tier I DEIS July 2007 Identification of Preferred Alternative by MnlDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) Fall 2007 Distribution of FEIS . Summer 2008 MnlDOT Adequacy Determination Summer 2008 FHW A Record of Decision Summer 2008 Begin implementation of corridor preservation measures 2008 Initiation of Tier II EIS process Three Years Prior to Construction* *Construction is not currently in Mn/DOT 20-year plan, TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-9 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The outcome of the Tier I EIS process will be a selected corridor for right of way preservation. Upon completion of the EIS process Mn/DOT will work with local communities and the affected landowners to identify the best approach to preserve the needed right of way. It will most likely involve official mapping of the selected corridor. "Official Mapping" is a local zoning tool that enables Mn/DOT to work with the local communities to acquire undeveloped properties within the selected corridor where development is imminent as well as open market sales or hardship acquisitions of existing homes or businesses (i.e. the river crossing alignment makes selling the property difficult). Note that early acquisition efforts are limited by law to willing sellers. When the bridge construction is programmed then it will be necessary to complete acquisitions of all the properties and eminent domain actions may be required if negotiated settlements cannot be reached. In terms of new development, Mn/DOT is encouraging cities to take the river crossing alignments into consideration during the local approval process. When a preferred alternative is selected, Mn/DOT can work with local communities to secure right of way dedication as part of new development. 1.8 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY Table 1-4 summarizes the transportation, environmentally social and economic impacts ofthe Tier! DEIS alternative. Assessment of these impacts is based upon an assumed 300- foot wide co.rridor, with wider impacts at interchange areas, and to provide for ponding and topographic considerations, The impacts included in the summary table may be able tQ be further minimized through avoidance and minimization efforts during design that will occur during the Tier II EIS process and during final project design, but represent a reasonable basis. for comparison among alternatives for the purpose of identifying a preferred alternative for corridor preservation, 1,9 OTHERMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA As discussed in Section 1.3, the US 169 CMP proposes future conversion of US 169 to a freeway facility within the project study area. For purposes of this DEIS, it is assumed that, under a separate project or projects, interchanges will be built at US 169/CSAH 14, US 169/existing TH 41/CSAH 14, and US 169/CSAH 69. The design of the eastern Build alternatives assumes that, as part of the future US 169 corridor improvements, US 169 will be realigned south of its existing alignment in the vicinity of CSAH 69. These assumed US 169 corridor improvements have not been programmed. The need for these improvements is independent from the need for the proposed New TH 41 project - that is, the projects have independent utility. However, depending upon Build alternative, the proposed new river crossing would influence the design of future US 169 corridor improvements. In addition, the alignment of US 169 in the vicinity of CSAH 69 will influence the design of the eastern Build alternatives. The relationship between the proposed project and planned US 169 corridor improvements is discussed in Chapter 3, and noted in appropriate impact analyses, In addition, New US 212 is currently under construction, to be completed fall 2008. The design of the proposed project and relevant impact analyses account for its effect on New US 212. TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing FI0 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1.10 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND .UNRESOL VED ISSUES Throughout the EIS scoping and DEIS process, Mn/DOT has made extensive efforts at agency, local government and public involvement, in order to identify potentially controversial issues and resolve them during development of the DEIS alternatives. This effort has generally been successful in addressing concerns of stakeholders in the project area, however different agencies and different municipalities affected by the proposed DEIS alternatives have varying priorities and interests they would like to see protected. The chief area of controversy relates to the trade-offs in terms of impacts among an alternatives, in particular trade-offs between impacts to the natural environment (i.e., habitat, vegetation, wetlands, calcareous fen) and impacts to the social/cultural environment (i.e., developed and developing areas, historic properties). However, there are currently no unresolved issues. The DEIS document attempts to document the positions presented by these various interested parties, to inform the process of assessing benefits and impacts and, ultimately the preferred alternative decision-making process. 1.11 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Permits, approvals, or completion of other documentation prior to the start of construction of the proposed project are required by the agencies listed in Table 1-3. TABLE 1-3 AGENCY PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FEDERAL - . Advisory Council on Historic Preservation . Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (potential) .. Programmatic Agreement Federal Highway Administration · Tier I EIS (Draft and Final) and Section 4(f} of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Evaluations (Draft and Final) · Tier I Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act · Tier I EIS Record of Decisions . Tier II EIS(Draft and Final) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Evaluations (Draft and Final) . . Tier II Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act · Tier II EIS Record of Decision · Air Conformity Determination V.S, Army Corps of Engineers . Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - Permit (fill in V,S. waters) . Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Acquisition or Easement Agreement (if needed) . National Park Service . Coordination regarding potential Wild and Scenic River . Section 6(f) Conversion approval (if needed) . Federal Emergency Management Agency . Conditional Letter of Map Revision (if needed) (FEMA ) TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1- I I June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement TABLE 1-3 continued AGENCY PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS STATE MN Department of Transportation · Scoping Decision Document · Amended Scoping Decision Document . Tier I EIS (Draft and Final) and Section 4(f) of the Department of . Transportation Act of 1966 Evaluations (Draft and Final) · Tier I EIS Adequacy Determination · Tier II BIS (Draft and Final) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Evaluations (Draft and Final) · Tier II BIS Adequacy Determination · Noise Standards Exemption · Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) . MN Department of Natural Resources · Public Waters Permit (if needed) . Calcareous Fen Management Plan (if needed) · Endangered Species Taking Permit (if needed) · Mussel Relocation Permit (if needed) . Water Appropriation Permit (if needed) · Threatened and Endangered Species Taking Permit · Acquisition or Easement Agreement (if needed) MN Pollution Control Agency · Noise Standards Exemption , . Section 401 of the Clean Water Act- Water Quality Certification · National PolIutantDischarge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) · Tier I Programmatic Agreement (to be determined) . MN State Historic Preservation Office · Tier I Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act- Programmatic Tier II Memorandum of Agreement . REGIONAL Twin Cities Metropolitan Council I · Controlled Access Approval LOCAL City of Shakopee (1) · Municipal Consent ( if needed) City of Chaska(l) · Municipal Consent if needed) City of Carver · Municipal Consent if needed) City of Chanhassen · Municipal Consent ifneeded) Local Watershed Districts · Permits/Coordination of Grading and Drainage Plans/Dewateringl Floodplain Management Local Watershed Management . CQordination of Grading and Drainage Plans/Dewatering! Organizations Floodplain Management ( ) Assume affected land will be within city limits by time of construction 1.12 IMPACTS Table 1-4 located at the end of this chapter provides an abbreviated summary of the identified impacts of the No-Build and six Build alt'ematives. 1.13 MITIGATION SUMMARY The purpose of the Tier I EIS process is to identify and evaluate the social, economic and environmental issues associated with. aJtemative corridor locations, as a basis for identifying' a preferred corridor that can be preserved as right of way for future use. Design details will be developed in the Tier II EIS process which will occur closer to the time of construction. As TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-12 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement corridor-level documents, the Tier I DElS and PElS address the potential for mitigation; however mitigation plans will be developed in the Tier II EIS process. This summary presents information regarding current regulatory requirements, project benefits or expected changes in the project area that can be expected to offset project impacts, and general approaches to mitigation that are able to be identified at the Tier I level of environmental documentation. Right of Way All Build alternatives would have right of way impacts. All acquisition of property due to the proposed project will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniforrri Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 24, and effective April 1989 (revised January 2005) Business! employees All Build alternatives would result in impacts to project area businesses and employees. Acquisition of commercial properties will be conducted as described above under Right of Way. In , addition, it should be noted that as employment in the study area communities is anticipated to grow substantially over the next decade, it is expected that there will be sufficient accessible job' opportunity to replace jobs lost through acquisition of commercial/industria] properties, Fiscal All Build alternatives would result in fiscal impacts (annual tax losses for both Scott and Carver Counties) due. to property acquisitions. This decrease in property tax base resulting from conversion of private property to public right of way is anticipated to be offset by new development occurring in communities in the study area. Environmental Justice Alternatives C-2, C-2A, E-l, E-IA and E-2 each would result in impacts to low income and minority populations (i.e. environmental justice impacts), specifically direct right of way, noise, and visual impacts and potential indirect impacts due to loss of affordable housing stock, Mitigation for the direct impacts would be the same as for impacts to the general populations. With regard to potential indirect impacts on the stock of affordable housing, the advantage of the Tier I process is that it provides communities information about expected future impacts to affordable housing which the communities can take into account as they plan for their future housing needs in their housing plans. Note also that impacts to low income and minority populations are offset by overall improved regional accessibility and alleviation of congestion affecting quality of life. Neighborhoods, Community Facilities, Access All Build alternatives would have impacts to community cohesion, traffic patterns and access, community facilities, and services. These impacts are offset by overall improved regional accessibility and alleviation of congestion affecting quality of life, particularly in downtown Chaska, TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-13 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cultural Resources Alternative C-2 has been determined to have an adverse effect on Athletic Field (Chaska Cubs Ballfield), a property found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It is premature to assess the effect of Alternatives W-2, C-2 and C-2A on