SP 1013-78 - Minnesota Department of Transportation

ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING for the TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint State Project: S.P. 1013-78 Located at the existing TH 212/Market Avenue intersection, approximately one-half mile east of Cologne, Carver County, Minnesota Sections 7 and 18, Township 115N, Range 24W Sections 12 and 13, Township 115N, Range 25W Prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. In association with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. May 2010 Pre-NEPA/MEPA Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint State Project: S.P. 1013-78 Sections 7 and 18, Township 115N, Range 24W Sections 12 and 13, Township 115N, Range 25W This document provides an overview of the potential Trunk Highway 212/Market Avenue interchange project, including engineering considerations and environmental screening for the defined study area. The defined study area consists of a footprint, which encompasses various potential interchange configuration options. The level of environmental screening completed for this project is considered pre-NEPA/MEPA (National Environmental Policy Act/Minnesota Environmental Policy Act). This level of planning is typically applicable when a project is not in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or when the timing of the project programming process and the local planning/zoning/development process do not complement each other. Environmental screening is conducive to linking the transportation planning and NEPA/MEPA processes together; however, it is not intended to meet or fulfill the requirements of the Acts. The environmental screening report tells the story of how the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint was established, and offers a high level of screening of potential issues for further evaluation in the project development process. This report will serve as a planning tool for the City of Cologne as it considers prospective development and acquisition of right-of-way in the vicinity of a possible future interchange, and as it plans for and constructs the complimentary local roadway system as documented in the October 2004 design and environmental work already being done for adjacent roadway segments, and also sets a precedent for cooperation and consultation between Mn/DOT, Carver County, and the City of Cologne in the future planning of this interchange area. The Federal Highway Administration has provided a letter of position regarding this level of documentation; the letter is included in Appendix A. Contact: Nicole Peterson, P.E. Project Manager Mn/DOT Metro District 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Phone: 651-234-7723 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) would like to notably thank the following agencies, local communities, and consulting firms for participating in project planning meetings, providing consultation, and/or for assisting in the development of this project: Federal Highway Administration Metropolitan Council Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency State Historic Preservation Office Carver County City of Cologne Benton Township Dahlgren Township Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Rani Engineering, Inc. EVS, Inc. In addition, Mn/DOT would like to acknowledge the participation of the following individual members of the overall Trunk Highway 212 Preliminary Engineering Project Management Team, Technical Advisory Committee, and Public Advisory Committee: Project Management Team (PMT) Phil Forst, Federal Highway Administration Area Engineer Lynn Clarkowski, Mn/DOT South Area Manager Nicole Peterson, Mn/DOT Project Manager Victoria (Tori) Nill, Mn/DOT Project Manager (previous) Richard Martig, Mn/DOT Project Manager (previous) Richard (Rick) Dalton, Mn/DOT Metro Division/Liaison Jennie Ross, Mn/DOT Environmental Assessment Unit Sheila Kauppi, Mn/DOT Traffic Jacqueline Sluss, Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit Derek Beauduy, Mn/DOT Water Resources Amir Azarshin, Mn/DOT Materials Debra Brisk, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Beth Kunkel, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Dan Coyle, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Jeanne Witzig, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Gary Ehret, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Don Demers, SRF Consulting, Inc. Nancy Frick, SRF Consulting, Inc. Michelle Gerrity, SRF Consulting, Inc. Walter Eshenaur, SRF Consulting, Inc. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Phil Forst, Federal Highway Administration Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Lyndon Robjent, County Engineer, Carver County Bill Weckman, Engineer, Carver County Paul Moline, Planner, Carver County Chelsea Alger, Community Development Director, City of Norwood Young America Tom Simmons, Administrator, City of Norwood Young America Kreg Schmidt, Engineer, City of Norwood Young America and City of Cologne John Douville, Administrator, City of Cologne Cindy Nash, Planner, City of Carver Dan Boyum, Engineer, City of Carver Bill Monk, Engineer, City of Chaska Lothar Wolter, Jr., Clerk, Young America Township Hilary Drees, Benton Township Gene Miller, Dahlgren Township Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Craig Peterson, Metropolitan