HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.B. Discussion of TH 41 Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) and River Crossing Implementation Collaborative
:r~~~'" . ..' . . '.. ,. -.' :.: " .~ '~:"'''':~~:'?'::;f:;}~jBj~:::.~::~;:.:. ;~~1~~~:,::.t;~;'~..:>~ "..'~' .... . .~ :' ~" . ' ..,...' ',"
~ How do I stay Informed' . " '';;,', " ..,'\. "''-:''''''*' ,"~'o ,i", ",. 1,,_~c...,> ,L..; ',--:;',. :""""'''.'1i;'' '., .." . .' .' .' ,
.. ~ ~~ -:......" '_... .........._ ~... '" ,...-:. ~.~..~: ,~,'~" ~_ ..-~. '~f./,f ."~':iI'f_"~~';' ...~ -,.j"~'''' <O""'~ ~,~ :;....,,;<'..:~~'.,l~_. ~;".-. , ~ . 0-
f!!iii..~,~.", <. .,'l'~.' ",' , '.""~ "'~.y" .. .~.....,,,,,_;;.~.bij!~...;;W,"..j;;;~,~'~iJ~'lj ~~~ ~~....~'...>~...-'" '>,-. .'."''',,, .,'-", ~-~.- VL' . -.. -, ..',
ill' Minnesota Department ofTransportation Trunk Highway @I] ':'. " " u
Diane Langenbach, P.E. (""", Minnesotil River
~ ~ A Fwu1'e US 169/US 212 Rt'gional PreeH'ay CunnectioN
"1; 'of' ph: 651-234-7721
o,e"'ft\p.~ email: diane.langenbach@state.mn.us
More information online at:
http://www.projects.dot.state.mn.us/srf/041 Ii ndex.htm I Future TH 41
Who else is involved? Minnesota River
The TH 41 Tier 1 EIS was completed with involvement from stakeholders on the Crossing:
local, state, and federal levels. Project advisory groups helped Mn/DOT and FHWA Identifying a Corridor.
lead the effort and they included representatives from cities, counties, natural
resource agencies, historic preservation groups and community/special interest Committing to a Sustainable Decision.
groups. The general public also participatecl in several open houses where they
received project information and provided input. The overall process worked February 2010
through many controversial issues to identify a preferred corridor. With the
support of the active participants below, we are confident that we can continue
working together to make the (.2 preferred corridor a sustainable decision.
Carver County Jackson Township
Carver Heritage Preservation Commission Louisville Township
Chaska Heritage Preservation Commission Lower Minnesota Watershed District ~lt
City of Carver Metropolitan Council
~ >=,
City of Chanhassen Scott County ~ g
City of Chaska ~ 9.0
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency 1?-OI=TRP.~".i
City of Shakopee u.s. Army Corps of Engineers
MN Department of Natural Resources U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
State Historic Preservation Office Federal Highway Administration
8
,-- ---- ---- -----~-
- --. ,. - -- -. 0 .- ^ - ",-"," ~..,'"i'''o''.r.\~~'~~"~-;.,~~.]~.~~~~;(')lt~~~.'2tt':f~~~~.~,.,..''?J..~''' ''''''.1t1-:'^,(' !' - " .0' .. " " '-7< ". ':.., "', /'"'4c. ';,...-:a
, .. h ~ "A';-, . d~;:,L\::::~/?:~:~. ,:t~::t:;'.~t~>~:'.::rJ:1";:'}~~?~~~~~;~';t~'.~;:~_',2~!:':"~ ~r~':. -.:;... ,:' :', , : '-;: ':' ,.-' , ~
IdentIfYIng t e ,C- 2 Corrl or.:. , "0-' ~;:""o... '; ";if,c >J,:'..,o,:,,~~, .,<! .~'.p:,. ':13!'l\t~$~4ti;I{*':' " -', '*. ',' , . ,.J
, "
. . ;~'t;: ~,:,._ C<d'h :~p~';l.'.~:~~-:t~~;~~~:;~,~J.o;.~~~j:~~~~~~.t~ :~~~..).,..,~.{.~'~k;"'~~': ........_..'" or,~ . '.' " .- , "',< ,'> 'Iii
2002-2004 I Scoping Study 2007-Present I Preferred Alternative
The Seoping Study identified the study area and Preferred alternative C-2 was informed by the technical information in the Draft EIS and through stakeholder
resources that the project might affect, developed consultation and public comment.
21 potential corridor alternatives, and then
identified 6 feasible corridor alternatives to study
in detail.
Specifically, the Scoping Study mapped the
resources in the area that could be affected by the
project. These included established neighborhoods
and planned community growth areas, businesses,
historic sites, parks, wildlife habitat, wetlands
including a rare calcareous fen, and the Minnesota
River.
The 21 potential alternatives were identified
through an iterative process with stakeholders,
based on different possibilities for connecting the
two east-west highways. At this step, the potential
alternatives were conceptual, just"lines on a map:'
2004-2007 I EIS Engineering Study
The draft EIS engineering study researched six
alignments developed from the broad corridors
identified in the scoping study.
