6. River Crossing Environmental Impact Statement Update• 9
to 6
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
C�ANHASSFN FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer
j�lj l� Bob Generous, Senior Planner
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147 DATE: March 4, 2011
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJ: Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement Update
Administration TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
SUMMARY
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax::952.227.118 As part of the TH 41 River Crossing Implementation Collaborative (RCIC), City
7.1190
staff met on February 25, 2011 to get an update on the status of the Tier I
Engineering Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Chaska has completed its alternate TH
Phone:952.227.1160 41 River Crossing Analysis and is prepared to endorse the C-2 (Modified) River
Fax:952.227.1170 Crossing Alignment subject to conditions and pending Chaska City Council
Finance approval. The final Tier I EIS should be approved by the end of 2011.
52. 9 Phone: 227.1140
Fax: 52.2110 In 2011, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will undertake a
Minnesota River Crossing Feasibility study to look at ways to maintain the
Park & Recreation throughput of traffic on the other river crossings in the area: US 169, TH 41 and
Phone: 952.227.1120 TH 101. The intent of the study is to identify potential low-cost alternatives for
Fax: 952.227.1110 maintaining river crossing traffic.
Recreation Center
BACKGROUND
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
The EIS was prepared in response to a need for a new river crossing connection
between US 169 in Scott County and US 212 in Carver County. The City agrees
Planning &
that there is a need for a new river crossing, especially at times when the two
Natural Resources
existing river crossings (Highways 41 and 101) are closed due to flooding.
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
The current study process began in 2002. The scoping decisions for the
Public Works
environmental reviews were made in February 2005 and revised in February
7901 Park Place
2006. The Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for TH 41
Phone: 952.227.1300
Minnesota River Crossing review and comment period ended on August 10, 2007.
Fax: 952.227.1310
The end result of the Tier I DEIS is to identify a preferred alignment for the new
river crossing. The preferred alignment is the C-2 corridor. However, some
Senior Center
issues were presented that needed to be addressed prior to MnDOT and Federal
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Highway Administration (FHWA) approving a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS). In the future, a Tier II Environmental Impact Statement will be
Web Site
prepared to evaluate and select a design for the river crossing.
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing
March 4, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Since 2009, City staff has been working in conjunction with other communities as part of the
RCIC. The RCIC have developed common goals to facilitate informed decisions. The
framework for the group is that, in addition to supporting the TH 41 C-2 route, the RCIC will
actively support improvements that meet current and future transportation needs across the
Minnesota River between I-35 and County Road 9, and strive to avoid or minimize negative
permanent and temporary construction impacts on all stakeholders, and support mitigation as
part of a comprehensive solution.
Two tasks forces were established as subgroups of the RCIC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Athletic Park Impact
The City of Chaska and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge worked to determine the
feasibility of providing landscaping screening for the river crossing. They have determined that
landscaping will not be sufficient to screen the river crossing, but that there are some landscaping
improvements that can be used to soften the bridge structure. The final construction design
should incorporate context sensitive design.
TH 41 River Crossing Alternate Analysis
Carver, Chaska and Carver County are working on the interchange's impacts on access and
development in their communities. Chaska commissioned an alternate TH 41 River Crossing
Analysis to determine the feasibility and impacts of local access on the river crossing. Chaska's
downtown plan contemplates future traffic on Chestnut Street (TH 41) of approximately 15,000
daily trips. These numbers can be met and local access provided with an interchange from the
River Crossing to County Road 61. Chaska can support the C-2 corridor subject to the following
conditions:
1. The bridge immediately south of downtown Chaska shall be at the lowest height
allowable by the MNDOT/FHWA.
2. Crossing shall utilize "context sensitive" design techniques and landscape planning.
3. Noise levels shall be mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
4. Direct access to/from the river crossing to Chaska shall be included in the project design.
5. A pedestrian connection between the Athletic Field and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
property shall be provided.
6. Highway lighting shall be designed to minimize impacts.
7. Chaska shall retain the right of municipal consent.
Todd Gerhardt
TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing
March 4, 2011
Page 3
However, Carver had not reviewed the alternate TH 41 River Crossing Analysis to determine
what potential impacts were to the City of Carver.
Future Steps
An open house is planned for this spring to bring stakeholders up to date on the EIS.
Additionally, local communities will be provided with a handout and other materials which they
may use to keep their citizens informed. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is
anticipated later this fall. The draft of the FEIS will be provided to participating agencies for a
30-day review. A notice of the FEIS will be published and an additional 30-day comment period
will ensue. Then, FHWA will prepare a record of decision on the FEIS. Finally, MnDOT will
make a determination of adequacy.
A TH 41 River crossing brochure can be viewed at the following web site:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/pdfs/hwy41overview.pd .
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft TH 41 River Crossing Implementation Collaborative Agenda.
2. Item 3 Handout TH 41 River Crossing Alternate Analysis.
g:\plan\bg\th 41 river crossing\council update of 2-25-11 meeting.doc
'TH 41 River Crossing Implementation Collaborative
Meeting location: USFWS
Friday, February 25, 2011— 8:30 am to noon
DRAFT AGENDA
1. Welcome, introductions and round-robin check -in
2. Review and modify draft agenda as necessary
(20 min)
(10 min)
3. Chaska presents TH 41 River Crossing Alternative Analysis and discussion (30-45 min)
Z-.l` tiMo�1�,
t4e,.- F �oc4l�raQ�
4. Mn/DOT and FHWP/� Present Funding, Policy and Regulatory Updates (20 min)
L xx CtctrV_ow4 c..
:r PClr4
5. Mn/DOT Presents Legislative -initiated Information on Intermediate Work: (20 min)
• 2011 MN River Crossing Feasibility Study
• Other potential intermediate work
6. Overall RCIC Process with graphics to show how SW MN river crossing efforts relate (20 min)
7. Tasks, Responsibilities and Timeline to Complete the Tier 1 FEIS and obtain ROD (30-45 min)
8. Wrap-up: summarize next steps/action items, set meeting schedule (15 min)
June 2007 ININNESM ,
From US Highway 169 to
New US Highway 212
Scott County & Carver County
PPF
1.
f w
[)t'_:r_'�="�`1°•CS�:.w41.�'--. mi aY..a.ike '.� `ay..y��a�__ --. �-
._.
'*, 4�4
iVA
9
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Cities Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT. These models are computerized procedures for
systematically predicting travel demand changes in response to development and transportation
facility changes. Inputs to these models were developed in consultation with local communities
and the Metropolitan Council.
Daily forecast volume, travelshed analysis, regional traffic effects analysis, and daily truck
volume forecast results are summarized below and depicted in Figures 4-1 through 4-9;
additional information is available in the May 2006 Travel Forecast Memo.
Table 4-1 shows the results of the 2040 travel demand forecasts for No -Build and the six Build
alternatives.
TABLE 4-1
DAILY RIVER CROSSING VOLUMES, 2000, 2040
Crossing
2000"'
2040
No -
Build W-2 C-2 C-2A E-1 E-1A
E-2
CSAH 9/45
6,400
25,100
19,200
21,600
21,300
20,800
21,300
21,300
TH 41
18,500
36,500
24,700
22,000
24,800
23,800
25,100
24,200
New TH 41
45,0000
48,000
43,000
56,000
56,000
59,000:
Highway 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
I-35W
102,000
133,000
133,000
133,000
133,000
132,000
132,000
132,000
Total
1202,3001
369,600
387,300
389,600
387,000
388,400
387,700
388,800
�') Year 2000 volumes are used to calibrate the regional travel forecast model.
Forecast traffic for the New TH 41 river crossing ranges from 45,000 to 59,000 per day, with the
eastern Build alternatives generally carrying more traffic than the western and central
alternatives. Because all Build alternatives provide capacity exceeding 60,000 vehicles per day
(vpd), and daily volumes on these crossings are forecast to be less than 60,000 vpd, the Build
alternatives represent largely unconstrained demand on the new river crossings. Trips on the
New TH 41 river crossing come largely from five sources:
Existing TH 41 - Under No -Build conditions, demand to travel on the existing TH 41 river
crossing is predicted to exceed capacity (estimated to be ten hours of congestion per day, see
Section 4.1.3). All Build alternatives attract a substantial amount of traffic from the existing
TH 41 river crossing, reducing its forecast future volume by 11,400 vehicles per day
(31 percent, E-lA) to 14,500 vehicles per day (40 percent, C-2).
■ CSAH 9/45 - Under the No -Build condition, CSAH 9/45 traffic volumes are predicted to be
near capacity in the peak period (estimated to be five hours of congestion per day). The
Build alternatives attract 3,500 vehicles per day (14 percent, C-2) or more from this crossing.
Alternative W-2 attracts the most traffic, 5,900 vehicles per day (24 percent).
TH 41 Minnesota River Crossing 4-2 June 2007
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
72000
1 7800
t0
• 60000
CR 140
212 •47000
Calnfar
`6100
17 790009
New US212`C Chanhassen
•79000
34000
• 14000 212 • 0 4000
Chaska
sShakopee
2600
•23300
36500
•47000 58000
22000
42100
169
4 1000 - —
All 2040 forecasts volumes have a
confidence level of +/-15 percent.
NO BUILD DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (2040) Figure 4-1
TH 41 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
S.P.#1008-60
Minnesota Department of Transportation
�., 17800
io
•6
CR 140
212 •52000
u7, r
45
r 1600
17 760000
New US 212 1d�;tfChalhassen
18500 48000
23100
2100
16000
212 •� 30000
•
19 Shakopee
16600
69000 76000
15000
500
I
All 2040 forecasts volumes have a
confidence level of +1-15 percent.
Final forecasts reflect no
realignment of TH169.
ALTERNATIVE C-2 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (2040) Figure 4-3
TH 41 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
S.P. #1008-60
Minnesota Department of Transportation
k,
1, -vl
tf
Test C-2 for TH 41 EIS Design Refinement Workshop Oct 8, 2009
S- IS
--ll f-Tr:
�40)
Ir
Lag
'�A.' -r 4A
r 1
d"A
lo
.1 I ,"t
* - , V
SM4. ''
cl
41 IF k , ;' -z
, , . kf—, t :
.4, , j�
PIP
FS, .04
- IV
W.Row,
Z_
tt
Wier /*
of—
Vc- LA
V'P W, 4r
i-
1.41%W
z
Northbound and Southbound Connections to
Downtown Chaska,Full Access Interchange
at CSAH 61 and Removal of Current TH 41.
•
76,000
67,000 (76,000)
(64,000)
• 35,600
• (36,000)
YP AESOTA
AW
s,
62,000
(56,000) •
Chaska
18,500
(19,700)•
48,000 48,000
(33,000) (47,000)
Ca rve r
24,000
• (26,000)
• 15,100
(16,300)
22,000
• (28,500)
23,100
(30,000)
23,100
(0)
Legend
XX,XXX Year 2040 Volume -Alternative C2
(XX,XXX) Year 2040 Volume - Chaska Alternative
48,000
(77,000)
Ni jjinesotO
Connections to Downtown Chaska and CSAH 61 Interchange
TH 41 River Crossing - Chaska Alternatives Figure 1
City of Chaska, Minnesota
z
Full Access Interchange at CSAH 61
•
76,000
67,000 (76,000)
(71,000) O 35,600
(32,000)
wiNr.esorn
24,000
® (20,000)
62,000 ! 15,100
(61,000) • Chaska (15,100)
22,000
• (15,800)
Carver
Legend
XX,XXX Year 2040 Volume - Alternative C2
(XX,XXX) Year 2040 Volume - Chaska Alternative
J
minnesotO
CSAH 61 Interchange
Figure 2
TH 41 River Crossing - Chaska Alternatives
City of Chaska, Minnesota
Northbound and Southbound Connections to
Downtown Chaska and Removal of Current TH 41.
62,000
(57,000) •
Ca r v e r
•
76,000
67,000 (76,000)
(64,000) 35,600
•
• (36,000)
YIhAESDTA
e
24,000
• (25,500)
• 15,100
Chaska (16,300)
22,000
• (31,000)
18,500 23,100
(23,000)0
S (37,000)
48,000
(39,000) \48,000
2
,000)
3,11O
Legend
XX,XXX Year 2040 Volume -Alternative C2
(XX,XXX) Year 2040 Volume - Chaska Alternative
Connections to Downtown Chaska
TH 41 River Crossing -Chaska Alternatives
City of Chaska, Minnesota
Niinn esoto
Figure 3
Desired Future Redesign of Chestnut Street: 52'wide street 3-lane road with parallel parking on each side
• Future redesign will require MOOT approval
• Reduction in projected traffic counts will be necessary for travel lane reduction
• Change in the type of traffic from regional (through traffic) to destination -oriented type will also be required
F
k
f
2
<i
DECEMBER 2010
MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has completed an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for six (6) alignment alternatives as part of the Tier I Minnesota
River Crossing Analysis. MnDOT proposes to choose a modified version of Alignment C-
2 that is south of Chaska's Athletic Field. In a series of subsequent meetings with
stakeholders known as the RCIC, impacts specific to this alignment have been
documented and discussed in some detail. Based on these meetings and follow up
design work, Chaska has conducted with SRF Consulting Services, Chaska is prepared to
endorse the C-2 (Modified) River Crossing Alignment for approval with the following
conditions:
1. The profile of the bridge deck of the River Crossing immediately south of
historic downtown Chaska shall be at the lowest height allowable by
MnDOT/FHWA design standards to minimize the visual impacts of the
structure.
2. For that same reason, the River Crossing shall utilize "context sensitive"
design techniques and landscape planning to screen and separate the new
highway from existing land uses.
3. Noise levels created by the River Crossing shall be mitigated to the maximum
extent possible via speed limit, highway pavement material and sound walls
in addition to other accepted noise reducing techniques.
4. Direct access to Chaska from the River Crossing to CSAH 61 and/or the
existing river bridge on TH41 shall be included in the project design. The
final access configuration shall be based on the project including construction
of a three -lane design street section on Chestnut Street through downtown
Chaska at a reasonable traffic service level.
5. A pedestrian connection between Athletic Field and the US Fish and Wildlife
property shall be provided across the River Crossing right of way.
6. Highway lighting on the River Crossing shall be designed to minimize all
impacts on adjacent land uses.
7. Chaska shall retain the right of `municipal consent' on future design
approvals.
WM:ms
Shared: bill:misc2010: MNRiverBridge
Minnesota Department of Transportation
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Mr. Podhradsky
City Administrator
1 City Hall Plaza
Chaska, MN 55318
February 18, 2011
Dear Mr. Podhradsky,
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) appreciate the recent technical work done by the City of Chaska. Your analysis assessed
alternative configurations within the C-2 corridor in the Trunk Highway (TH) 41 Tier 1 Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to see how a new regional river crossing might better
serve your transportation needs while considering the safety, economic vitality, and character of
your historic downtown. We understand that the City's concern is that the C-2 corridor identified by
the River Crossing Implementation Collaborative (RCIC) results in more potential negative impacts
than benefits to the downtown. By adding access to downtown, the City would still be subject to the
potential impacts of the regional river crossing, but from our discussions with you we understand
that the City perceives it would also gain some offsetting benefits. For example, the study indicated
that local drivers may have increased mobility and the downtown would likely benefit from a
manageable amount of regional traffic that could access rather than bypass downtown Chaska.
The analysis did not draw any conclusions regarding how these revised C-2 scenarios affect the
ability of the proposed project to serve its primary function as a regional connector within the
footprint established by this Tier I EIS.tpjnt
Your recent work shows that an interchange at County Road 61 (old TH 212) and new TH 41 may
hold promise for future consideration. Your modeling shows that it would provide the downtown
with a balance of favorable traffic -- enough to keep the downtown businesses economically viable
while not so much as to cause congestion and make it unsafe for pedestrians. Your study also
showed that allowing traffic to exit at a potential new TH 41/CR 61 interchange would likely
decrease demand on the future system interchange at new TH 41/TH 212. This would also
respond to the City of Carver's concerns about the ability of that interchange to function effectively
as both a system and local interchange.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 2 of 2
The question now is how to incorporate this potential local access concept into the existing Tier 1
EIS while still adhering to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and retaining the
validity and credibility of the vast amount of work done to date. There are regulatory and technical
implications to consider as we move forward. The original purpose and need statement of the TH
41 EIS described a direct regional connection between US 169 and US 212, with capacity
maximized by limiting local access between the future system interchanges. While the federally
regulated Tier 1 process permits some changes to the original purpose and need based on
extensive and documented stakeholder involvement, formally modifying the need statement to
exclude the regional connection would require significant re -work and additional technical analysis
of the southwest region before committing to it as part of the Tier 1 EIS C-2 preferred alternative.
That said, we recommend that local/downtown Chaska access be included in the body of the Tier 1
EIS for future consideration and study in the Tier 2 EIS. This would be framed within the RCIC's
agreed -upon goals and strategies to mitigate impacts and presented alongside the RCIC's other
outstanding issues around the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge, the City of Carver TH 41/US
212 interchange, Jackson Heights, the ballpark, historic districts., and so on.
As you know, with current funding constraints and stricter federal policies it will likely be 20+ years
before the Tier 2 EIS would even begin — and at that time will have to account for all the changes
in conditions and needs in the interim. Those changes certainly include decisions and actions
resulting from Mn/DOT's new high-level feasibility study examining immediate to mid-term, lower -
cost alternatives to increase flood protection in the southwest metro area — including the existing
TH 41, US 169, and TH 101 river crossings.
Completing the FEIS with all the technical analyses and these outstanding issues within the
context of the RCIC goals and strategies formalizes a new framework for such ongoing work on
Minnesota River crossings, and formally documents both the regulatory approval and the
stakeholder agreements necessary to preserve the C-2 corridor for the very long term.
Thank you again for your continued active involvement and we look forward to collaborating with
the City of Chaska and other RCIC members for many years to come. Please call us if you would
like to meet to, discuss this further before the Feb 25 RCIC meeting or if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
Lynn Clarkowski, P.E.
Phillip Forst, P.E.
Mn/DOT Metro South Area Engineer FHWA Environmental Engineer
An Equal Opportunity Employer