HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.C.2. Comments on Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)-Res. No. 6638
Ij,e.~,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Comments on Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for the "Minnesota 41 Minnesota River Crossing" (New River
Crossing)
MEETING DATE: August 8, 2000
INTRODUCTION:
On June 13,2007, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) issued the
DEIS for the New River Crossing for public review and comment. The public comment
period concludes on Friday, August 10,2007. At its workshop of Tuesday, July 31, the
Council received a presentation on the DEIS from Diane Langenbach (MnDOT project
manager for the DEIS) and Lynn Clarkowski (MnDOT Metro Division). On August 8th,
the Council will be asked to adopt a resolution approving comments and a comment letter
for submittal to MnDOT on the DEIS. The City's Environmental Advisory Committee
(EAC) has reviewed the DEIS as well, a copy of the comments generated by them
accompanies this report. Also included in this report are comments from the City's
Natural Resources Coordinator, Ryan Hughes.
DISCUSSION:
MnDOT adopted a 2 tier approach to doing environmental review for a New River
Crossing. The first tier is the preparation of an EIS intended to determine the alignment
and route for the new crossing. The second tier would be the preparation of an EIS in
preparation for construction of a project. The DEIS under review is the Tier I (or
alignment) level EIS.
The Tier I DEIS process actually began in 2002 with the preparation of a scoping
document. During the scoping process, about twenty (20) alternatives were considered.
The scoping document was first completed in 2005 and was amended in 2006.
From the outset and throughout the process of development of the scoping document and
DEIS, the City has been represented on the Study Advisory Committee (SAC) and Project
Management Team (PMT) by the author of this report and Bruce Loney, Public Works
Director. Councilor Matt Lehman has represented the City at the Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC).
DEIS TH 41 (3)/TRH 1
Adequacy of the Tier I DEIS:
Staff is of the opinion that the amount and type of information and analysis included in
the DEIS is adequate on which to make a decision about the preferred corridor alignment
for a New River Crossing. In saying that, staff recognizes that there are a number of
engineering, environmental, and impact issues that cannot and would not be fully
answered until the Tier II EIS process is undertaken.
Primary Issues:
As MnDOT's representatives communicated to the Council at its workshop, each of the
six (6) alternatives is feasible and responsible. However, there is no ideal alternative and
each of the alternative alignments has a range of environmental impacts. Accompanying
this report to assist the Council is Table 1-4, Impact Summary. In preparing the attached
comments, staff focused on the following issues or impacts;
. Transportation Impacts;
. Land Use Impacts;
. Natural Resource Impacts;
. Social Justice Impacts.
Transportation Impacts:
Access to Downtown Shakopee:
The principal concern expressed by the Council throughout this process is that, whatever
alternative is selected, direct and convenient access to CSAH 69 and thus Shakopee's
Downtown be preserved. Through Councilor Lehman and staff's emphasis on this issue,
the DEIS alternatives do now provide for this access to be preserved. However, the local
roadway connections would not be built as a part ofthe New River Crossing construction.
As a result, it will be important for the City, the County and MnDOT to continue to work
cooperatively to make sure that funding is put in place (either in advance ofthe New
River Crossing or at the time of its construction) to construct the needed ramps and local
roadway connections that will, in fact, make sure Shakopee's Downtown remains
conveniently accessible over the long term.
Impacts on the Regional Transportation System:
It took only about 10 years for TH 169 and the new Bloomington Ferry Bridge to reach
capacity during the peak traffic hours. In the same time, traffic on the TH 101 crossing
has grown to about the same level it was before the opening ofTH 169. If a New River
Crossing is not constructed, it is projected that the capacity of the TH 41 and TH 101
DEIS TH 41 (3)/TRH 2
crossings will be significantly exceeded, and the average daily traffic (ADT) on TH 169
will grow to 141,000 vehicles per day.
All of the alternatives have an impact in reducing traffic on other roadways within the
regional system. However, the "E" alternatives have the greatest positive impact in
reducing ADT numbers on TH 169 and the TH 101 river crossing.