Council District 4 Margaret Donahoe, Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition Lyndon Robjent, County Engineer, Carver County James Ische, Commissioner, Carver County Randy Maluchnik, Commissioner, Carver County Tom Simmons, Administrator, City of Norwood Young America John Fahey, Mayor, City of Norwood Young America John Douville, Administrator, City of Cologne Bernie Shambour, Mayor, City of Cologne Jim Elmquist, Administrator, City of Carver Jim Weygand, Mayor, City of Carver Matthew Podhradsky, Administrator, City of Chaska Gary F. Van Eyll, Mayor, City of Chaska Gary Widmer, Benton Township Gene Miller, Dahlgren Township Brad Schrupp, Young America Township <Double-click here to enter title> 102nd Street ´ ANOKA Waconia Twp. HENNEPIN WASHINGTON RAMSEY CARVER Miles Laketown Twp. DAKOTA CR 140 CR 140 122nd Street MARKET AVENUE INTERCHANGE FOOTPRINT Cologne CR Benton Lake Meuwissen Lake ilro Ra Miller Lake 36 CR £ ¤ 212 ad Kelly Avenue CR 153 Laurel Avenue Market Avenue TH 284 SCOTT 0.5 CR10 E 212 Ca rv er 41 130th Street £ ¤ C re e k Benton Twp. Hans Hagen Homes Planned Unit Development Beve n s Cre Cologne Bypass Dahlgren Twp. ek Market Avenue County Road 153 CSAH 53 CR 152 Ma ple w oo dR Juliet Road TH 212 and TH 284/CSAH 53 Intersection CR 41 134th Street oa d 150th Street Maria Lake FIGURE 2 LOCATION MAP S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 ´ <Double-click here to enter title> Ramsey Andover Miles Anoka 5 Ham Lake £ ¤ 10 Rogers Dayton Hassan Twp. ¬ « 65 Coon Rapids Carver County Champlin Blaine § ¦ ¨ Hanover 94 Osseo Brooklyn Park Maple Grove Corcoran Greenfield Rockford Fridley Brooklyn Center § ¦ ¨ Loretto Columbia Heights 494 Medina Maple Plain £ ¤ Medicine Lake 12 Golden Valley Long Lake Hollywood Twp. Minnetrista Watertown Twp. ¬ « New Germany Minnetonka Beach Mound Spring Park Deephaven Minnetonka Hopkins Greenwood Shorewood Excelsior St. Bonifacius Edina Mayer Fort Snelling (unorg.) Richfield Lester Prairie Victoria Camden Twp. Minneapolis St. Louis Park Tonka Bay 7 Bergen Twp. 394 Woodland Silver Lake Rich Valley Twp. § ¦ ¨ Wayzata Orono Watertown Winsted Winsted Twp. Robbinsdale Plymouth Independence Hale Twp. New Hope Crystal Chanhassen Waconia Twp. Waconia Laketown Twp. £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ 494 212 Eden Prairie Bloomington £ ¤ 169 GENERAL STUDY AREA Glencoe £ ¤ Helen Twp. ¬ « £ ¤ Plato 212 Glencoe Twp. Chaska Norwood Young America 2002 High Priority IRC Route Hwy 22 near Glencoe to I-494 in Eden Prairie Chaska Twp. 212 Cologne Benton Twp. Cologne Jackson Twp. Carver Shakopee Young America Twp. Hamburg Burnsville Savage Dahlgren Twp. Louisville Twp. Apple Valley Prior Lake 22 Hancock Twp. £ ¤ 169 San Francisco Twp. Jordan Sand Creek Twp. Spring Lake Twp. Lakeville Credit River Twp. St. Lawrence Twp. § ¦ ¨ 35 Belle Plaine New Market Twp. Blakeley Twp. Belle Plaine Twp. Helena Twp. Eureka Twp. Cedar Lake Twp. New Market Elko New Prague Greenvale Twp. FIGURE 1 AREA MAP S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 ANOKA HENNEPIN WASHINGTON RAMSEY CARVER SCOTT ´ 1,000 Laurel Avenue <Double-click here to enter title> Feet DAKOTA CR 36 MARKET AVENUE INTERCHANGE FOOTPRINT Dahlgren Twp Benton Twp Waconia, MN, USGS 7.5' Topographic Map, 1957 (revised 1981) FIGURE 3 USGS 7.5' TOPOGRAPHIC MAP S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT ....................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................1 1.3 FOOTPRINT DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................2 1.4 PURPOSE OF REPORT ......................................................................................................3 1.5 NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................................3 2.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS .....................................................................................3 2.1 ROADWAY .....................................................................................................................3 2.2 TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................................4 2.3 DRAINAGE .....................................................................................................................7 2.4 UTILITIES ......................................................................................................................8 2.5 OTHER DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................8 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING .........................................................................................9 3.1 PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING .....................................................................9 3.2 DRAFT PURPOSE AND NEED .........................................................................................10 3.3 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 11 3.3.1 Social Issues ........................................................................................................ 11 3.3.1.1 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................11 3.3.1.2 Pedestrians and Bicyclists ............................................................................. 14 3.3.1.3 Property Acquisition, Relocation, and Access ...............................................15 3.3.1.4 Economics .................................................