It compared the social, economic, and
environmental resources affected by each
alternative.
Please see page 6 for more information about corridor
alternatives.
The 21 scoping alternatives ihcluded: No-build I Transportation System Management: more transit use and minor road improvements I
4 bridge alternatives in the western area 19 bridge alternatives in the central area 16 bridge alternatives in the eastern area
Minnesota Department ofTransportati~n - Fut~r~IH,1J ~l;;~esota, Ri~e;E~b;;ingC~:":..~.~: j::.::" .'.., :.. ~ A""';"'7'" .~,,,,.. ,: c'..,. <" ~. , . February 201 0
4 5
---~--
"-~- -- --- ----~--- ------ --- ---..----- ---- - ---- ------- .~--
. --. -" . ., c-, :"<<~'.'i""':"-;:'~'::i-'~:.'~":-'''~~~";''':~('li3f'?'~'''''~~':?~'''~~''~,- o~" b> " >< d"":'Y~"" ' ."." "; '."'>. :-'/. ~~~I
WhyisMll/DOTlJ1'Oposingtbis bl'idg~J.';r~j~c~? .;~ ,:,".,: ,\:.~C~,~ii:t:.~r~::";;:~;:./. ,~:', " '::'" :M.fJ:vit~v l:;Q~w:~ra,~~
" ,. > ~?,-'"'f.. ~~!t>'J,,;.,,::,... t-. .h.<'_'~'i.f'~~!o.i:J.tt:;';<o'.;J"""bh~,.~:if.::.~~~~",~~~~......'~"',;;,~ ~1i.:',"'" ~~'.' .~{" ~'. -. ~ .,~~..~ .... .~."'..."" .?o-~d~" "'~'lI"~'~~
~_' Provide Regional Connection Won't thing; c::hnng@ bytlu~ Um@ G()n~tfUGU()fi hi r@fidyf
Trunk highway (TH) 169 and new The natural environment that will be affected by the proje~t will be largely the
t'N.lklt '-----; TH 212are U.S, highways that serve same. Additional development is planned within the travelshecl of the selected
~f'-~~"''''~,. . ~ regional traffic in the southwest portion corridor, The Tier I EIS will assist Mn/DOT and public agencies to more effectively
,/ '\ ;---~-; ~, -' of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, plan for the facility. Decisions on the preferred alternative are made with what is
. . ! R.'m~lf ':-~. I,
: II""n~I"n '-'1' '1 {;' as well as connecting with Greater known now.
-: ;:0:.1
, " > M'
_P~T:'d~..r'-'~ -'" r" Innesota. _____~.:=~...-..~~~~~~"'-~. . ""';;;-~ ~"'J--...~J....t-?--....~~,. ~~ ~""'4;'...-..C:.~
c.,,\'nr . ?:::~.: "../ L~.._, / There is a need for an effective north- ~~CCoo.mm,m ,on a go_a_ls.~ Ih~~~ !,~~n .d~y'eloped to infor!TI' ~h~ci,siori5 .,. ..~~~
---: f..(.j"; ""." south regional highway connection . . ,
L \ /.... ... i D"k<l1", ., Framework: In addition to supporting the TH 41 C2 route, actively support
..r'.... d.rrlt , ~ - between these two Important regional Improvements that meet current and future transportation needs across the
~_ __...J ........;... highways, Minnesota River between 1-3S and CR 9.
--
-..-.' Reduce Traffic Congcstion Avoid or minimize negative permanent and temporary/ constructIon Impacts on
all stakeholders. and support mitigation as part of a comprehensive solution,
The existing TH 41 river crossing is one_ ~
of the most heavily traveled two-lane .
. " Noise and visual Impacts on neIghborhoods: Address nol5e and visual Impacts
roads In Mmnesota (18,000 vehicles on adjacent neighborhoods
per day), The result: traffic congestion, Noise and visual Impacts on historic properties: Avoid negative visual,
noise, and vibration that pose quality-of- atmospheric, auditory, and use effects on historic propl!!rtles/distrlcts in all
life concerns for downtown Chaska, and communities
delays for regional commuters and goods. Impacts on historic ballpark: Ensure ability of Chaska, ballpark to operate;
, preserve the overall ballpark experience and its character as a small-town
Traffic congestion is projected to ballpark eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
increase as the area develops, Safety Issues in downtown Chaska: Resolve safety issues along existing Highway
tI.l 41 In downtown Chaska
-
Protcct Floodplnin ~ Environmental JustIce: Proactiveiy work With stakeholders to understand and
, , ., . ~ responsibly address environmental justIce impaCts
Flooding IS a frequent problem for river Local access: Provide appropriate access to local and county roadways that will
crossings in this area, For example, TH facilitate land use developments guided by counties and cities
41 was closed 46 days, and Hwy 101 was Ecosystem impacts: Minimize Impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
closed 74 days from 1993-2001. induding animals and plams
Public access: Ensure reasonable and usable publiC access to the outdoor
Commuters, residents, businesses, and recreational opportunities In the river valley (Refuge, state trail, and other public
planners have recognized for decades, lands)
the need for a high volume, reliable User impacts: Minimize Impacts, Including noise and VISWII, to people USing thl'
M. t R' C . tl t t Refuge, state trail, and other public lands
mneso a Iver rossmg 1a con nee s
TH 169 and newTH212. Land management capabilities: Maintain natural resource management
capability on public lands
.. - ---- . " . ,- -,-' , r"~'-''''-- -{~"-"'.'-. ...- .. - .. -, -~---....
MInnesota Department ofTransportation - FutureTH 41 Minnesota River Crossing, ~'"'' "'_' . February 20.1 OJ
2 7
-" - ", '. '" ~",': ' :',' . ,: ': ;::'.:{:~:''''~';,<~':.:?~~~~~~:J:~:~'1':'~~:7~'~;~~\~~";'7~:-'+:",~-:~" ',' ..... ,'~ ",~ "''<..:: EIS
" Why, was C-21denttfie4 as th~p'~ef~~~:~d, alt~r,na~lv~., ',.,;, ~ "cq'/; !i~1.~i~,,:4<F,:.":';-,,;, f.',,: :,,5;":-,"",' "
',--''''_'_' ' '." _, , .,'.'..,""'_,.,_,....."..o......~~."'~__~~~~~~~~,<<; ~~o:i;p~::f~~'~,;l'i;,.."".<"_,.".;.,.~, , , '<<< .
Comments on the Draft EIS and follow-up consultation found no first choice What is an EIS?
alternatives among stakeholders. Compared to the other alternatives, C-2 offered %ere would this new river
the best potential to avoid or minimize impacts to the most state and federally crossing be built? An Environmental Impact
protected resources, while minimizing impacts on people, wildlife, and habitat and After seven years of collaboration, Statement or EIS is prepared to
meeting transportation needs. study, and stakeholder involvement, meet federal and state requirements
Mn/DOT and FHWAannounced in to study project impacts on the
Problems with other alternatives December 2008 a corridor shown as social, economic, and environmental
- C-2 in the Draft EIS as the preferred resources in the affected area.
W-2 posed the greatest harm to state and federally alternative. What does it mean to do a
protected lands, specifically the Minnesota Valley (see map on next page for reference)
National Wildlife Refuge and Minnesota State "Tier I" EIS?
Recreation land. \Vllcn would this ncw river Federal environmental guidelines
C-2A had the highest impacts on sensitive crossing be built? allow for a tiered, two-step, EIS
vegetation. C-2A also had more impacts to state The project is still many years away, process.
and federally protected lands, and would require Construction funding is not currently The Tier I EIS identifies the corridor
acquisition of more homes than C-2. included in Mn/DOT's 20-year fiscally- to preserve the right-of-way, and to
I E-' had large impacts to low income/minority constrained transportation plans. minimize future impacts.
...,}I neighborhoods, and would require acquisition of the Right-oF-way preservation funding is
largest number of homes, included, however, and can be used The Tier II EIS will review the
E-l A and E-2 also had large environmental justice" in the meantime to aquire property in project impacts about 5 years before
impacts and would threaten the state and the corridor from willing sellers, construction to identify the exact
federally protected Seminary Fen, which is home to bridge and roadway alignment
state-listed rare plants and a globillly rare ecosystem. If nmding is not in and prepare design plans for
Bonnevista Terrace Mn/DOT's 20-yeal' planl construction. The Tier II EIS will also
-=u::::.... - ".z",_.~, . ,"""" ,- :-7'----: - identify mitigation opportunities to
'Environmental Justice: This refers to a project ilffecting a disproportionate number of low-income why selcct a corridor now? offset those project impacts that can
ilnd/or minority populations either by direct impacts (ilcquiring property) or indirect impacts While construction may be many not be avoided,
(ildditional noise, visual chilnges. etc.). The project team is committed to pro actively working with years away, it is important to decide
these stakeholders to understand ilnd responsibly address potentiill impilcts to their homes and
communities, where the future river crossing would
be located to plan for development,
What will be done about the negative impacts ofC-2? regional and local transportation
By refining the design of C-2, project planners intend to avoid or minimize negative systems, preserve the right-of-
permanent and temporary (construction) impacts on all stakeholders, and support way, and minimize future negative
mitigation as part of a comprehensive solution. impacts,
, ~. , - ....-.~ ~'( . " -- . > FebrlJary 201 O'~
Minnesota Department ofTransportation - Future TH 41 Minnesota River Cro~sing ,.,. " ' ,
6 3
,
,
Rive.rCrQssingJmplementatlonCol'a~orative.{ROIC)
Framework.Goals.andStrateaies .
. . .. F!NALJOgtober;2.QQ~
,
The following fhunewoi:k~ goals~artd strategies were crafted by RCfCmember$ ii12()Q9 to repreSent
th~il.' ~ommitlUent to ~qQmmQn dir~~Hon and to working' collaborativc::IY over thelle~t?():':~~ year$tQ
lUeettl1ep,e~4spraJ1 ROle 1lJ.embeJ;~~ 1:).ot jpst tl1eir owl,1. Wl1ile itis true tbat 'he ~oIQ:pl~f(:tty an.d cl1al..
leriges bfthisrlverctosshigessentiallytequire suchan apptoach to cottle to fitlitiob.~ this group's clear
U1i4elistandin~ oftne context OI this effort and their sin~ere, authentic{and open approach to reachUlg
tlwse cQ'mU1itment~ to a ~Qmtnon direction serves as a model for ()thers in shriilarly chall~ngingp.ircunt-
$tap.ce$i .' . . . .
;Fram~work
. In addition to s-qppomng the TH41{j2 route, actively support improvements that ttieetcUrterttand
future trart$pottatiQnneeds ac:ross the Minnesota rover between 1-35 artd OR '9.
.. . Avoid ottliinimize ne~atiVepetmanent and temporaryl cotlStfuctionimpactsbtlall $takeho1det~,a:nd
. ~tlppo:rt mitigauoP a& pfl:rt of a c(jinpren.ensive ~olu~iol1, .
. .... _ ,..,.... _.. ~ ...... .". ...u . .._ .,.. . . a. :Begin from tliebaseUne state and. federal..
1. NOIse and vIsual unpacfs on neI2hbor-.' ... .. uuP" ., .. ..'.... ...... .. ....
hoods.:Addr~s~ noise and visual impacts b. ~::.::~~~r;~~~me qiialitativeand qlHmtita..
OIl.~tlJa,c~nt )lelghborl.tootls tiveijbje~dves and \fableS around,holY peo-
ph~'$hould be able t() ,experiel1,~e th~ir.cQi)1-,
mllldties, sllchas J101p.~, h"lIfjetQ.s,parl~~
a,nd recJ:~ation a,rea,s, distr.cts, 1\n(\. ,
neighborhoods, '. ..
c.. Develo}> methodologies for mea.sul'bl:~extefit
to'tYhich var.Otlsalt~rJl.ative$ m~ettl~rltted
object~ves,aI1,d for ev~lu.ati.I1,g t.r~deQf(s
d. Prepare clear rec()mmendations to gulde fn-
. ,uu' . uu . tJlredecisb>ll.nia,ldIi '
2. Noise andvisualinlpactsonhistodc a. Work with key stakeholders and the ptibtlc
properties: AVQid Jlega,tiv~vistUlJ~at- t() identlfy andevalilate'pr()je~teffect$()J1
m~sphedc~ aJldit~ry,':a....d ll$e effects -on . ~ist()ri~prop~rtie$., ....!..
. historic propertiesl dIstricts in all com- b. Ens'lreth,~ttral1sp9rt~t~911 ()lltc:1()~~~ ~~p-
,... ....'...t. .. portChaska's commihtteJiUoapedesttiai1;.;
mUDI les .... ... . . '." ..... .,
friendly, bllsirtess4tiendly,bislolic contineI':'
cial (Iistrict
3. Imnactsoil bistorkballnark: 'Ensure a. $e,ek ways to avoid i~pa:ds to the ba(lpa:rl,{
ability' of Chask:a .bal1park to operate; b. Us~ the best management pn\J~ttc~s ~Q): ~e;.
pre$~~'ve tb~ o.v~~'i\llba1J.Pt\rk ~.xperie~ce sign and construction to sllpporHhis. goal
SJld itscbaJ'acterJ:l$~$m~n.;;towIlJJl:l.n-
park eligible for li$tingonthe Na.tional
Rc'ister.bfHistQric Places . .. '\ . .. .. . I
4. $afe 'issues in doWntown Cbilskai Re.. 3. Reduce vehiCle speed onCbeShll1t$tt~et . \
'\
I
\
,
.
'$Ql"e$at~ty lS$ues along existiitg High- ' tb:tQl.1.gh '" "'Clia~k3
Way 41 in downtown Cht'tska b. Create saferpedestiiancrossings
c. , Connect east and lvest downtown Ch'aska
(re(hlc~b.arti~r 'posedhycorrendiwy 4t)
d. aedp.ce t.IJrO)tg'4c~:t'A"U t:tl(c~h'~fr.cQn e~-
i$.tip.g Cbest.mit ~tn~et t"ro!~glldQ'\'~tQwn
Chaska
e. Re..:rOtlte tl'ucWttaffietrom dOlVnlolvn to ,J'e-
~lab~ dQWAtQwnlpetlc$tdan access)local JiS-
el'S
f. Mitigate visual and noi~e i~p~~ts. ()D'down.,;,
town residents ahdbusinesses~,lncluding"
businesses witb()<<tdo()l'am~i)ities. '
5. Ejrviroiimental iustice:Ptoactivc.y work a. Bettel' u~d,er$b'tndbeneficia( and. hdvel'$.e
with stakehOlders to understand and re- impacts
sponsiblyaddre,ssep.vironwellta;1 j u.stice b. Fm'ther e:x:pl()re iJlten~h.ll.l1.ge ~.ld r~mp l()~a"
..... . tiofisthat,pose leastp.oteiitialadverse iinpact
,impacts ' ..
toneighbot:bood$
C. , Recognlze and. r~sp~~t l()~llr~ndregi()md ~t-
tQr4~J.*~ lJ,o~~i~g go,~l~; JIl~~~ta~~.stn.hlellf-
ford.ii~le. hQl.lsin.g .. ,
d. Suppott no ne~ .10ss OnOw~blcotftehoushig
due tothep'i'oject .
c. Support conn~cted..e$s between JackSon
Heights pciglJ,bQtbQOd. .an9. the.bro3q~r
. cQIllmunity{ revent isolation)
.6~ ]jocalaccess: 'ProYide ;,l~pr9pdate access a. Review deve1Qpmenfc()DstnilJi.,ts. @n4~on-
:tQI()~~lllnd ~()nnty i'ot't(hvayitba;t will fil'm adopted land use guidance by the.coi..n...
facilitate land usedevelopmenfs gldded des and cities hi nnd nelll; diepref~i'tedcor-
by coufitlesahd cities rldo.r
b. Review the preferred c;tOrddoranij '~touch-
" down points" ;011 both sides of th~ Minnesota
.Rivet~ and make ,tecontmefidationsi'egard-
jug lvhether their.loc.atlonallgil$ WltbgilldetI
13~dp.ses @4b fe3sible; :ideidify 3Jte.rJw:- .
tives for .3ddressing flAY ~onCerns
. I... ..-.......-..: ,- .'" .'.'....: .....' :'.'::.":": ....:. ,:,' .:~.. . .;"/', :.:.;-.:.:.:..,. . :._. ,. .,
c. Id~Jitify tb,epotential atea$ needed fot
ROW, l~ng-tetinimpac1SofROWPl"ese'rva-
tiQu~ aJl4.altet'fiatives,in(:bid~~ fUildin~
SQUrcestQ~~~qllin~aQWDr3U()wlIJ;g ~a,pprQ~
priale interim or Ipng.;t~rll1 deYelQPIl1~nt .
wftl1in defined corridor, ,
7 ~Ecosvstem imbacts:lVlirti,)jli2:e ilUP~cts a. Managelcoiitabicontamiillitl6n ftoItfvehi-
9n,~q:\lllti~ ll,ud tel'r~~trhll e~f,)syste.ltlS In- ci~$ and J1e(Jpl~J}n TH 41 (vehicles. and
~l\ldjng animals. and plants h,a..lll~lJ ~ql!ip.Wel1t()tl tQ.~~hYtlY;~l,II.(i"(JA4Way
nudntenanceactivities and l'Qdl1ctstnad- '
,
. I
v~rt~ntlyl>ring conf~ml..anf~()rijvasJve
species tbat move through ivateriVays and
other J1atundpathway~)
b. Preve.n..taj:Idjthm~llt~bih,t fr~gmen..tatiQn
and 'lse 1>~t !l1ll:na.geme1)t practi~es to con.:.
lieet habitats
c. EnCOlll'agellullti-llse (transpotbltioll, utili-
ties, ett~)of riVel"etO$singcotl'tdor to reduce
additi()np) bal>Uat i'ragtplo)1)tatton
d.Use bestte.chnologi~~ to ke~p 1)oise at ac-
c~ptableleve)s for wildlife '
e. l\:failltilbl abilityofWildIlfe to use,nahlr.al
Jan4 ~l1(lwaterm:oy~ment,and migrathm
~()rti<Jor~
f. Prevent disruti()nt()wetla.nd hydrology
$. Public access: ~llsp.re :re~~Qp'ljbl~' and a. Maintain traiiconnectionsan~ltccess points
llsabl~publlc access to tbe Qutdoor rec- for cillorent and future outdoor l'ecreational
rt~ation8lopportllnities in thedver 'Val- ()PP()i'tuIllties 'within the Minnesota lUver
~ey (Refuge~siate trail, and :6therpIiblfc Valley
.lands) b~:Ensllre a.,qll;dityexperience(or\vl.dli.f.~ 0]>"
.servation, wndIife)>hotogr~phy, biking,bik-
9. User irtmllcts: Minimize impacts,iIIClud- ing,envil'Qrtmenta.le9-.1cati~ha.lld i~tetpte;'
lilg p.pi~eal!d vi~llaJ, to pepple ll~iQg the tatioiiand otherrelatedacdvlties(under~
~tl:lndi.ng that the vad(m$ public la.l1(J,s have
ltefgge, st~te tl'ail,..n4 other P11blic theiro\vn u~er~~~rictil)n,~)
lands e. Maintain a feeling ofs()lihide by minhnizing
,iioiseailcl visualiiltrusions
10.Lantlm8na'i!emelitcapabilities::Maln- a. EnsU!'e (hatTH 4idoes nQfiIiterferelvith
titiri riatllt~l r~$()urce management c..- lan(i,)nanl:lgelllent activities in the f()llolving
PilbiUty em p\lbli~ liln<ls Ways:,
'b! Preventing or IimiJing ~~avy -equipmentac-
ceSs
c.Creating. lmpediments for j>tescl'ibed bU:i'li-,
bJ,g
d. D~snlpting lyater 11la.J1l:lgemcl1fprognP:l1S '
e. Intel'fel'irlg lvith forest miulagement ptac..
ti~es
t
,
Rjvet CrOssing Impletnentati()"CollabQrathi~ (ROIC)
Partnership Aareetnefit(Final~ October 20091,
MI$siQfi i
Th.e. RCIC isre~ponsible for emll.ll'ingth.e succes~fiIlilllple~eJ.lta~i()n oftp,e TH 41 river cr()~sing i~ IilQ-
cordanceWith ~he agreements reached by key stakeholders.
p.;~ rpc:)~E1
The ptirpose of the Rem is to agreeoIiTH 41 river crossing cOludor, rea~h a,greement on a frawewol'~
andcotnllioh goals and strategies~ and actively carry these forward over time,
Compositi()n
The RCIC IS cofuposedofptiblie en.tities that ate either required or legallyemp(}wered to comrpit t9 t11is
, effortovetthe Hfeofthis project. These include the following':
It Carver County . Min.nesota Department or Natural Resources
. C~tyo~ Carv(}l' . Mitiliesota Depa1itIient ofTranspoftatioti
. eUyof Charihtlsseri . SoottColitity
.. C~tyof Ghas:ka . State HistoncPreservationOffice
. city of Shakopee . U.~,. Fish and Wildlifef;ervice, Mi!m~sota
. 'Feder~l Highway Adrriini$tration V al1eyN ational Wlldlife Refuge
· I My,rQpoli'f,tn Q:}\1Ucil
Respon~il>ilitie$
. WQfl,c ~9Habptativ~1y. and tJ:an$par~nt1y
; Steward the ptocess from staft to nmsh , .
II Oversee the progressofthisprQject,ensuring that key stakeholders are engaged and decisions re-
main aHWled with agreements., .. '.' .......
" Authentically ell!.1;~ge otherstake.hOldel's? including regl1latoty entities,thtOl~gho1.lt the process in
bqth fo~'n#l atl(l inf()rmal$ettitl~s) gtQ\ipS, and activities
. K~el' .lhe P\~ljlic informed aAd eng~gedtht~nlgh()ut the process .
. .ColltiuuaUyupdate unded>,in~ data 'and infoiination that may affect this project..,
. Continually \lpdate project taskst thne1ine,andr~pol1sibilities
II R01.ltine~yupdate agencies and eiectedofficials
.~ 'Sttppoi't tirneiy'Md appropriate fundi~g .
. Maintain :formal represeribltion on ancl actively Participate in the R,QIC's wQrl~ oyer time
. $t~pport an4as~ist other~~l11b~rs ofthe ReiC"as W:leq.ed
R,elfition$hip am()Il"RCJCM~mbers
Members worl<:l~fl.det theguJJla.nce Qf,thi~J?~!1ersbip A.\~reemellt;;MnPOl' a~ee!l tq he the admirtistta-
. tor foNhis Rele,
G' .... .. ., \.
.,. Qv~rnafioe
Thy R9IC Will e~ta"li~~~ny, ~ecessm-Yl?m~QJ:l.lres for J~ad~r$hip)$tn.lcJ:~1r~; 4~Qjs,jqp. m.~mg, lQgi$t1.qs,
and an)'thInge1se requlted to ensure long,;,termorganizational vitality ..',
________ ____ - ---- -_ ---- ___ __.________ ____ __ ___ __ ____ __ __"__ __ ____ .______ ____...._ __ _u__.________ ____ _____
TH 41 River Crossing Implementation Schedule, 2009-2029
Current to: 2010-01-22 (Members of the River Crossing Implementation Collaborative)
~.. f-.~~~00:~~000V~(,~~~0~A(A(A(A(A(A(A(A(,/ ~
,0 0-0 0-0 0:~ 0:~ ~"?; ~ tltO ~() ~:p Q ~o ~~ ';::)OJ,,~ ,," "i),. ,,";, ,,~ ,,<:> "co ~ "CO ,,OJ /,. /, /,. /r/' A/"/' '/ ~
Task/Activity ~v 00' 00' 0~ 0~ <<-<S 0cP 0~~~~~ ~..e 0..(i 00 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ "'~ ~~ ~ "'~ ~ ~ ~lYr~y'l,.~');
341 234 1 2 3 4 1 2 341 234 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 341 234 1 234
1--
Develop common framework among RCIC members ~ la*
Formalize RCIC; member govt units approve charge ~
Tier 1 EIS communications and involvement $S ~
Tier 1 EIS, complete final draft ~ I
RCIC meets: updates, pla~, monjtorprogr~ss .1.. J I~;l~ __~~~_I~~igg~~~ ~H~:_~~~ ~~~~
NEPA 404 concurrence with Corps of Engineers I I .~ ~ :1m
Tier 1 EIS, agency reviews ~
Tier 1 EIS, publish Final EIS I !l1~-$i'1
Tier 1 EIS comments, public hearing . ' . ~ I
Tier 1 EIS Record of Decision ~: ~ . !
Prepare and keep updated communications and portable ~ j ~ ~ ~ \~~ ~ 'i. i
project information/display materials for RCIC to use with ~ ~. ~.'1X~. ~: II. ....~. ~,
stakeholders ,~ ~. ~: ( , ~ li~~ ~
RCIC members presen.t formal updates to key agency staff Iii I ~ lUt.1 SSji ;SS ~l 1S?11[~I~. ~.'v.: ~ ~..~,
and electeds; other stakeholders as needed I~l I ~ I~I ~ ~~ [~I 1~11~:!}l"L~ ~.~
Implement Chaska landscaping plan I I '
Conduct regional transportation analysis, west of 1-35 to Co Rd .~
9 to address full spectrum of river crossing issues and impacts ....
~ .~
Extend regional bike trail, Huber Pk to old CR 18 ~ _I ~~~ ~~:3~1
Complete Chestnut St safety improvements ~ [*;I~1
Celebrate Chestnut St as local business destination; highlight. ~.
safety improvements ~ ~ '
Days, County fairs, etc. ~:~ ::xl;,' ~ ~ C' ~,~!'..,
HO.ld ~egiOnaI/Su. b-regional.1.-day transportation symposium I I... .~~... ~ ~. ~.':'~.< ~....'.. ~.':.'
'(rotating hosts: Scott Co, cIties, etc.) ~ ~ l8S ~:~ ~
Chaska downtown master planning 1 S << ~<< ~ ~ i~'
Mapping, policy, and zoning regs to restrict corridor I ~~I.......~. :.'Z x.-'. S*.:~.;.,.c"~'
development; make comp plan changes as needed'. \~ i'S{ ~ ~ ~ (~i:SS
ROW acquisition/discussions, working with property owners, -." ~ ~. ~~ ~
realtors, electeds, local agencies, etc. i.\. ~ ", ~ ~. ~ w ~
ROW acquisition, willing sellers !\ -~- ~ ~ ~:S* ~ ~ 2S 0:: ~ ~'!& ~ t<< ~~ ~IW i(\l 9'< ~ ~-~:~~; !)i-, - ~I~ ~r~ . _
Tier 2 EIS funds identified in State Transportation ~
Improvement Plan (STIP) ~
Tier 2 EIS, RFP and contract for design, P2 ~ ~
Tier 2 EIS, prepare :<
Preliminary and final design *
Public engagement around final design ~ - I~j:~
ROW acquisition (final) or condemnation U_ ~ _~\;'! *~.j.
Public engagement around construction ~ S igg'
Construction ~
...
* RCIC: See separate documentation for composition, charge,
activities, etc.
Page 1, current to 2/18/2010
--------------- -----------~----- - --- -- -_._-----~-------------_._---- -----
, ;2 ;3
. 2/23/2010
Presentation Overview
o Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process
o Selection of TH 41 River Crossing
o Implementation of TH 41 River Crossing
Ii Short-Term (i.e., nearby interchange improvements)
[J Mid-Term (i.e., impacts on other river crossings)
[J Long-Term (i.e., right-of-way preservation)
o Collaborative Partnership Agreement
I", ~~..J;,<"~~: .,. ~.\.' "".::W,N-:" ......l,.-,..:.,t :'.*~:'~
Envi ronmenfa I '1m pact;State-inents'?
~. ~..~ .' '.f ..!." t __ ..,' :.:~.:f'.. ,\,.-f, ~
1
"
2/23/2010 ~
Environmental Impact Statement
o An EIS is prepared to meet state and federal
requirements to study praject impacts on the social,
economic and environmental resources in the
affected area. Two-tiered process:
TH41 Tier I
[J Draft EIS (2004-2008) selected preferred alignment
from six different options
[J Final EIS (2009-2010) preserves the right-of-way for
selected.alignment, and identifies measures to minimize
future impacts.
Environmental Impact Statement
I TH41 Tier II
I [J Tier II EIS will review the project impacts about 5 years
I before construction
If Design and engine~ring
II Finalize mitigation
a Define construction limits
. Confirm remaining ROW
I
I
~. j Lt.,~'(l,Jt't- ,~>~.~~~~~~\.:i.,~,~-@~i1if~~iq;(, q~:.,., v 1<0 ~'I, Jf\~~~~"t
P~.!~~!?~.;Ofi~!t.~.11B!:!~[. .$~<?,.~~Jnq:k.'. :i~~
2008 decision-
Selection of C2 Alignment with ability to refine
corridor to further avoid/minimize impacts to
protected resources
2
., , t, rl,' , .. , '
r--~------- -------------------------- ----------------- --
.
2/23/2010
TH 41 River Crossing
I
I
I
I
~";""t~~:-...~.,,,. ..~::f;"~:~ro4f,"i. '~Z::;;"""":~' ,:--:;;tq".< ~; ~.-, "" :'" ~} :';".-:...:..\ .\'l:::~1;...
Implementation :o,f.:' River;Crossirig:~.V."~'f.
~~;!J"'" '.., ~'~"":'''"''.''''\;''f,< ~"'~'...","'~'_'{;'::-"~./~ -J.'f..~t.. ". .."';~. 1"... ~.~~:~.',/
Regional Transportation Policy Plan for new River
Crossings:
"If agreement can be reached with the
concerned parties, regional funds (RALF) or local
funds should be used to acquire the right of i
wail. I
Committing to a Sustainable Decision
Implementation of River Crossing
o Decisions need to be made today for a bridge that
may not be buili for another 20 or 30+ years
o Mn/DOT and public agencies agree to actively
support improvements in the interim period that
meet current and future transportation needs across
the River between 1-35 and CR 9 in Jordan.
o Stakeholders need to work together and plan for
this River Crossing in the short-, mid- and long-term
3
.
2/23/2010
Implementation of River Crossing
D. Tier I Final EIS scheduled for completion this
Summer. Key steps in the review process include:
c 30-day Agency /RClC early review of Draft FEIS
C Joint "Open House" for public/RCIC review
[J 30-day Formal Review and Comment Period
c Municipal consent not required; MnDOT will review with
local City Councils and Counties
[J Record of Decision (ROD)
j
I
I
Short- Term Plcmning for River Crossing
:.
o System Impacts
o Impacts of Development
c Frontage Roads
c Supportive Road Systems
o TH 169 JCR 69 Interchange
[J Preliminary Design and Environmental Documentation
C Construction Phase ~~~
Mid-Term Planning for ~iver Crossing
---- 1::................ - -~
o TH USJ69jTH 41jCSAH 78 Interchange
Realignment
[J Preliminary Design and Environmental Documentation
[J Construction Phase ~~~~
4
. " " 11'1 . 'r
~- -------
2/23/2010
I
i
!
Mid- Term Planning for River Crossing
o Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy
, Planning .L'i~'!
C Next Scheduled update to
the Council's policy plan is
2012/2013
'~"_ J .
{0-'
'J . .,.,",
. . - - .
~1~,~::~;:~i:' 1 g~- I
. " t , "_,__.__..
.:". .:.......~ '~.=;:-.."':;'::;-"
Long-Term Planning for River Crossing
I
Long- Term Planning for River Crossing I
..~. ."
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 I
2/23/2010
I
1
!
Long-Term Planning for River Crossing
Long-Term Planning for River Crossing
I
I
Process and Next Steps
6
, " , 'Ill , 'I
~---- -------------- - ------,----- ------ -- --- -- --------
.
2/23/2010
.
I<lver Lrossrng Implementation Lollaboratlve !
Framework (All Partners Agree) \
I
I
I
[J In addition to supporting TH 41 River Crossing,
actively support improvements that meet current and
future transportation needs across the Minnesata
River between i-3S and CR 9
c Avoid or minimize negative permanent and
temporary/construction impacts on all stakeholders
and support mitigation as part of a comprehensive
solution.
I<lver Lrosslng Implement~mon LOllaboratlve
Common Goals of Collaborative
c Noise and Visuallmpocts on Neighborhoods and
Historic Properties
[J Safety Issues for Downtown Chaska
I
o Environmental Justice- Federal protection I
I
c Local Access/supportive road system \
I
i
I
I
I
l'(Iver LrOSStng ImplememaTlon ,-ollaOOraTlve I
Common Goals of Collaborative
- [J Ecosystem Impacts
, [J Public Access to public lands
[J Impacts to recreation users
c Land Management Capabilities for public lands
7
.
2/23/2010
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
River Crossing Implementation Collaborative
Partnership Agreement
oMission
[J This group is responsible for ensuring the successful
implementation of the TH41 River Crossing in
accordance with ihe agreements reached by key
stakeholders
o Purpose
c Agree on TH41 River Crossing alignment, reach
agreement on common purposes, and actively carry
these forward over time
I
I
RJver Crossing Implementation Collaborative
Partnership Agreement ,
o Composition
[J Corver Co, Scott Co, Carver, Chanhassen, Chaska,
Shakopee, FHWA, Met Council, MnDNR, MnDOT, SHPO,
UsFWS
,River Crossing Implementation Collaborative
Partnership Agreement
0' Responsibilities
c Work collaboratively and transparently
C Steward the process from start to finish
C Oversee progress
[J Engage stakeholders
[J Keep the public informed
[J Continually update data a.nd information
C Support timely and appropriate funding
8
, ' " I' 1\'1 ' '. 1 '
-- - -,--- -- --------------- -----------,-- -------,---"'----------------- - -.
!
2/23/2010 I
\
River Crossing Implementation Collaborative
Partnership Agreement
o Governance
c Focus on Collaboration
c Structures to be established if necess~:"y ,
C MnDOT agrees to be administrator
River Crossing Implementation Collaborative
Partnership Agreement
o Next steps
c Discussion with all partners
C Official adoption of Partnership Agreement by each
Partner
c Implementation
9