A key consideration in determining where to locate the New River Crossing ought to be
whether it is spaced in such a way to best serve both existing development and new areas
of growth. An illustrative comparison that shows appropriate spacing is Dakota County.
Dakota currently has a population of about 440,000. It is served by no less than six (6)
river crossings that are not susceptible to flooding, all in a space of about 16 miles (an
average of one crossing every 2.3 miles). By contrast, Scott County has a current
population of about 120,000+. By 2040, it is projected to grow to about the same size as
Dakota County. There are only two (2) river crossings in about a 14-mile stretch in Scott
County that are not prone to flooding (TH 169 and CSAH 25). For the next several years,
it is expected that a large portion ofthe growth in Scott County will continue to occur in
the northern part of the County. To serve that growth, a New River Crossing should be
located so that it can serve that growth. For the long-term future, there will, of course, be
a need for additional river crossing(s) beyond the one that is the subject of this DEIS to
serve areas farther to the south and west as they develop.
Laud Use Impacts:
A major potential area for urban expansion in the future for the City of Shakopee consists
of land that is currently within Jackson Township, with which the City has an orderly
annexation agreement. The City's long-term planning has for years posited that the
CSAH 69/TH 169 corridor is a logical location for future high quality commercial and
industrial!business park development. The ultimate choice of river crossing alignments
has significant implications for land use patterns in western Shakopee and Jackson
Township. These are outlined below;
Alternative W-2:
On the Scott County side, W-2 would be located in Louisville Township. The
interchange between the crossing and TH 169 would be located very close to the
bluff line that runs northeast to southwest from Shakopee to Jordan. Depending
on when constructed, the W-210cation ofthe crossing and interchange might tend
to spur development in its immediate vicinity in advance of development further
north on the TH 169 corridor. ill addition, whatever the timing of construction, a
W-2 location might have an impact on the desirability of the northern portion of
the TH 169/CSAH 69 corridor as a location for commercial and business park
development.
Alternative C-2 and C-2A:
DEIS TH41 (3)/TRH 3
On the Scott County side, C-2/C-2A are located in both Jackson and a small
portion Louisville townships. Staff does not expect that the C-2/C-2A alignments
would have a significant impact on planned or expected urban commercial and
business park uses in the northern portion ofthe TH 169/CSAH 69 corridor.
Alternatives E-l/E-1A/E-2:
On the Scott County side, these alignments are located in Jackson Township, near
the Shakopee city limits. Staff does not expect that these alignments would have
a significant impact on planned or expected urban commercial and business park
uses in the northern portion ofthe TH 169/CSAH 69 corridor. However, should
one of these alignments (or a variation thereofbe chosen) key to the future land
use success of this area will be decisions about the 10,cation of supporting local
roadway connections, and the impact they may have on the develop ability of
adjacent lands for the intended commercial and business park uses.
Natural Resource Impacts:
All ofthe proposed alternatives have environmental impacts, whether they are to the
Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge Area, Minnesota Valley Recreation Area, Seminary
Fen, federal Fish and Wildlife holdings, corridors identified on the Shakopee Natural
Resource Corridor Map or other resources. The Seminary Fen is a unique calcareous
wetland with special protections under Minnesota Statutes. It would be impacted by the
E-1, E-1A and E-2 (easterly) alternatives studied in the DEIS. However, there is
currently no management plan in place for the Seminary Fen, and it may be that selection
of one of the easterly alternatives (or a combination thereof) might provide impetus for
the MnDNR and MnDOT to cooperatively develop a management plan for this unique
resource. For that reason, staff suggests that a copy of the comment letter be sent to the
Commissioner ofthe MnDNR as well.
Social Justice Impacts:
As the attached table shows, the easterly alternatives have the most impacts in terms of
potential residential relocation, a large part of which would be mobile/manufactured
homes. Currently these impacts are to homes which are outside the City of Shakopee.
However, given the importance placed on providing housing opportunities for people of
low to moderate incomes, in the event that an easterly alternative were chosen, staff
suggests that it would be appropriate for the Metropolitan Council (which currently
dictates how much affordable housing communities must guide land for) to take a lead
role in determining how and where to provide housing for those who would be impacted
by these alignments. For that reason, staff suggests forwarding a copy of the comment
letter to the Chair of the Metropolitan Council, Peter Bell.