other identified NRHP eligible cultural resources. Alternatives E-1, E-1A and E-2 have been determined to have no adverse effect on identified NRHP-eligible properties, Specific mitigation for adverse effects on NRHP-eligible properties will be addressed in the Tier II process. During the Tier I FEIS, a Programmatic Agreement will be executed among FHW A, Mn/DOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other appropriate parties to outline the completion of the federal cultural resources (Section 106) process as planning for this project proceeds. Parks, Trails, Recreational Areas (Section 4(f)!Section 6(f)) All Build alternatives would have impacts to the MVNWR and MVSRA/MV Trails. Alternative C-2 would have a direct impact to Athletic Park. Alternatives E-1, E-1A, and E-2 would have impacts to Pioneer Park! Chaska High School! Pioneer "Ridge Freshman Center Complex, Audubon Trails, and City of Chaska Trails. Impacts to Section 4(f) properties will be minimized through roadway or bridge design, Efforts will be made to maintain access to and use of the facilities during construction. Specific mitigation for impacts of the Preferred Alternative will be determined through the Tier II EIS process and Section 4(f) Evaluation prepared at the time of the Tier II EIS. Threatened and Endangered Species Alternatives W-2, E-1 and E-2 are located where threatened and endangered species have been reported. Additional field surveys may be needed during the Tier II process to confirm/detail the presence ofthese species. A mussel study will be completed during the Tier II process. Mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or alleviate impacts to threatened/endangered or other protected species will be defined during the Tier II process. Mitigation measures may include timing of construction activities to avoid disturbance during bird nesting periods, or endangered mussel relocation when live specimens are identified in the preferred alternative corridor. Continuing involvement with the MnDNR and USFWS will take place through the Tier I FEIS and Tier II processes. V eget~tionlWildlife!Habitat Communities All Build alternatives would impact vegetation and native habitats and could result in shading effects, salt spray, debris, and spread of opportunistic invasive species. Additionally, bridge piers as well as the at-grade roadway could act as a barrier to wildlife movement. Design refinements will be made during the Tier IIEIS to minimize impacts. Where impacts to wildlife are unavoidable, the effect of the impacts would be minimized through design features such as wildlife crossings where the roadway is at-grade. Mitigation opportunities include timing of construction to avoid nesting and fish spawning seasons or during winter months when soils are frozen; re-vegetation of disturbed areas with native plants; restoration of un-fragmented and close-canopied forest on the Minnesota River bottoms and native grassland; erosion and sedimentation and water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-14 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Seminary Fen/Assumption Creek Alternatives E-1, E-1A, and E-2 would impact the Seminary Fen Wetland Complex (SFWC). In accordance with Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requirements, the MnDNR would provide technical assistance in development of a management plan for the SFWC. Mitigation techniques to minimize impacts to the entire wetland complex may include the use of coffer dams, swamp mats, dormant season construction, surface water protection, erosion and sedimentation control, relocation of fen vegetation, vegetation management, management of use of road salts, and restoration and management for compensatory mitigation. Surface Water Quality/Storm Water Runoff All Build alternatives would result in the creation of impervious surface and increased volume and rate of stormwater runoff that contains contaminants common to roadways. BMPs, such as storm ponds, wet detention basins, filter strips and infiltration areas, would be incorporated as required to meet state and federal water quality regulatory requirements. To the extent possible, stormwater runoff would also be routed through a wet detention basin prior to discharge into the Minnesota River. Mitigation strategies to reduce impacts from winter de-icing materials include carefully monitoring timing, method, and application rates of de-icing materials, Wild and Scenic River This section of the Minnesota River is not currently designated as a Wild and Scenic River, but it is on the National River Inventory. All Build alternatives would have the potential to negatively impact the scenic nature of the River.. Bridge design will be addressed in the Tier II EIS process. . The impact to scenic value of the river will be an important design consideration and will be assessed in the Tier II EIS. Floodplains All Build alternatives would have similar minimal effect on the floodplain, Any adverse impacts can be successfully minimized through careful design and construction- considerations, Temporary and permanent erosion control measures would be used where appropriate and would be designed to meet regulatory guidelines. Groundwater Alternatives E-1, E-IA and E-2 pose concerns about effects on groundwater due to the sensitivity of the Seminary Fen calcareous plant species on upwelling groundwater conditions. Groundwater monitoring indicates the benefits of using sheet pilingand installing a grout seal in the base ofthe excavations for the bridge piers to reduce drawdown beyond the limits of the excavation and reduce impact to the rate of seepage of groundwater into the fen. Methodologies to minimize the potential for long term disturbances of groundwater flow due to soil compaction during construction could be evaluated. Measures such as vegetated filter strips along road embankments, grassed swales/ditches and detention basins can be implemented to promote infiltration/groundwater recharge of highway runoff. TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-15 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement All Build alternatives are located in the. vicinity of wellhead protection areas, If necessary, roads that encroach