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Visual Character ..................................................................................................16 3.3.3 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 17 3.3.4 Soil Conditions .................................................................................................... 19 3.3.5 Farmlands ............................................................................................................ 21 3.3.5.1 Prime or Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance ............... 21 3.3.5.2 Agricultural Preserves ................................................................................... 22 3.3.6 Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) ....................................................................................... 22 3.3.7 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................23 3.3.7.1 Archaeological Sites ..................................................................................... 24 3.3.7.2 Historic Structures ........................................................................................ 25 3.3.8 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources ........................................... 27 3.3.9 Special Status Species and Critical Habitat ........................................................... 28 3.3.10 Water Resources ..................................................................................................29 3.3.10.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 29 Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page i 3.3.10.2 Surface Waters.............................................................................................. 31 3.3.10.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................. 32 3.3.10.4 Wells ............................................................................................................ 33 3.3.10.5 Floodplains ................................................................................................... 34 3.3.10.6 Water-Related Management Districts ............................................................ 35 3.3.10.7 Water Quality ............................................................................................... 35 3.3.11 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................37 3.3.12 Noise ................................................................................................................... 38 3.3.13 Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................. 41 3.3.14 Contaminated Properties ......................................................................................42 3.4 SUMMARY OF SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .................................................... 44 4.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT..................................................... 46 4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES............................................................................. 46 4.2 AGENCY COORDINATION AND REVIEW ......................................................................... 47 5.0 ESTIMATED COSTS......................................................................................................... 48 6.0 REFERENCE MATERIALS................................................................................................ 49 APPENDIX A. FHWA LETTER OF POSITION APPENDIX B. RECOMMENDED ROADWAY SYSTEM PLAN EXCERPT FROM COLOGNE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY (OCTOBER 2004) APPENDIX C. MARKET AVENUE INTERCHANGE GEOMETRICS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM APPENDIX D. UTILITY INFORMATION APPENDIX E. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING FIGURES 4 THROUGH 9 APPENDIX F. MAP OF FUTURE LAND USE EXCERPT FROM CITY OF COLOGNE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (MAY 2009) APPENDIX G. AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX H. PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE AS OF MAY 2010 Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The potential Market Avenue interchange project is located at the existing Trunk Highway (TH) 212 and Market Avenue intersection, approximately one-half mile east of Cologne, Carver County, Minnesota (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The potential project is located within Benton and Dahlgren Townships—Sections 7 and 18, Township 115N, Range 24W and Sections 12 and 13, Township 115N, Range 25W (Figure 3). 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND TH 212 from Glencoe, Minnesota to the Twin Cities is designated as a “High Priority” Interregional Corridor (IRC) route (Figure 1), as identified in the Highway 212 Interregional Corridor Management Plan (Minnesota Department of Transportation [Mn/DOT], April 2002, EDMS #770329). High priority is given to this segment of TH 212 because of its linkage between regional trade centers and the Twin Cities. The IRC study outlined actions for improving capacity, safety, and access management along this route. This consisted of plans for improving the intersection at TH 212 and TH 284/County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 53 in the City of Cologne (Figure 2), including assumptions that this intersection would be a likely candidate for a future interchange. Since 2002, TH 212 had been upgraded from a two-lane rural highway to a four-lane freeway from I-494 in Eden Prairie to CSAH 11 in Carver. Additionally, TH 212 from Glencoe to the County Road 43 Intersection has changed designation from a two-lane rural highway to an expressway. An interchange has also been constructed at CSAH 11. Shortly after the IRC study was finalized, large development (Hans Hagen Homes) was proposed immediately south of Cologne, directly south of TH 212 and primarily west of TH 284/CSAH 53 (Figure 2). Ensuring connectivity between this proposed development on the south side of TH 212 and the city’s downtown on the north side of TH 212 is very important to the City of Cologne. The proposed mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses would need access to TH 212 and would also likely necessitate a change in traffic control and/or access modifications at the intersection of TH 212 and TH 284/CSAH 53. This prompted safety and access concerns. Carver County and the City of Cologne have also expressed apprehension regarding the future function of TH 284, which was planned to serve as the primary north/south arterial through the city. Specifically, the safety, design, access deficiencies, right-of-way width, and the at-grade railroad crossing of TH 284 are of concern. The safety and capacity upgrades that would be required for TH 284 to serve the proposed development and connect with the central city would be very disruptive to the community. In response, Carver County initiated planning for a new north/south corridor to address safety and capacity concerns on existing roadways. The new roadway would replace the current function of TH 284 in the Cologne area and would possibly be part of a more regional north/south corridor. It is anticipated that the old TH 284 segment would become part of the local roadway network; however, specific jurisdiction has not been determined at this time. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 1 The above-mentioned concerns prompted the need to update the recommendations of the IRC plan, and to evaluate the relationship between the TH 212 and TH 284/CSAH 53 intersection and the TH 212 connection to a new north/south connector. To accomplish this, Mn/DOT in partnership with Carver County, City of Cologne, and surrounding townships, published the Cologne Transportation Planning Study in October 2004 (EDMS #837594). This study resulted in a recommended transportation plan for the Cologne area, which consists of several local roadway modifications, access closures and changes at TH 284/CSAH 53, County Road (CR) 36 East, and CR 41, a grade-separated railroad crossing, and most notably an interchange at TH 212 and Market Avenue (see Appendix B for a two-page excerpt from the 2004 study). It is intended that Market Avenue would become the north/south connector that is needed to replace the current function of TH 284/CSAH 53. Current evaluation of the TH 212 and Market Avenue interchange is being done to the level of a summary report defining the engineering criteria and future considerations and an environmental screening report. This is appropriate because the need for an interchange at Market Avenue is primarily influenced by the pace of future development and its impacts on the roadway network. It is anticipated that development would not dictate the need for this interchange until the year 2030 or beyond; however, this could change if development occurs at a faster pace than anticipated. To allow for flexibility in future development plans, a specific interchange concept and alignment is not being selected at this time. However, an interchange “footprint” accommodating several possible interchange geometric layouts has been identified. 1.3 FOOTPRINT DEVELOPMENT To start the development of the footprint1, it was assumed that the recommended local county/township/city roadway system, shown in the Cologne Transportation Planning Study (EDMS #837594) (see Appendix B for a two-page excerpt), would be used as the baseline for developing the Market Avenue interchange options. Other considerations in the development of the footprint are described in chapter 2. The scope of the interchange configuration options included elevating Market Avenue over TH 212 (and the railroad) and the associated interchange ramps to connect Market Avenue to TH 212. The right-of-way for three interchange options has been evaluated, and the envelope containing the potential right-of-way needs for all three options has been combined into one footprint (referred herein as the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint). The three interchange options included in the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint are variations of diamond and folded diamond interchanges. Further details regarding the development of the footprint are contained in the Market Avenue Interchange Geometrics Technical Memorandum, dated September 30, 2009. The memorandum and associated attachments are included in Appendix C. 1 Footprint is a defined area established for multiple interchange concepts. It is the largest area determined to adapt to any of the selected interchange concepts in the future. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 2 1.4 PURPOSE OF REPORT This engineering summary report documentation and environmental screening report tells the story of how the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint was established, and offers a high-level Pre-NEPA screening of potential issues for further evaluation in the project development process. This report will serve as a planning tool for the City of Cologne as it considers prospective development and acquisition of right-of-way in the vicinity of a possible future interchange, including the complimentary local roadway system as documented in the October 2004 transportation study. For Mn/DOT, this document provides a summary for engineering and environmental completed for adjacent roadway segments, and also sets a precedent for cooperation and consultation between Mn/DOT, Carver County, and the City of Cologne in the future planning of this interchange area. 1.5 NEXT STEPS This document is intended to aid local agencies in preserving right-of-way for a future interchange as development occurs in the area of TH 212 and Market Avenue. If not already done so, the local agencies should incorporate the information contained in this document into their local land use plans. As the local roadway network develops and the need for an interchange at Market Avenue is justified, funds would need to be solicited or appropriated to complete environmental documentation and preliminary engineering, including analysis of interchange design alternatives selection of a preferred interchange and completion of a staff approved layout. Depending on the source of funding (i.e. federal, state, or local), environmental documentation under the appropriate federal and/or state process would be required. If federal funds are acquired to finance all or part of the project, the interchange would be subject to the provisions of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The likely level of environmental documentation would be an Environmental Assessment (EA)/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). If only state and/or local funds are used, an EAW would be required. Anticipated future actions and/or requirements, generally related to NEPA and MEPA, are detailed in the Environmental Screening section of this report (see Section 3.0). 2.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS This section presents the critical elements/factors that will/could influence the development of an interchange at Market Avenue. The following outlines the primary design considerations and the assumptions used during the development of the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. 2.1 ROADWAY The Cologne Bypass (Figure 2), which bypasses on the south side of downtown Cologne, was constructed by Mn/DOT in the early 1970s. The bypass is roughly 3.3 miles long. The west end of the Cologne Bypass is located 1.8 miles west of Market Avenue; the east end is located 1.5 miles east of Market Avenue. As part of the construction of the bypass, TH 212 was widened to Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 3 a four-lane divided expressway consisting of 12-foot wide concrete paved lanes, 8-foot wide asphalt paved outside shoulders, 2-foot wide asphalt paved inside shoulders, and 84-foot centerline spacing. The posted speed limit for this segment of TH 212 is 65 miles per hour. The terrain in this area is relatively flat. TH 212 is also a four-lane facility from Highway 22 near Glencoe to CR 34 in Norwood Young America and from CSAH 11 in Carver to I-494 in Eden Prairie. TH 212 is currently a two-lane undivided highway approximately five miles west and east of the Cologne Bypass; these sections are currently being evaluated for reconstruction to a four-lane facility in an effort to fill in the remaining two-lane highway segments of the 2002 High Priority IRC route. The Cologne Transportation Planning Study (EDMS #837594) identifies several local roadway modifications and TH 212 access improvements addressing a proposed 500-acre mixed use development (Hans Hagen Homes) and operational issues on TH 284/CSAH 53. In addition, the study recommends an interchange be constructed at Market Avenue. The Market Avenue interchange would require local county, township, and city roads to be relocated to accommodate the interchange. The transportation study identifies an implementation and phasing plan for the local roadway system improvements. As-built construction drawings for this section of TH 212 show a significant amount of organic material is present in the area of the potential interchange. No geotechnical information is currently available to estimate the extent of organic material present beyond TH 212. However, based on general soil survey mapping and as-built drawings of existing TH 212 in this area, a volume of 600,000 cubic yards was approximated for cost estimating purposes (see Section 5.0). Investigating the extent of the organic material was outside of the scope of this study, however it is recommended that geotechnical analysis be conducted as part of the Environmental Assessment to guide the geometric design and/or bridge design. 2.2 TRAFFIC The following summarizes the results of the traffic analysis conducted for TH 212 near Market Avenue, in terms of traffic volumes and operations for existing and future (2030) conditions. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Areas adjacent to and west of Market Avenue and extending west of Highway 22 (near Glencoe) are expected to see increasing population and development. Travel forecasts were developed that take into account future land use development as well as regional highway improvements. Detailed methodology and the findings are presented in the Travel Demand Forecast Memorandum for TH 212, SP 1013-77, 1013-78, and 1013-79, dated July 25, 2007 (EDMS #738216). These forecasts show increases in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) under No-Build and Build conditions near Market Avenue, as seen in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. TH 212 Traffic Volumes near Market Avenue Segment TH 284 to Market Avenue Market Avenue to CR 36 East Existing (2007) 10,300 10,300 Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint No-Build (2030) 22,000 21,000 Build (2030) 31,000 30,000 May 2010 Page 4 The No-Build forecasts indicate lower volumes than the Build forecasts. This is because the future vehicular demand for the TH 212 corridor exceeds the capacity of the existing two-lane facility (west and east of the Cologne Bypass), resulting in the model redirecting traffic to alternate routes. Existing and Future Traffic Operations To assess congestion, a traffic operations analysis was completed for the AM and PM peak hours for the Market Avenue and CR 36 East intersections. The existing traffic control is a two-way stop; this control type was used in the analysis of the existing and No-Build conditions. The Build condition considered traffic signal control at the intersections. Detailed methodology and the findings are presented in the Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum for TH 212, SP 1013-77, 1013-78, and 1013-79, dated September 28, 2007 (EDMS #738213). The results are summarized in Table 2-2 through Table 2-4. The results are indicated by Level of Service (LOS). LOS is characterized on a scale of A (light traffic, free flow, extremely high level of motorist comfort) to F (forced or breakdown in flow, operations characterized by extremely unstable stop-and-go waves). LOS D or better is generally considered acceptable by drivers; LOS E and F are generally considered unacceptable. Volume to capacity (v/c) is another indicator used in the study of future roadway or intersection operations. A v/c ratio equal to or greater than one (1.0) signifies a roadway or intersection is projected to operate at volumes exceeding the capacity. For existing operations, the Market Avenue intersection operates at an overall acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours under two-way stop control. Under the 2030 No-Build conditions, the Market Avenue intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS under twoway stop control. Under 2030 Build conditions, the Market Avenue intersection would operate at an overall acceptable LOS under traffic signal control. However, the reserve capacity (capacity available before reaching unacceptable LOS) at Market Avenue under 2030 Build conditions is less than five percent and additional local development beyond those in the regional model could cause the intersection to operate poorly with volumes exceeding its capacity. Table 2-2. Existing (2007) AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS and V/C Ratios Intersection Market Avenue CR 36 East Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Worse Overall v/c ratio Movement LOS LOS NB SB A A C B 0.07 - 0.04 0.20 Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Worse Overall v/c ratio Movement LOS LOS NB SB A A C C 0.03 - 0.02 0.05 Movement abbreviations: SB – southbound, NB – northbound. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 5 Table 2-3. 2030 No-Build AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS and V/C Ratios Intersection Market Avenue CR 36 East 2030 No-Build AM Peak Hour Intersection Worse Overall v/c ratio Movement LOS LOS NB SB F C F F * - * 1.28 2030 No-Build PM Peak Hour Intersection Worse Overall v/c ratio Movement LOS LOS NB SB F C F F * - * 2.09 Movement abbreviations: SB – southbound, NB – northbound. * Very few, if any, acceptable gaps in TH 212 traffic would be available for cross-street movements. Table 2-4. 2030 Build AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS and V/C Ratios 2030 Build AM Peak Hour Intersection Market Avenue CR 36 East 2030 Build PM Peak Hour Overall LOS Worse Movement LOS Intersection v/c ratio Overall LOS Worse Movement LOS Intersection v/c ratio C B D C 0.75 0.74 D B E D 0.95 0.83 Traffic Development Considerations Regional System – The No-Build LOS F for the Market Avenue intersection demonstrates that the No-Build condition would not meet the needs of the regional transportation system. Safety – An interchange at Market Avenue would likely reduce crashes by reducing congestion and managing access consistent with expressway design. Under the No-Build condition, it is anticipated that existing crash rates in the corridor would worsen due to increasing traffic. As congestion increases, and as vehicles increasingly try to gain access to the roadway, crash rates and severity rates would likely increase. Access Changes – The local roadway system and access to TH 212 could change near the City of Cologne. These changes would include total closure or grade-separation of the TH 284/CSAH 53 intersection with TH 212 and conversion of the TH 212/CR 36 East intersection to a rightin/right-out only access. The traffic diversion caused by these modifications will increase the southbound left-turn movement at the TH 212/Market Avenue intersection. The TH 212/Market Avenue intersection would have a v/c ratio of 0.75 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.95 in the p.m. peak hour under year 2030 Build conditions without the access changes. An additional analysis was completed for the TH 212/Market Avenue intersection with the volumes re-routed to the local roadway system. The analysis results identify a v/c ratio of 1.06 in the AM peak hour and 1.13 in the p.m. peak hour. This corresponds to an overall intersection LOS F for both time periods. To improve the operations of the TH 212/Market Avenue intersection, an interchange should be considered. An interchange at Market Avenue would provide the needed traffic improvements for future growth in the Cologne area. As stated previously, a proposed interchange at this location is included in the Cologne Transportation Planning Study (EDMS #837594). The Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 6 ramp intersections of the potential Market Avenue interchange are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hour conditions. 2.3 DRAINAGE The Water Resources Preliminary Design Report for TH 212, SP 1013-77, SP 1013-78, and SP 1013-79, dated August 2009 (EDMS #751283), provides a detailed evaluation of the existing drainage conditions and issues that need to be addressed for construction of an interchange at Market Avenue. The following information highlights the key drainage considerations. There is minimal water treatment along existing TH 212. While existing vegetated ditches and medians may provide limited surface water quality treatment via sedimentation and filtration of stormwater, there are no formal stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) in this segment of TH 212. Stormwater runoff in the interchange footprint currently flows directly into the surrounding wetlands and ditches, including a drainage ditch that flows south and east into County Ditch No. 6. County Ditch No. 6 drains south, ultimately flowing to the Minnesota River via Bevens Creek, which is listed as an impaired water (turbidity). There are two major culverts that cross TH 212 in the project segment, which convey drainage ditches originating from offsite areas south across the existing highway and eventually to County Ditch No. 6. If the interchange is constructed, these culverts would need to be removed, realigned, or replaced and lengthened during the project to continue conveying flow across TH 212 to County Ditch No. 6. Existing culvert crossings include: 54-inch RCP (reinforced concrete pipe), which conveys a drainage ditch that flows south across TH 212 and continues east to County Ditch No. 6, ultimately flowing to Bevens Creek. 36-inch RCP, which conveys a drainage ditch that flows south to County Ditch No. 6, ultimately flowing to Bevens Creek. Given the agricultural land use, soils, rolling topography, and the known presence of surface inlets within the footprint, it is likely that there are also subsurface agricultural drain tile systems present; however, the locations for these systems are unknown. Where existing drain tile is present within the project limits, it would need to be protected or reconfigured to maintain the existing drainage capacity. The proposed project would include the construction of an interchange at Market Avenue. As a result of the grade separation, overall existing drainage patterns would change. Details on the proposed drainage patterns, culverts, and stormwater treatment ponds are shown in the water resources final design report (EDMS # 751283); a summary is provided below. Constructing the Market Avenue interchange will make it necessary to reroute the drainage ditch that currently bisects the area. The drainage ditch can be rerouted to run on the north side of the proposed interchange, between the northern ramps and the Twin Cities & Western Railroad (TC&W Railroad). The existing 54-inch RCP can be removed. The realigned ditch would cross Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 7 Market Avenue roughly 500 feet north of existing TH 212, and would continue east until it crosses TH 212. The existing 36-inch RCP culvert would be removed and replaced with a new culvert. It is presumed that the proposed culvert will need to be larger than 54 inches in diameter, due to increased culvert length caused by construction of the exit ramps. Approximately 2,800 feet of drainage ditch would be relocated. The proposed ditch realignment would work for all three interchange configurations. 2.4 UTILITIES Based on a review of existing utilities within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint in 2009, there are existing telephone and fiber optic cables, underground and overhead power lines, and gas lines located within the defined footprint area. The current utility companies include Mn/DOT, Xcel Energy, Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative, CenterPoint Energy, Mediacom, and MCI. Utility company contact information and a tabulation of existing utilities (by utility owner) are included Appendix D. During future project development, additional review of utilities would need to occur to validate the locations of these and possibly other existing utilities. This would include contacting Gopher One for a current report on existing utilities, physically locating utilities on site and possibly doing pot holes to clarify conflicting utilities. 