DEIS TH41 (3)1TRH 4
Natural Resource Coordinator Comments:
Following a review of this report Mr. Hughes' comments were as follows;
"Having not attended meetings where discussions on how the inadequacy of
management has effected the Fen were discussed I can not comment on the pros
and cons of impacting the Fen other than to say, from a unique natural resources
preservation perspective, an alternative that does not impact the fen would be
preferred.
I don't agree with item 3 in the resolution that C-1 and C-2 (in the EIS I have they
are identified as C-2 and C-2A) [in the report to Council this has been corrected]
have the greatest potential impact on natural resources. According to the EIS C-2
does have one of the greatest cultural resources effects by disturbing Chaska Cubs
Ball Field. Also, according to the EIS, C-2A does have the greatest effect on
steep slopes and erodible soils (34.3 acres) but I think it might be a stretch to say
that both these alternatives impacts are one ofthe greatest potential impacts on the
natural resources when other alternatives propose to impact the Fen.
I fully support and appreciate including support for discussion between the POT
and DNR to create a management plan for the Fen and appreciate that this support
is included in the resolution. It's disappointing that it took discussions to impact
the Fen to prompt agencies to discuss management initiatives."
Alternatives:
1. Approve attached Resolution No. 6638 and the accompanying comment letter as
presented, and authorize submittal to the MnDOT, with copies of the letter to be sent
to DNR Commissioner Holsten, and Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell.
2. Approve attached Resolution No. 6638 and the accompanying comment letter as
presented, and authorize submittal to the MnDOT, with copies ofthe letter to be sent
to DNR Commissioner Holsten, and Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell.
3. Do not authorize the submittal ofthe comments to MnDOT.
DEIS TH 41 (3)/TRH 5
Action Requested:
Offer and pass a motion approving Resolution No. 6638 and the attached comment letter
on the DEIS for the New River Crossing, with copies ofthe letter to be sent to DNR
Commissioner Holsten, and Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell.
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
DEIS TH41 (3)!TRH 6
RESOLUTION NO. 6638
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING
THE SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT TIER I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR THE
"TH 41 NEW MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING"
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDGT) has
prepared and released for comment a Tier I DEIS; and
WHEREAS, the deadline for comments is Friday, August 10, 2007; and
WHEREAS, both staff and elected representatives ofthe City of Shakopee have
been involved in the development of the DEIS through the various public input
committees that were established; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS provides sufficient and detailed information and analysis
on which MnDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) can make a
decision on the most appropriate alignment for a new river crossing connecting TH 169
and Th 212; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shako pee has reviewed both the
process for developing the DEIS and the DEIS itself, and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota that it adopts the following findings relative to the above-named
DEIS;
1. That the W -2 alignment has the least positive impact on the overall regional
transportation system;
2. That the W - 2 alignment has the greatest potential to negatively impact land
use growth and development patterns in northern Scott County;
3. That the C-2 and C-2A alignments have the greatest potential impact on
natural resources;
4. That the E-l, E-1A and E-2 (easterly) alignments have the greatest positive
impact on the regional transportation system by providing congestion relief on
TH 169, TH 101 and TH 41;
5. That the easterly alignments impact a significant natural resource, to wit the
Seminary Fen, which is not currently the subject of a management plan;
6. That the easterly alignments have significant social justice impacts, in that
they would result in the relocation of a large number of residents of
mobile/manufactured homes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Shakopee City Council supports the
preservation of one of the easterly corridors or some combination thereof; and
DEIS TH41 (3)1TRH 8
BE IT FURTHERRESOL VED, that the Shakopee City Council supports
discussions between MnDOT and MnDNR aimed at the development of a long-term
management plan for the Seminary Fen and the management of im1?acts that would result
from a new river crossing; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Shakopee City Council supports
discussion between the Metropolitan Council, Scott and Carver counties, and the cities
within Scott and Carver counties opportunities that may arise to address long-term
affordable housing needs because of a new river crossing project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Shakopee City Council supports
having the Legislature make available additional funds to assist in the acquisition of land
for, and construction of, this project well in advance of its currently contemplated
timeframe.