on wellhead protection areas can be constructed with additional containment features such as clay-lined ditches that would contain spills and prevent contamination to water supply aquifers, The Tier II EIS will need to address special design issues related to wellhead protection, Wetlands All Build alternatives would result in direct impacts to wetlands. The sequencing and mitigation procedures required by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) will be followed when assessing alternatives and design options. Noise Both State and Federal criteria are exceeded at a number of existing receptors for all Build alternatives (as well as under existing and No-Build conditions). Mitigation measures could include noise barriers or other sound attenuation methods, or incorporation of land use controls to limit the number of noise-sensitive receptors located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project corridor. Evaluation of noise barriers as mitigation to avoid and/or minimize impacts as well as guidance for local governments regarding potential noise mitigation measures (such as recommended set-back distances for proposed developments) will be included in the Tier II EIS. Air Ouality It is expected that there would be reduced MSA T emissions when compared to No-Build in the immediate area of the project due to the reduced vehicle hours traveled and due to Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) MSA T reduction programs, Detailed air quality analyses will be conducted during the Tier II EIS process, Contaminated Sites Contaminated properties are located in or near all Build alternative corridors, Further evaluation of potentially contaminated properties identified in the Phase I ESAs will be completed for the . preferred alternative during the Tier II process. The results would be used to determine whether the contaminated materials can be avoided or whether the project's impacts to these properties can be minimized. If necessary, a plan would be developed for properly handling and for treating contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction. Any soil. and groundwater remediation activates would be coordinated with appropriate regulatory agencies. Visual Ouality All Build alternatives would substantially change the visual quality of the study area with the addition of a long, high bridge across the river valley, grade-separations over existing roadways and the introduction of new highway into developed and undeveloped areas. Design will be addressed in the Tier II process, Consideration can be given to aesthetic treatment of design elements on the bridge and at the interchanges. Other measures that can mitigate negative visual impacts include minimizing the clearing of natural vegetation and replacement of lost or removed vegetation with native species and retention of slope and bottom land vegetation. Mitigation measures would be evaluated further and refined in the Tier II EIS. TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-16 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Steep Slopes, Erodible Soils All Build alternatives would cross areas of steep slopes and/or potentially erodible soils. BMPs such as erosion control blankets, fast growing cover crops and silt fencing would be implemented in . accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that is required for the project. After the construction is complete, disturbed areas would be re-vegetated to control erosion on a permanent basis. Farmland All Build alternatives would require acquisition of farmland. Such acquisition would be in conformance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 as amended by the surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1989 and 49 Code of the Federal Regulations, Part 24. It should be noted that farmland impacts that are actually likely to occur are reduced by the orderly development of land (i.e. conversion of farmland to urban uses) provide for in local comprehensive plans and processes. It is expected that farmland within the selected TH 41 corridor wil1likely not be acquired until conversion to non-agricultural uses (through development) is imminent. Efforts to minimize impact to remaining farmland will be part of the Tier II process. Construction Impacts All Build alternatives would pose impacts during construction, Details of the construction activities, including mitigation measures such as a detailed erosion control plan, a plan for management and disposal of any excess material, a construction staging plan, special construction techniques for river bridge construction, traffic flow management techniques and access maintenance and/or detour plan would be developed during the Tier II EIS process. Indirect Impacts All Build alternatives have the potential for indirect impacts due to land development, the effect on the design of planned US 169 corridor improvements, and the broader effects to the natural environment due to ecological relationships. Land development impacts are subject to land, local land use plans and land use controls, agency permits and approvals. Alternatives C-2, C-2A, E-l, E-1A and E-2 would have the potential for indirect social impacts due to the reduction in affordable housing supply. However, because ofthe timeframe for construction, communities will have time to plan for future land use and transportation systems to fit physically with the project and for adequate supply of affordable housing. The Tier II EIS will evaluate the potential for more specific indirect effects of the project on area economic conditions and develop mitigation strategies as appropriate. MnlDOT will be planning and implementing the US 169 improvements and, therefore, will be responsible for mitigation for impacts of any of that project. Any project mitigation that improves the natural environment, (e.g. wetland replacement, habitat restoration, etc,) would have a corresponding beneficial indirect impact on the broader ecosystem. Mitigation of specifically-identified indirect effects of the proposed project will be addressed in the Tier II EIS process. TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-17 June 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement