C-1. Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
(;-1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager .. L
Bob Generous, Senior Planner~
Paul Oehme, City Engineer1. l).
CJ r2<( /7 .
July 23,2007 "J Y
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement
TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing
BACKGROUND
The study was prepared in response to a need for a new river crossing connect:t'11
between US 169 in Scott County and new US 212, currently under construction, in
Carver County. The City agrees that there is a need for a new river crossing. The no-
build alternative is not a realistic option.
The current study process began in 2002. The scoping decisions for the
environmental reviews were made in February 2005 and revised in February 2006.
The Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement for TH 41 Minnesota River
Crossing (DEIS) review and comment period ends on August 10,2007. The end
result of the DEIS is to identify a preferred alignment for the new river crossing In
the future, a Tier II Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared to evaluate and
select a design for the river crossing.
A copy of the complete report is available on-line at:
http://proiects.dot.state.mn.us/srf/041/report/i ndex. h tml.
DISCUSSION
Comments on DEIS
Section 1.7, page 1-10: The document should identify that the alignment should also
be included as part of the Metropolitan Council's future highway system so that it
would be eligible for Right-of-way Acquisition Loan (RALF) funds, which may be
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 chanming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful 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
Mr. 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.
RECOMMENDA TION
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
I
e.~ BJn6!:I
UOIlBlJodSUBJl ~o lUaWlJBdaa BlosauulW
09-800 ~# I d 'S
luawalBlS l~edwllelUaWUOJI^U3 ljBJa
E>NISSO~~ ~3^1~ VIOS3NNIW ~v AVMHE>IH )lNn~l
S3Hnl tf3:1 A3)1 Hl/M 'S3A/l tfNH317tf 07/nB
S3I33dS 3^IlISN3S .
SlounSIO 3UIOlSIH
lN3n39YNyn 3.:n lOll. HNO c::::I
Y3HV NOIl3310Hd N3.i c::::I
Y3HY NOIIY3H33H A3llY^ YIOS3NNU' c::::I
39n.HH 3.iI101I. 1.lYN A3llY^ YIOS3NNIn c::::I
(n:-L .9I.i 33S f03ZI1YH3th9)N3.:J AHYNI"3S ~
I SNIYldOO01.i c:::J
ONYl HNO lYH3N39 _
I SONYll3. IIN c:::J
lS3HO.:J NIYld0001.:J c:::J
+eeJ. e I 009
I __~.......,
ooo~ 0 ooo~
I
L
I
::t:
~
~
Q..
~
~
~
:3
c::::
~
~
~
6
lJ)
~
.g
~
~
~
~
L.l
~
~
TABLE 1-4
IMPACT SUMMARY
Alternatives
No-Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-l E-IA 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 Crossings
New TH 41 Avera~e 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 · 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0
. Existing TH 41 river crossing . 10 . 3 · 2 . 3 . 2 . 3 · 2
· Existing Highway 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 hazardous/flammable 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)
· NewTH41 · 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)
. Construction (higher figure risk assessed for . $335-$390M . $305-$355M . $345-$405M . $375-$460M (Low Profile) . $410-$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 . $410-$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 · 214 acres . 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 - 1 7 agricultural - 15 agricultural - 17 agricultural - 11 agricultural - 10 agricultural - 9 agricultural
- 7 industrial/commercial - 15 industrial/commercial - 16 industrial/commercial - 6 industrial/commercial - 13 industrial/commercial - 56 industrial/commercial
- 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 Acquired(l) . 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
(I) . .
Includes SIngle famIly homes, townhomes and mobIle home unIts. Does not Include farm houses. Note. Agncultural parcels Include seven propertIes that WIll be classIfied as reSIdentIal before the antICIpated buIld-year.
TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1-19
June 2007
TABLE 1-4 continued
IMPACT SUMMARY
Alternatives
No-Build 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 113 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 comer 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 . S1. John's Cemetery expansion
(private) (minor land acquisition) . School property area
. School property
Access N/A . Existing US 212 realigned . Affects design of US 169/ existing . Affects design ofDS 169/ . Affects design of US 169/ . Affects design of US 169/ . Affects design of US 169/
. M1. Hope Road extended to TH 41 interchange and existing TH 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 169/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[fj) 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 MVSRA/MV Trails
. 20.4 acres Minnesota Valley . 22.3 acres MVSRA/MV Trails . 5.4 acres MVSRAlMV 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 Minnesota 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
(MVSRAlMV) 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 Threatened and Endangered . No Threatened 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 ~ mile species listed within ~ 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 ~ 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)
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) . Shovelnose sturgeon (state special
. Shovelnose sturgeon (state concern)
special concern) . Tier II mussel study anticipated
· Tier II mussel study anticipated
TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1-21
June 2007
TABLE 1-4 continued
IMPACT SUMMARY
Alternatives
No-Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-l E-IA E-2
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VegetationlHabitat N/A . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading effects . Shading effects
. 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 Scenic River, but it is on the National River Inventory and is a candidatefor potential National Wild and Scenic River)
Floodplain/W 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 . 0.01 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 profile impact than Low profile
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 N 0- Build than No-Build than No-Build than No-Build
Air Quality Reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the pr~ject expected relative to No-Build, due to reduced VHT and EPA's MSAT reduction 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 High risk sites 7 High risk sites 1 High risk sites 1 High risk sites 1 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)
Farmland 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 . 101 acres 50 acres 92 acres 80 acres
Excess/Borrow N/A Preliminary estimates indicate that up to 3.3 million cubic yards of borrow may be required for this pr~ject.
*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
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1-23
June 2007
TABLE 1-4 continued
IMPACT SUMMARY
Alternatives
No-Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-l E-IA 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
. Vegetation/habitat 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 Minnesota River Crossing
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1-25
June 2007
.....
Q)
.~
EJ~
~ 0
(/)
Q)
:::n c:
n:l .5
:3 :;E:
~2
:i~
~
c::
;:::$
r:::
U)
LlJ
+-'
uC/)
roC/)
0...Q)
Eu
-0
lo-.
roo....
- +-'
lo-. C +-'
Q)Q)C
~EE
CQ)
O+-,
.::: ro
> +-'
C(/)
W
c::
o
'-
.....
o Vl
Q) OJ
c:: .::
c:: _
o Ql
(.) ~
:::... .!:!
~ :0
Q) :::l
Q) 0..
U: .E
- Vl "-
~ OJ 0
c:: t:: ~
o :0 ...~
's, t:: ~
Q) it: ~
a:: -S ~
0) :::l :::l
~ Ci) ...,
CI) -g
~ ~
""'" .a
N .s
CI) CI)
:;) U
Ql
~ .~
=:3 e
..... 0..
Lt
q:
....,
()
C1>
. -....
o
~
a.
<l>
.r:::.
t-
+oJ
ro
.r::
~
'C
'-
(1)
~ ~
:J co
....... 0
:J ...--
4- ..q- c
3: I
Q) l-
e O'l
Cf) C
Q) t;
Cf) .-
o x
0.. (1)
o a
l-
o..E
f- .~
o '>
e c
e
~
0)
e
Cf)
Cf)
o
l-
()
(f)
:J
..c
......
'3
>-
......
C
:::J
o
o
(f)
W (f)
LL C
co
:S Q..
'3 '(3
-0 C
(1) :J
.!::! 0
co 0
C ......
t+= (1)
'- 2
(1)
> I-
Cf) (1) 0
.3 c_ 0
m ..q- -
....... t'- C
(f)0)2
....... ...--
e C
Q)
l- -0
l- (1)
:J Q)
o Q..
"'0 E
e 0
m ()
c(f)
o W
t)o
II
.
-0 C
'- (1) 0
.g E f5
'C E 2
'- co ......
o '- (f)
() O'l C
...... 0 0
~ 0. ()
(1) >-.8
(f) :;:::; '-
C 0
.:; (1) 'C
c>t:Q..
(f) :::J -0.
C (f) () (1)
0(1)......-0
~()0(1)
co 0 c (1)
~ '- c C
L Q.. 0
(1)(f)~(f)
~ w g w
'- '-
Q.. ...-- en '-
c (1)
8 i=
I I
~ .~
a: I-
I I
r:=l~
~~
", c
~ .E
3 :(
.:::.~
<on
:;:
~
<=
"
.::
U>
w
l-
Q)
>
N
...--
N >-
I......
I- 3
(f) 0
:JO
......
O'l ......
C 0
.- ()
u(f)
(1) c
C .-
CO)
Oeo
0...--
I
.
Mn/DOT works with willing sellers
to start acquiring Rf\N; no active
acquisition until Tier II EIS is
completed
EIS Trunk Hig!lway []I]
Minn~sota River
One P'ossible" Overall Timeline for
a New TH 41 MN River -Crossing
We are here!
Tier I EIS Results/Next Steps:
2020+? 2028+?
Tier II EIS Results/Next Steps:
2002
2007/2008
------------------ ------------
Began Tier I Preserve corridor for future Tier II Avoid, minimize and F utu re
Current EIS crossing; limit development and EIS mitigate impacts Possible
Tier I Study minimize future impacts Process Develop layout, Construction
EIS Results Continue to work with permitting For construction limits, Time
Process In agencies to gain concurrence with Design and finalize design (bridge is
Selection preferred alternative (if not done And Not
Of as part of FEIS) Construction Begin active R/W Currently
Preferred Of Project acquisition with all In Mn/DOT's
Alignment Mn/DOT and Study Partners work property owners 20-year
Location together to obtain design and Etc. Program)
construction funding
Why:
Serve ftJtu,re tor.ecast TH 41 travel demand
· Today over 18,000 veh/day
(expected to double in
forecast)
· One of highest traffic volume
2-lane roads in Minnesota
One of the highest heavy
commercial truck traffic
· Scoping 2030 traffic study:
most intersections at "Level
of Service F" (congested) in
p.m.
EIS 2040 travel forecasts: demand higher than capacity
= 10 hours of congestion per day
EIS Trunk Hig!lway []I] .-
Minnesota River
s::
'-
ct
-
Q.
"0
o
o
~
l...
~
Q)
~
I
C
C
~
Q)
:>
o
..Q
m
Oi
t-
-
'-
V)
V)
e
(.)
Q)
.. -0:
>,'-
..c:: :>
~~
m CI)
...... 0 .S <0 C
Q) o.c..- Q) CI)
.c ..-- ~ (I) .......:S Q)
o Q)~:J c5c (J) U
N > - ._ Q) C .~
C>-OQ)~ ~E Q)....Q)
(I) 0-.0> '+-CU OCl)
""0 c OC cu Q) 2: O.l:; Q) >- ~
00 CI)-oGC....>:;:;Q)G
.- 0 Q) 0 ;; E
o (j) . (J) 0 CI) ._...... E \V C
4= Q) ~.S ~ .~ 0. E::l en u:;::; Q)
O'l (J) (J) CI) ...... E::l -0 ~ Q) E'
c C-oCl)cu ......Eo c>Q)
'C O'C e Q) <o:::t .~ 0 0 .Q'l cu E
:J U.o U >-..-- 0 U Ol (f) .l:; Q)
o I I
.
.......
c
<D
:J
0-
<D
L-
4-
(I)
-r-
o
o
N
I
("')
(j)
(j)
CI)
CI) >-
>-cu
cu-o
"'O~
(01'-
-r-~';'-:
o
~E ~
.- <D L-
""0 _ :J
0..0 (I)
000
L- -
LL 0.. U
..-- ..--
-.::t>-
I ~
f-I
I I
. .
~~
L:::J ~
"" ~
'" 0
~ :E
"0/
:;:
~
;;
~
<n
W
CI)
::::>
1)
s::
~
C'\l
~
C'\l
CI)
::::>
S
Q)
s::
0>
s::
'-
.......
(.)
Q)
s::
s::
o
(.)
,~
.. ct
~S
..c Q.)
Q)
~Lt
~T:"
, :,K
1t .
, l
\ ~. i
[JI ,0\:.'
~ n ... } 1
I ~ ,1".,
~t:f'
12>1- '/",
0) :,h""
<0 /< '}<
~
. ~>.-
0:
W-IIl
,.._ __. :...... _.~l
~:~<5.:=:';::'~~}---;-~'!" ,:~
:" ~;~-)~":
-\.
....
(I)
L-
CU
<D
>.
o
("')
""0
Q)
~
.......
C
<D
""0
""0
<D
<D
Z
(j) (I) ""0
0(0(; c
....... -r- ""0 C CU
-g ~ C/) 'E ~ CU
(I) ()'c ::):5 0 ~ 15 ",
.~ CU....... 4-..00 U ....... (I) \V
L- 0.. CU 0 _ Q) <D O'l
<D(I)C >. _CU..oCCU
L""'--O.......NC CC>
CU ~.- -;>: -r- 0 0;';:: CU
_ <D O'l .- N'- .- a:::::: C/)
CU ro <D 1::5 C/) O'l 1::5 L- 4-
.9-:J L- <D ~ <D <D 0
() 0- <D C::) L- C....... (I)
o '.~ <D 2: C""O 2 c m L
O'l L-""O <D 0 ceO L- 0
cu D.... cu (I) U cu:: U (9 D....
.
.
.
.
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
Revised Scoping Decision (Feb. 2006): revised
one of the six Build alternatives (C-2) to minimize
impacts
Environmental studies completed
Cooperating Agency review in April 2007
Public Distribution: June 18th - August 10th, 2007
m Trunk Highway []I]
Minll~S()lll Riw~1
Who: TH 41 DEIS 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)
Fen Study Group
Special meetings with various stakeholder groups
Public information meetings
· Public hearings
Website (http://projects.dot.state.mn.us/srf/041/)
[IS Trunk Highway []I] _
Minol'solll Ri"'~T
Q)
....,
~
o
o
.....,
.::t:.
.
-
o
~
(f)
-
w
o
Q)
>
.......
m
c
~
Q)
.......
<(
""0
:J
o::l
I
o
Z
CJ)
Q)
4- >
o .......
CJ) m
....... c
() ~
m Q)
Q...:!::::
E <(
- ""0
Q)
..c :J
....... o::l
en
C
o
:;::::;
CO
I-
Q)
0..
o
-0
C
CO
en
+-'
en
CO
u
Q)
l-
cE
Q) U
E tE
Q) ~
c I-
4=
Q)
0::
0) 4-
C 0
""0
C
m
.......
CJ)
~
Q)
""0
C
:::>
>.
:t:: C
.- 0
.0:;::::;
en U
co :::l
Q) I-
4- (j)
0) C
C 0
'C 0
Q)
Q) -0
C C
0) co
a5 ~
Q) 0::
I- I-
:::l 0
en 4-
C en
Q) Q)
o 0)
+-' C
C co
0)0::
en +-'
Q) en
-0 0 +-'
C () ~
co -0 ()
C 2 :t::J
"E E 'm
~ ~ a5
o..wco
.
. . .
-0
C
co
U
E
o
C
o
U
Q)
co
'0
o
en
co
en
en
>.
co
C
<(
:;::::;
C
Q)
+-'
o
0.. en
4- +-'
o U
co
en 0..
'00 E
>..-
co-
c2
co C
Q) Q)
> E
.- C
en 0
C I-
Q) .-
+-' >
X C
W Q)
-0
C
co
en
Q)
U
I-
:::l
o
en
Q)
0::
co
I-
:::l
~
:::l
()
I-
o
4-
en
Q)en
-ot
:::l 0
+-' 0..
en Q)
coO::
'0 C
Q) Q)
0.. LL
en C
-0 co
Q) C
-0 ._
:::l E
U Q)
C(j)
.
I ~
r:=l~
~s;
:::J) ~
~ ~
<:;,
:;:
-=:
0:;
..::
u.
w
"'0
N Q) -
T"" C 3:
N ~ 00
>- (f) - Q) Q) 00
C ~ Q) 0) 0) - ~~
I- 0
0 C C ~ oo:::::t'~
3: - ~ ~ a.
00 ~ ::J:) ~
(/) 00 Q) ..c ..c E (tj .:=
Q) Z 00 0 000 ~.>:
Q) Q) l- .- ",'
0 Q) OQ) - :;:
> 0 0') 0) - -.- ~ -=:
.- ~ <0 C C - ::::J 0:;
...., T"" ~ "D 00 ~c - ..::
~ Q) ..c 00 Q) Q) :;:;::::J 0 if>
0) (f) 0 1) 0 ~ w
C C ~ I- 00 Q) l- CE
Q)
~ ~ Q) 0 Q) ::::J 2E ..c
..c I- - (f) 0 -
Q) 0 0 C 0 C 00 00 "'0
+oJ ..... .- ~ Q) 0.0
I- Q) 3:
- Q) 00 00 I- Q)Q)
<i - Q) 00 ~ E 0 >"'0 I-
C 0) Q) 0 C
.- 0 .Q> - ~.- 0
C 0 ..c> "'0
"'0 E 0 - 00
~ co - 'i:
- Q) ..c ~ 0') C 0 ="'0
.- <0 ~ ~"'O I-
- 0 Ci:i=u 0 0
::J 00 l- T"" (f) a. ~c 0
en >- Q) OQ) (f) "D E ~~
00 - 0"'0 C -
C ~~ ~ Q) .- 1-00 0
en C .- 0- Q) .ao .E
- Q)"'O Q) .~
0) ~ NC I-Q)"D 0:;:;
- C ::::J_ C E ::::JQ) 0
W 00 0 (f)rJ -~o I-..c 0
Q) ::::J"'O :;::; .- -- M
0 "'0 :;:; ~"'O ~O~ C 0000
0 .- "'0
>- Q) "'OQ) .~ E :l E "'OQ) Q)
~ I- Q)tt= OJ Q)~ EOO
3: .- -E~ --
"'0 C'- COC "'0 ~~ ::::J~
Q) c"'O Q) 0 0 >::::J
Q) - ~O _0<'> Q)oo 00-
I- ::::J -E 00 I > jjj'S; OOQ)
U. U. 0._ a.~ <x: <x:.o
. . . . . . .
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
TH41 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 34,000 30,400 30,000 29,900 24,800 24,300 23,300
US 169 54,000 141,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 131.000 129.000 129.000
2040
Hours of Congestion (per day) No Build Build alternatives
Existing TH 41 10 2-3 (70% reduction)
Hwy 101 10 5-7
[I, Trunk Highway 8II
Minru'!5ota Riv~r
DEIS Build Alternatives
N
I
.~
a>
>
4- Q) 6 "0
o >. ~ .- en C
_ ~ m =0 ro Q)~ >'0>
enQ) "0= Q) '-(j):+::C 0
Q)C Q) :Cs '- O~C~C en
~~.g' Q)_ 0 m ~(j).!:: 1:5
Q) '<t .- > m &. '<t en '- en - m
= ..- C\J..o 0 C (1) ~ a c:'3: 0..
E ..- _ 0 0 ~ Q) - 0'- E
I C\J 4- 0 ~ (f) - C m IJ) Q) en .-
Q) <{ (f) 0 LO m > 2 .Q C\J 1:5 OJ 6 Q)
C (f):J LO '<t Z > (f) ro..- Q) C._ 0
o U LO >.LL >. - tt:: m ~ ~
Q') '- OJ 0 ~ Q) (f) Q) (2 ~ ai Q) -5 .~ IJ) ~
(!) m C ..- IJ) '- =:J =z Q) OJ en :J1:5 J
..-Q)~ _'-Q)m........m >"OQ)Q)O"m_
(f) c.~ >'.~ IJ) >"0 >0 _ Q) <.):0 ~ 0.. m
........ x m 0.."0 Q) ........ m IJ) L.'- E c
:J..- (1) ~ - Z 1:5 Z"O '- Q) :J ~ Cii.- Q)
. . '<t '- "0 (!) :J :2: m :2: Q) :J L. 0 0 .- Q) E
.8Im mOO ~4-o..4-1:5roO 1J)000cE
L-(1) 0"0 > OE Om cm2........Q) C
1l r- C '- C OJ en.- IJ) 0.. IJ) (!) u... C "0 0 2
o OJC\J ~ m ~ Q) (1) Q) E Q)"- ro ~ 'oo.!:: .::;
Q) .~..- . -.!:: . en '- OJ L.._ '-....;' L. 0 Q) Q) C
C_C\J E- en O:J om OlJ):Jc '-=w
C .~ OJ 0 m 4- m Q) m Q) ==.:.:: +.0
ox(f)~C,-oQ)"-L.C\JL.:JC(1)OO
U Q):J (1) ~ U C\J a: (1) <( LO.2 U :J ..- E Z
..-
~
C
'-
a>
+J
-
<(
<(
N
I
U
Q)
>
..-
'<t >. -
I m m :2
f- ::526(1) 0
OJ ~:;::;~Q) ~
C > m...Jro
~ . g ~~ U5 .8
X"OoQ)lJ)>' "0
Q)~ -=m Q) ~
-mco(1) m.!:: '-c
o '<t>u m~:J~
LO Q')Q; Q)z,->a: 00
~ (!)- >"",mzZ Ic
>; "-~Q;""'~:2:8-c~
(f)Wen.8 om Q)O
m :J......"O ai......Q) E"O
~ m::;1:5OJ......'- ~
"0 .. 0 m:J 0<( c'-'
m 0 C\J > 0..4- m C OJ c
2 -"->EQ)o..o=m
1l C\J OJ'- a: E.;-: m >.
Q) ~ 0 (f) C Q) .- -m ...... L.
= Q):J'- '- ~ IJ) Q)
E'~ c en 0 = ~ ~ Q) (j)
o..c~ ~ m"O 00 OJE
~(!) OQ) '-(!)= mQ) 6
(1)1'- U C U (1)S LOa:...J ~
"0
C
m
(1)
OJ
"0
'C
.0
.::=
.-
+oJ
('0
C
'-
Q>
.....
<(
"0
C OJ
~~ .~
00) C"O
m~~:J
..-en g-g
(!)~.:.::~
- 0 c
OCm :JOO
:.;::; c.o 2 t:::,
m..- 0
0) - Q)
OJQ):t::
Q)OJQ)
>"0 Q)
_ Q) 0
~ ~ :J
:J '- 0
ro ~ ~
~ (1) a:
~ C\J. Cii
0...... L.
m~:E
N L. :J
oo.2u
~
o
00
'<t
IJ)
C
o en Q)
~ 1:5 .~
IJ)m......
'S 0.. ~
O"E .~
0'- m
mQ)c
Cii E Q)
~ 0 E
c.!:: C
Q) Q) 0
"0= L.
'-.0 .::;
~ 0 c
a:Ew
. 3.0 mile roadway, 9,550 ft bridge
length and 80 piers
Alternative C..2
Refined In spring 2006
Alternative E..1
i!1~'S
fj~l ~ ~
, ~j
~.,!O~~ ll!: I:.
". l.i~ :;. 1,1
,..- s. h I'
<(
'r"
.
LU
Q)
>
.....,
ro
c:
~
(1)
.....,
>-cu cu 1:5
ro ..... .~"O ~ OJ
cu ~ ~ a OJ ro cu ~ cu ~ U) cu .S;
OJ ffi .r::: ro Q) .S; C (:) ~ ro u . cu -g
:g ICU~C>~ ~ro~U5roI~ C3
.0 <(.~ 0 cu ~ ro u N _ CT) ro ~ $.S; ~
..... U)..... 0 LL..... en ro ..- 0 >'-0 ~ .- 00 0
- 000 ~oo..... ~..-JOO o.>coo"OOO C CT)
o cD eCU:J '..N ro rojg ro- OJ
o ..... ~ l() m.r::: 0 -.::t gJ ~ > -0 0 ~ :2
l() ro CU C .Ql a .. (; ~ 0::: __ Z'6>'Ui cu
CT) 00 m ..... ~ 'E.r::: .B - Z Z ~ o'-.B u
-r-Ci;(!)() L... Q)..c~Z"~CDL{)20a.. ~o 6-~~
...- ..- ~ CU U):=: ..... u ~ .......- 0............. ~ CU U ~ :J
>-0.U):J 00 :>um ~u - ",CU ~'" "'~
ro -"0 o>roo.Erocu.....wcu .......c~E-,
~ N ::l co - ..... C E'- CT) OJ 1:5 ~ C :J U ro'- (ij
-0 ..- ..... g 1:5 ~ M'- ro CT) -g ro <(.Q 5l..... :.;:: cu C
m"-.9~ ~ moo........>-:=: -..... o.co.. curo cE cu
e~l'lc o.:Jc:=:.ocooEo O:::OJcuoE
ro - OJ E 0 0 ~ ro.Q cu .-:.;:: .9 _.S; :Q.r:::
'~.r::: ~ ~ .S; :::: ~ n cu .r::: ro (; ~ ~ 1:5 ~:Q gJ cu 5
E C 00 urocu> ..........- U'" :JO..... .....
cncN ~ cuu.....:o~~~ ro(:)~==>CD:OS
~ 15 0 U) ..... .= (ij e.Q ..... cu cu N cu E :J ro CT) 0 C
CT) _ O::l 0 0 u 0..0 0 > C ..- 0:::._ 0 ~ E w
<(
~
I[
N
I
W
Q)
>
..,..,
"'
c
~
(1)
..,..,
<(
Water Resources Impacts
Build Alternatives
Impervious surface (W-2, C-2, E-2, E-1, E-1A, C-2A) 44-60 acres
Pond storage req'd (W-2, C-2, E-1 ,E-2,E-1 A, C-2A) 10-17 acre-feet
Wetland impacts (E-1, W-2/C-2, E-1A, C-2A, E-2) 9-16 acres
Floodplain encroachment (MN River) 5,700-7,900 feet
Increase in flood storage .01-.02 feet
Construction in wellhead protection areas C-2A, E-1, E-1A, E-2
Groundwater impacts Limited
EI5 Trunk Hig!lway LTIJ
Minne.snlll River
Habitat Impacts
· All alternatives
- remove habitat
- create new "edge"
- opportunity for invasive species
- pose soil erosion issues in steep slope areas
- potentially impact mussels (threatened-endangered)
- impact wetlands
- create a bird flight barrier between bodies of water
- pose temporary impacts to aquatic species during
construction
EIS Trunk Hig~WayLTIJ
Minllf'o;olll Rh'c:r
-
(/)
Q)
:....
U
cn~
.....,~
u.....,
ro
a.C
:;:j
E E
~ E
....., 0
.aU
ro
:c
C\l
uJ 0
<(
Ul "7 0
(; UJ
"'C
'C
...
8 "7 0
CIl UJ
>
:;:;
ltl
E <(
2 ~ 0
<( (.)
"'C
::l C\l
[C I .,-
(.)
ro
:....
:;:j
..-
ro
Z
C\l
~ 0
>.
......
Iii c:
... ::l
.3 E
ltl E
Z 0
(.)
'0
C C
CIl~
a. '0
1Il 0
<( 0
:::
0)
l'-
l'-
.,-
N
CD
.,-
LO
N
c
'co .....
- 1Il
a.CIl
'0 ....
o 0
ou.
u::
N
co
N
.,-
CD
C")
'0'0
C 0
I1l 0
- :=
:='0
o ....
...J11l
:I:
C")
.,-
.,-- co
.,--
.,--
(0 LO
o
.,-
"<t 0
N
N
N 0)
.,-
.,-
"<t 0
o
L{) 0
'0
. 0
CIl 0
0.:=
I1l 1Il
:E 1Il
I1l
en
..c, '0
~ ~-g ~ ...J
(; -g~ n; <(
LL 0-'= ::: .....
~:::~-;;;.....o
I1l .....w
o ~.a '0
o .....
(0 0)
...... '<t
l(') C\l
....... l(')
0) ~
(0 C\l
....... 00
....... 0)
....... '<t
C\l l(')
....... '<t
~I ~
r:=l~
~~
=n ~
~ .5
~ :[
t3,'
:r:
-'"
'"
'"
.;:
if>
i..
0 .
...... B~
>- ~~
0- "'0 ....-..
....-.. N C'I:S .s
0- e <( 3 :[
I ""',
CO CO <:n'
CJ) N 0 :r:
CJ) CJ) Q) I .......... -'"
CJ) '"
...... () 0 '"
e CO '- e CO .;:
Q) I- :J .::t::. v,
(/) ...... 0 e N CJ) u...:
...... E CJ) CO I CO
U Q) CJ) Q) S
I- .::t::. '- CJ) E ..c:
ro .- I- ~ ...... .......... 0
::l CO () Q)
c. '- ro Q)
0- 0- ro l- e
0.. 0.. CJ)
E Q) E 4- .-
I- co Q) 0 ::l "'0
.- 4-
- U '- >- Q)
....-.. 0 0 Q) ...... I- Q)
~ 4- E CJ) '+=
..........- - 4-
~ -.;j" '- 0 co 0 u
ro .::t::. 0 c e
e I- ......
0.. co "'0 0 e Q)
0 N
0- CJ) c :;::::; 0
...... ro U ..c:
...... Q) () ......
U co ......
Q) .~ Q) e co
Q) ...... ~ ro ::l ......
if) co ...... :J e
co ro 4- CJ)
:: ...... CJ) Q) ......
CJ) e >- '> e E u
- I- :;::; 0 co
co Q) Q) () Q) CJ) 0-
I- ...... Q) CJ) ......
Q) CJ) co '- 0 U CO E
"'0 ::l .- Q) I-
"'0 0.. 4-
Q) 4- ~ I
LL Q) <( I I W I
l-
. . .
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
Athletic Park - Chaska 0 4-8 0 0 0 0
Audubon Trail - Chaska 0 0 0 1 <1 <1
Chaska Trail Segments 0 0 0 1 <1 <1
Pioneer Senior High/Pioneer 0 0 0 10 3 1
Ridge Freshman Complex-
Chaska
[IS Trunk Highway [}I] ,
Minl\~!>otll RlvN
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
Community Facilities X X X
- Church X
- School X X X
Low-income, minority
(mobile home units) 0 18 38 126 113 182
% of Total Acquisitions 62% 48% 48% 83% 87%
E!S Trunk Highway [}I]
MilllU'solll Ri\'~r
en
+-'
..c
en
.-
(I)
J:
Q.)
0')
"'C
l-
ea
N
to
~
to
...
~ Q)
to >
ii:
<( ...
Q)
N >
U 0
N
U
N
::
000000000
co r--fJ)l()VMN.....
000000000
C:O,...U)l.nVMf'\l.....
II I
000000000
OO,...,<.OlO.q("')N'II'""
N
to
- -
I U__ .-1
-
._~.-
- '=-~-'"
en
<0
~ .....
to i=
...
'"
W ~
'0
~ -~
U
.~
Il:
N
c.i Q;
b
"i
3:
o 0
CD ....
5llil~
0000
.., N ~
N
W
et
~
W
~~
c: l:::J ~
o ::T:IS
.g ~~
"0 <:n
::J :;:
<( -'"
... ::;
~ .::
o ~
......c
.0>
w.-
.c
";" ~
w_
et
N
o
N
o
N
~
N.c;
W.2'
.c;
"i ~
W.Q
<(.c; N
~ C> .....
w:C N
~ ~ i=
w- Cl
~.c; C
w~ :;:;
.c; III
~ ~ .~
...
<( Cll
N >
U 0
N
U
N
::
en
+-'
t)
C\'S
0-
E
~
C\'S
~
I+-
o
.....,
..c:
0>
.-
cr::
...
Ql
..c
E
::J
.s
Ql
a.
>.
-
>.
..c
(/)
Ql
...
::J
-
(.)
::J
...
-
en
00000
o In 0 II) 0
.., N N
o 0
'"
....
Q)
..c
E
:J
C
Q)
c.
.?:'
>>
..c
!!J.
Q)
~
'"
a.
~ ~ ~ g
o 0
on
N
to
<(
to
to
;5
U
N
U
N
;:
N
to
H~
~~
=>> ~
n:s .s:
:3 >:
.r::
""
:;:
-'"
<::
'"
.::
or.
w
~
w
w
f'!
.3
ai ~ g
J: "C .0
O~~
o ~ .
<ii
~ E
Q) Q)
" '0
"in 'in
::J Q)
III cr:
. 0
<(
N
U
N
U
N
~
N
~
(/)
Ql
...
(.)
~
Ql
a.
~
>.
..c
"0
C
C1I
...J
N
W
<(
W
w
<(
N
U
N
U
00000 0 0 0
t() 0 ll) 0 l.() 0 it)
M C"') N N .... ....
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
· Effects on eligible properties
- No Build: adverse effect on Walnut St. Historic
District
- C-2: adverse effect on Athletic Park; other effects
cannot be determined at this time
- W-2, C-2A: effects cannot be determined at this time
- E-1, E-1A, and E-2: no adverse effects
EIS Trunk Hig1.1way [1D "
Minne!'"oola River
EIS Trunk Hig~lway [1D
Mjnne~olil Ri\'er
(f>
0>
C
I .-
~-g
"C .-
:::JU-
cnc
c Cl>
Q,) E
u.. (/)
>.(/)
L. Q)
co en
C en
,...<!
c....,
Q> U
(j) ro
0..
E
.......
() 0
~CT"""
E (/) ro
o ~ ~
C .- <(
......
<(.. cu 0
t:.......
N l- (/)
I Q).......
U ...... ()
CU~
"/- t: E
U l-
Q).......
...... ()
N (/) (1)
I cu '--
~ W"O
.
"0
(1)
:!:::
.8 E
.......
() >. (/)
ro L-t)
o...(1)ro
E>o...
:.: c E
() (1) .-
(1) 4- '--
'--(/)2
"0 ::l ro
003:
c(1)"O
'-- C
ro ::l
..-()o
I ro '--
w()O)
.
'--
-a5.Q,
....... co
'E E
._ ._ N
>.(/)ro
L t) (1)
(1) co '--
> 0... <(
E.8
N
I '-- t)
w2ro
"0 co 0...
t: 3: E
cu"o
<(c.......
::l ()
..-o~
I s....._
W 0)"0
.
(1) en ('.
(/) .2: ..c .......
Q)(/).......c
:0:; ro ro E(1)
> 0...
5 .~ 3: ~ -
t:: ai 0 = ~~
8. ~ ~ ~~t
a.c O)c "'_"
.- ro ro ,,:<
o ~ C '-- ~'
t: "0 'm 0 ~
04-'--4- "
......o"Oc..::
~ ro en.Q ~
0>(1).......
...... 0'0 ~
(/)E(1)~
~ ~ g.'E
.
CJ)
Cl>
......
ro
E
-l<
(/)
(1)"'--'"
O)C
C .Q
ro.......
0:: g
....... '--
....... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(/) (/)
0 C 0 0 L!) 0 L!) 0
u 0 "- co 0) N co (")
U ~ ~ ~ co L!) L!)
"0 I I I I I I
(1) "0 0 0 0 L!) L!) 0
....... C 0) co T""" "- co (")
ro ro (") (") ~ ~ ~ ~
E ~ f::A- f::A- f::A- f::A- f::A- f::A-
~
(/)
W 0::
-. '--"
ro
.......
0
I-
.......
C
(1)
E -l< -l<
C N <( -l< <( -l<
0) I N N T""" T""" N
<( S I I I I I
U U w w w
....,
CJ)
w
.....
CJ)
o
o
ro
....,
o
I-
.....-
o
0)
C')
c
co
~
"0
Q)
"0 l/l
::l......
_ l/l
U 0
e U
l/l e
...... 0
l/l .-
0......
U ~
c:E
.Q E
10 0
Ole
:;::;
'E g
01;::
e 0
l-
OOD..
ro ~
= 0
0-
"0"0
<0 e
o C\J
O.r:::
N.Ql
EI
"
" "
~~
~~
'" c
rt3 .f:
~ ~
i3,'
:;:
~
::;
..::
'n
W
How and when will 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. MnlDOT and FHWA will propose a
preferred alternative (Fall 2007)
. Study Teams, Permitting Agencies and other Stakeholders discuss
proposed preferred alternative and work together to develop informed
consent (Late 2007/Early 2008)
- Strong alliance allows Mn/DOT and Partners more success in preserving corridor
Possibly more success in obtaining future design/construction funding
- If informed consent can not be reached. Mn/DOT and FHWA are ultimately
responsible for decision
. Document decision-making process in FEIS (on-going) and obtain
FHWA Record of Decision (June 2008)
[IS Trunk Highway GIJ
Minnesotll Rivel
TH 41 Tier I EIS Process - Where are we?
Transportation studies/aiL dev. Fall 2002 - Summer 2003
Open House Spring 2003
Scoping for DEIS (w/public hearings) Spring 2004 - Winter 2005
Draft EIS studies Spring 2005-Summer 2006
Open Houses Late 2005 & Spring 2006
Draft EIS public comment period June 18 - August 10, 2007
Draft EIS public hearings July 2007
Identify preferred alternative Late 2007/Early 2008
Final EIS distribution Spring 2008
FHWA Concurrence/ROD (Tier I) Summer 2008
Begin Right of Way acquisition with 2008+
willing sellers
EIS Trunk Highway GIJ
. Mione ~{)t" River
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
· Building informed consent to select a preferred
alternative to carry forward to FEIS
· What if Study partners can't agree? Mn/DOT and
FHW A have ultimate responsibility to decide
· Transparent process - encourage and value active
stakeholder participation so please submit comments.
EIS Trunk Highway []I]
. Mi"nt'~olll Ri"t!f
..Ot
Chaska
July 2, 2007
Commissioner Carol Molriau
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. 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-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
humber of issues need to be addres~ed 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 .
, f\
"
,
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