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
held the _ day of , 2007.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest:
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
DEIS TH 41 (3)fTRH 9
DRAFT ONLY,
SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROV AL
August 8, 2007
Attention: Diane Langenbach, Project Manager
Minnesota Department of Transportation - Metro Division
1500 W County Rd. B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Re: City of Shakopee Comments on the "Tier I Draft Environmental Impact
Statement; Minnesota 41 Minnesota River Crossing"
Dear Ms. Langenbach:
The above-captioned EA W has been reviewed with the Shakopee City, and the following
comments are offered by the City of Shakopee.
Adequacy of the Tier I DEIS:
The amount and type of information and analysis included in the DEIS provides an
adequate basis for making a decision about the preferred corridor alignment for a New
River Crossing. In saying that, staff recognizes that there are a number of engineering,
environmental, and impact issues that cannot and would not be fully answered until the
Tier IT EIS process is undertaken.
Comments on Primary Issues:
From the City of Shakopee's perspective, the following are the primary issue/impact areas
on which the following comments are based;
. Transportation Impacts;
. Land Use Impacts;
. Natural Resource Impacts;
. Social Justice Impacts.
Transportation Impacts:
Access to Downtown Shakopee:
The City of Shakopee' s principal concern throughout this process is that, whatever
alternative is selected, direct and convenient access to CSAH 69 and thus Shakopee's
DEIS TH 41 (3)!TRH 10
Downtown be preserved. The DEIS alternatives do now provide for this access to be
preserved. However, the local roadway connections would not be built as a part of the
New River Crossing construction. As a result, it will be important for the City, the
County and MnDOT to continue to work cooperatively to make sur,e that funding is put in
place (either in advance ofthe New River Crossing or at the time of its construction) to
construct the needed ramps and local roadway connections that will, in fact, make sure
Shakopee's Downtown remains conveniently accessible over the long term.
Impacts on the Regional Transportation System:
It took only about 10 years for TH 169 and the new Bloomington Ferry Bridge to reach
capacity during the peak traffic hours. In the same time, traffic on the TH 101 crossing
has grown to about the same level it was before the opening of TH 169. If a New River
Crossing is not constructed, it is projected that the capacity of the TH 41 and TH 101
crossings will be significantly exceeded, and the average daily traffic (ADT) on TH 169
will grow to 141,000 vehicles per day.
All of the alternatives have an impact in reducing traffic on other roadways within the
regional system. However, the "E" alternatives have the greatest positive impact in
reducing ADT numbers on TH 169 and the TH 101 river crQssing.
A key consideration in determining where to locate the New River Crossing ought to be
whether it is spaced in such a way to best serve both existing develQpment and new areas
of growth. An illustrative comparison that shows appropriate spacing is Dakota County.
Dakota currently has a population of about 440,000. It is served by no less than six (6)
river crossings that are not susceptible to flooding, all in a space of about 16 miles (an
average of one crossing every 2.3 miles). By contrast, Scott County has a current
population of about 120,000+. By 2040, it is projected to grow to about the same size as
Dakota County, There are only two (2) river crossings in about a 14-mile stretch in Scott
County that are not prone to flooding (TH 169 and CSAH 25). For the next several years,
it is expected that a large portion ofthe growth in Scott County will continue to occur in
the northern part of the County. To serve that growth, a New River Crossing should be
located so that it can serve that growth. For the long-term future, there will, of course, be
a need for additional river crossing(s) beyond the one that is the subject of this DEIS to
serve areas farther to the south and west as they develop.
Land Use Impacts:
A major potential area for urban expansion in the future for the City of Shakopee consists
ofland that is currently within Jackson Township, with which the City has an orderly
annexation agreement. The City's long-term planning has for years posited that the
CSAH 69/TH 169 corridor is a logical location for future high quality commercial and
industriallbusiness park development. The ultimate choice of river crossing alignments
has significant implications for land use patterns in western Shakopee and Jackson
Township. These are outlined below;
.
DEIS TH 41 (3)!TRH 11
Alternative W-2:
On the Scott County side, W -2 would be located in Louisville Township. The
interchange between the crossing and TH 169 would be located very close to the
bluff line that runs northeast to southwest from Shakopee to Jordan. Depending
on when constructed, the W-2location ofthe crossing and interchange might tend
to spur development in its immediate vicinity in advance of development further
north on the TH 169 corridor. In addition, whatever the timing of construction, a
W -2 location might have an impact on the desirability of the northern portion of
the TH 169/CSAH 69 corridor as a location for commerciatand business park
development.
Alternative C-2 and C-2A:
On the Scott County side, C-2/C-2A are located in both Jackson and a small
portion Louisville townships. Staff does not expect that the C-2/C-2A alignments
would have a significant impact on planned or expected urban commercial and
business park uses in the northern portion of the TH 169/CSAH 69 corridor.
Alternatives E-l/E-1A/E-2:
On the Scott County side, these alignments are located in Jackson Township, near
the Shakopee city limits. Staff does not expect that these alignments would have
a significant impact on planned or expected urban commercial and business park
uses in the northern portion of the TH 169/CSAH 69 corridor. However, should
one of these alignments (or a variation thereofbe chosen) key to the future land
use success of this area will be decisions about the location of supporting local
roadway connections, and the impact they may have on the develop ability of
adjacent lands for the intended commercial and business park uses.
Natural Resource Impacts:
All of the proposed alternatives have environmental impacts, whether they are to the
Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge Area, Minnesota Valley Recreation Area, Seminary
Fen, federal Fish and Wildlife holdings, corridors identified on the Shakopee Natural
Resource Corridor Map or other resources. The Seminary Fen is a unique calcareous
wetland with special protections under Minnesota Statutes. It would be impacted by the
E-1, E-1A and E-2 (easterly) alternatives studied in the DEIS. Indeed, in its review of the
DEIS, the City of Shakopee's Environmental Advisory Committee expressed their
preference for an alternative that would not impact the Seminary Fen. However, given
other factors to be evaluated, those alternative alignments may provide the greatest
overall benefit to the regional transportation system. In that case, the project should be
used as a catalyst to a) find ways to minimize the impacts to the Fen, and b) develop an
effective long-term plan for management of the Fen. There is currently no management
DEIS TH41 (3)/TRH 12
plan in place for the Seminary Fen, and it may be that selection of one of the easterly
alternatives (or a combination thereof) might provide impetus for the MnDNR and
MnDOT to cooperatively develop a management plan for this unique resource. For that
reason, staff suggests that a copy of the comment letter be sent to the Commissioner of
the MnDNR as well.
Social Justice Impacts:
As the attached table shows, the easterly alternatives have the most impacts in terms of
potential residential relocation, a large part of which would be mobile/manufactured
homes. Currently these impacts are to homes which are outside the City of Shakopee.
However, given the importance placed on providing housing opportunities for people of
low to moderate incomes, in the event that an easterly alternative were chosen, staff
suggests that it wouldbe appropriate for the Metropolitan Council (which currently
dictates how much affordable housing communities must guide land for) to take a lead
role in determining how and where to provide housing for those who would be impacted
by these alignments. For that reason, staff suggests forwarding a copy of the comment
letter to the Chair of the Metropolitan Council, Peter Bell. It is also important that such
homes be acquired as they become available before the start 'of the actual project to
decrease long-term costs and better facilitate voluntary relocation of the residents.
On behalf of the City of Shakopee, I look forward to further discussions that may occur
prior to the making of a record decision in this matter. I also look forward to ongoing
discussions involving the MnDNR and Metropolitan Council respectively regarding th,e
mitigation of natural resource impacts and impacts to affordable housing.
Very truly yours,
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
DEIS TH41 (3)!TRH 13
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Ryan Hughes, Natural Resource Coordinator
On behalf of the Environmental Advisory Committee
Subject: Environmental Advisory Committee Comments
Minnesota River Crossing Tier I Draft EIS
Meeting Date: August 8, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) discussed the Minnesota River Crossing Tier I
Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the July 11,2007 regular meeting.
DISCUSSION
At the July 11, 2007 EAC regular meeting the EAC extended the deadline to provide comments
to staff until August 1, 2007 to allow interested EAC commissioners to attend the July 18, 2007
public hearing in Chaska. Comments were received from Chair Kate Sedlacek and
Commissioner KathyGerlach (see attachments). Based on a review of the comments the
following items were discussed in both submittals:
1. Preservation or no impacts to the Seminary Fen.
2. Consideration for mass transit options.
The EAC did not have a consensus for which alternative is preferred. Chair Sedlacek noted that
it appeared that alternative C2 created the least amount of impact to the Shakopee Natural
Resource Corridor.
ACTION REQUESTED:
No action necessary.
August 1, 2007
Ryan Hughes
Natural Resources Coordinator
129 Holmes Street
Shakopee MN 55379
Dear Mr. Hughes:
I have reviewed the TH41 Minnesota River Crossing Draft EIS and have provided my comments
below.
It is a goal of the EAC to preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the natural resource areas that
provide valuable wildlife habitat identified in the Natural Resources Corridor
In achieving this goal several other goals ofthe EAC are met; such as, the goals to preserve,
protect, and restore woodlands, wetlands, steep slopes, non-woody upland native vegetation,
wildlife resources, and native, threatened, endangered, and unique plants and animals. It appears
that the river crossing route C2 in the EIS presents the least amount of impact on the corridor and
natural resources adjacent and outside ofthe corridor.
Although, the Seminary Fen is not within the City of Shakopee it is important to the EAC to
protect this natural resources. It is a goal of the EAC to collaborate with adjacent jurisdictions to
preserve natural resource areas that may serve outside of Shakopee and to promote the extension
of the Natural Resources Corridor into adjacent jurisdictions. The EAC believes that the
Seminary Fen is a natural resource that should be protected and restored in order to protect the
unique and threatened plants that inhabit the fen. We consider routes EIA and E2 less favorable
because they appear to have the most impact on the fen.
Although route C2 may have the least impact on natural resources its location along the 169
corridor may encourage urban sprawl. We would encourage the local zoning authorities to adopt
zoning regulations that will limit development until the bridge and frontage roads are constructed
and municipal services are available.
It is also a goal of the EAC to encourage activities that conserve energy and result in less/no
pollution output; such as, alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, we s.trongly encourage
consideration of mass transit to help alleviate traffic congestion and air pollution.
The EAC is also concerned about noise and light pollution. We feel that the DOT should provide
all reasonable mitigation measures to stay within the noise limits and to recommend development
setbacks to local jurisdictions to preclude future development that results in immediate violation
of existing noise regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the TH41 Minnesota River Crossing Draft EIS.
Thank you,
Kate Sedlacek
Shakopee Environmental Advisory Committee
Ryan Hughes
.." .---:---...,..,,..........-.,._,...._......,,..,..,,.,-,-~__.-.,,_.__m__~,..<.~_..--,-,--,...-,____..___.__~~__'_.____h"_.~___.._:.-_.,_,_-"\""~.-..,.,-_...."._._,_.",...,.,...._..____--.---".~..-,.-..-.<<-~.---_._._....,.'____h~...._._..___~"""'""'.,.......-----.........,.__
From: kgerlach@minnesotahomes.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 01 , 2007 11 :28 AM
To: Ryan Hughes
Subject: Re: MN River Crossing EIS Comments
My work schedule lately just didn't allow the time needed for thorough.
Comments I have after attending the open house:
Disturbing the Seminary Fen with any of the three options that crossed close or through it are not good options. Remember
all the hallaballoo over the Savage Fen? This is a one of a kind place we should NOT dewater or disturb in any way. The
separate report regarding the potential impacts should be given a lot of weight.
The one Fen option (furthest west) was the least horrible of the three, but all of them also dislocated a huge number of
households. This too, I think is unacceptable unless there is a program help these families into ownership--perhaps of
the huge number oftownhomes available on the market in Shakopee (200+) I envision down payment assistance tied to this
project's passage.
Also, Chaska has real issues with the two options that disect and disturb their community and I think that those options will
be very hard and expensive to slide by them. (Why do you think they are the 8th most desirable place to live!?) Additionally,
It seems we should space the available river crossings further apart from each other.
The furthest West option left seems to have a huge impact on Minnesota River Valley Wildlife areas. is there good data
gathered from the 169 River Crossing to give guidance on how to best minimize impacts (REALLY)? Heights necessary,
etc....
Another comment would be that we should reduce the projected vehicle trips, and therefore the size of this project, by
working park and rides/mass transient into the plan right up front...That or, sorry, no-build.
When's the drop dead deadline...August 7?
Kathy Gerlach
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Hughes <RHughes@ci,shakopee.mn.us>
To: "Sedlacek, Kate" <KSedlacek@co.scott.mn.us>, kgerlach <kgerlach@minnesotahomes.com>, karyn islam
<karynislam@yahoo.com>, mateusferraz <mateusferraz@hotmail.com>, "heidi.f.benedict"
<heidi.f.benedict@xcelenergy,com>
Sent: 1 Aug 2007.8:59
Subject: MN River Crossing EIS Comments
The Council would like to review the EAC comments for the MN River Crossing EIS at their next meeting. In order to meet the deadline
to have the information included in the packet I need your comments by noon today.
If you have questions or concerns please contact me.
Thank you,
Ryan
Ryan Hughes
Natural Resources Coordinator
129 Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
Direct: 952-233-9510
Fax: 952-233-3801
8/1/2007
Ii TABLE 1-4
IMP ACT SUMMARY
i
. ~~
..."No-Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-! E-lA E-2
J .'. N/A Ro.adwaylength: 3.1 miles Ro.adway length: 3.9 miles Ro.adway length: 3.0 miles Roadway length: 3.1 miles Roadway length: 3,6 miles Roadway length: 3.2 miles
I. ...i... ..".'...."'," .... ' Bndge. l~ngth:. 10,550 feet Bndge l:ngth: 9,550 feet Bndge l:ngth: 9,350 feet Brid. ge length: Bridge length: 13,500 feet Brid.ge length: 12,000 feet
" J}ESCRIPTION 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
"," 1l,300feet [high profile]
11 , No. of piers: 94
',I TRANSPORTATION AND FISCAL IMPACTS
Capacitv Improvement and Relief to Other River Crossinl?:S
J , New TH 41 Ayeraj);e Daily Traffic (ADT) (2040)' N/A 45,000 48,000 43,000 56,000 56,000 59,000
Ii Other River Crossings ADT (2040)
,.."..1 . 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 .. 24200
1 ' ,
.' : . Highway 101 . 34,000 . 30,400 . 30,000 .. 29,900 . 24,800 . 24,300 . 23,300
. I . 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 . l32,000 . 132,000
i Hours of Congestion (2040)
.'..'...., ,i. .. Existing TH 41 north of existing US 212 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 · 0 . 0
," \ . ExistingTH41 river crossing . 10 . 3 . 2 . 3 . 2 . 3 . 2
, . Existing Hil!:hwav 101 river crossing . 10 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 · 6 . 5
J. Regional Efficiency (2040)
I'. i . VMT (difference from No-Build) . N/A . 310,000 . 314,000 . 354,000 . 309,000 . 285,000 . 292,000
".1 . VHT(differencefromNo-Build) . N/A . -3,900 . -3,500 . -3,100 . -3,600 . -4,000 . -4,000
Safetv
I: i Crashes (2040)
. ' ..! . Freeway . 996 . 1,058 · 1,052 . 1,058 . 1,052 . 1,055 . 1,053
, q' . 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
I'....,......" Other . Grade-separated rail crossings increase safety and decrease number of stops for transports carrying hazardous/flammable materials.
l j . Substantial improvements in emergency response times, especially during flood conditions.
. . Reduced potential for vehicle-bic de or vehicle-pedestrian conflicts.
" Trucks per day (% of ADT) (2040)
Ii . NewTH41 . N/A . 2,360(5) .2,350(5) .2,210(5) . 3,650(7) . 4,130(7) . 4,040(7)
.", , . ExistingTH41 .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)
I.' ...1 . US 169 . 8,900 (6) . 8,700 (6) . 8,700 (6) . 9,100 (7) . 8,300 (6) . 8,200 (6) . 8,100 (6)
. I Fiscal
. ,J Cost (in 2005 dollars) (rounded to $ 10M)
1 . Construction (higher figure risk assessed for . $335-$390M . $305-$355M . $345-$405M . $375-$460M (Low Profile) . $41O-$490M . $370-$440M (Low Profile)
I.'.. .... ..1, 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)
"1... . $495-$620M (High Profile) . $435-$530M (Hil1:h Profile)
.i BenefitlCostRatio N/A 3.43 3.39 3.29 2.33 2,72 2.84
.,j SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
, Right of way · 258 acres . 320 acres . 301 acres . 360 acres . 214 acres . 194 acres
I. '.. i, · 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
,..' NI A - 17 agricultural - 15 agricultural - 17 agricultural - 11 agricultural - 10 agricultural - 9 agricultural
" "'. _ 7 industriaVcommercial - 15 illdustriaVconunercial - 16 industriaVconunercial - 6 industriaVconunercial - 13industriaVconunercial - 56 indU. striaVcommercial
; _ 9 public - II 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 Acquired(l) . 13 . 29 . 78 . 261 . 136 . 210
\
I'.. " Business/employees N/A 6 businesses 11 businesses 12 businesses 3 businesses 7 businesses 5 businesses
.. 125 employees 114 employees 134 employees 115 emolovees 264 emoloyees 99 employees
,J ^, Fiscal
) . Annual tax loss (Scott County) . $25,150 . $162,200 . $166,750 . $25,000 . $33,700 . $44,200
II' . Annual tax loss (Carver County) . $15,350 . $ 17,450 . $ 45,900 . $45,900 . $84,350 . $32,150
c.. (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.
III,.'.' TH41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-19 June 2007
. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
I!
.' TABLE 1-4 continued
IMPACT SUMMARY
. Alternatives
No-Build I W-2 C-2 C-2A E-l E-IA E-2
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental Justice N/A No disproportionate impacts 18 households 38 households . Up to 126 households - . Up to II3 households - Mobile . Up to 182 households - Mobile
. Jackson Heights Jackson Heights Mobile Manor, Bonnevista Manor, Bonnevista and Manor, Bonnevista and Riverview
and Riverview Terrace Riverview Terrace Terrace
Neighborhoods N/A . River Bluff Estates (Carver) . Jackson Heights . Jackson Heights · Mobile Manor, Bonnevista . Mobile Manor, Bonnevista 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
II 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
i, Access N/A . Existing US 212 realigned . Affects design of US 169/ existing . Affects design of US 169/ . Affects design of US 169/ . Affects design of US 169/ . Affects design of US 169/
. Mt Hope Road extended to TH 41 interchange and existing 1H 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 l69/CSAH69 US I 69/CSAH 69 interchange US 169/CSAH 69 interchange
\ . Assumes existing TH 41/ CSAH 78 . Assumes existing TH 41/ 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
..,; determined 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 MVSRNMV Trails . 4.2 acres MVSRAlMV Trails
.' . 2004 acres Minnesota Valley . 22.3 acres MVSRNMV Trails . 5.4 acres MVSRNMV Trails . 12.0 acres MVSRNMV . 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) .. lOA acres Pioneer Park! Freshman Center Complex Freshman Center Complex
.' . 30.6 acres Minnesota VaHey 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 1breatened and Endangered . No Threatened and Endangered . No Threatened and Endan- . Several species that are part of . Several species that are part of the
Ii 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 . Shovelnosesturgeon (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 II 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
. Tier II mussel study threatened) threatened)
ai 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) . ShovehlOse sturgeon (state special
. Shovelnose sturgeon (state concern)
special concern) . Tier II mussel study anticipated
\ . Tier II mussel study anticipated
\ i
.'
~ TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 1-21 June 2007
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
,_.,