2.5 OTHER DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS One active railroad line, owned and operated by the TC&W Railroad, is located north of the existing TH 212 and Market Avenue intersection. The railroad generally runs parallel to TH 212 at this location. The scope of the interchange configuration options includes a bridge crossing over the railroad, requiring a minimum clearance of 23 feet from the tracks. During future project development, coordination with the TC&W Railroad (or current railroad authority at the time) would be required. In addition, an historic railroad line is located between the existing railroad and TH 212, which should be avoided if possible. There are also two Chaska brick houses located within the interchange study area that have been avoided by the alternatives within the footprint, but would need to be evaluated during future project development to address potential indirect impacts. Traffic control at the ramp termini could include stop signs, signals, or roundabouts. A detailed traffic analysis and intersection control evaluation would be required during future project development to determine the appropriate control mechanism. For those portions of Cologne that are divided by TH 212, an interchange at Market Avenue would provide improved connectivity for current and future residents. Safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, in addition to vehicular traffic, would be improved via grade separation of Market Avenue from both TH 212 and the TC&W Railroad tracks. Interchange design would need to be coordinated with future city plans for trails in order to provide continuity along TH 212, and within the community. Development in the Cologne area, traffic volumes and operations, safety concerns, local street improvements, adjacent TH 212 segment improvements, and available funding will all factor Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 8 into when this project moves forward and will ultimately influence the final geometrics selected for the interchange. 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The following section (3.0) provides the background on the environmental evaluation that has been completed for this document. Generally, the majority of the environmental issues identified and reviewed for the footprint do not result in any significant concerns or potential impacts, and therefore did not directly influence the concepts included in the footprint. However, there were two environmental issues that were considered during the development of the concepts; wetlands and historic properties. Wetlands are very prevalent in the general area, and as shown in Figure 8 are scattered within and around the footprint area. Generally the footprint was developed with a variety of concepts that would avoid wetland impacts to the extent possible, while also providing grade separation at TH 212 and the railroad tracks and limiting property and cultural resource impacts. The southeast corner of the footprint, while not shown as wetland, has muck soils that may have historically supported a wetland. Further investigation will be required (wetland delineation, geotechnical survey) to prioritize which concept provides the least wetland impact. With regard to cultural resources, two Chaska brick houses were identified early in the study process (see Figure 7). Efforts were made as the concepts were developed to avoid these houses with direct project impacts. However, there remains potential for indirect impacts to these buildings and the associated properties, therefore further investigation and coordination will be required to determine the potential for adverse effects of the project. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING 3.1 PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING The purpose of environmental screening is to describe the existing social and environmental conditions within a given study area (or footprint), in an effort to identify potential “fatal flaws,” obstacles, and/or issues for consideration during future project development. Environmental screening identifies, to the extent feasible, potential resource impacts and applicable regulatory requirements that may need to be addressed during subsequent project evaluations. In addition, the purpose and need for a project is typically drafted during the planning stage (see Section 3.2 below). The Draft Purpose and Need and the findings of the Environmental Screening, when viewed together, facilitate and provide direction for long-range planning endeavors. Also, the end result of the screening process is valuable in determining the level of future NEPA and/or MEPA documentation that may be required. This section is not intended to meet or fulfill the requirements of NEPA/MEPA. It does not compare concepts or identify a preferred alternative or potential mitigation measures. The intent is to provide, in one location, all known environmental background information collected on the project to date for future reference, and to use this information in concept development for potential interchange geometrics and a potential right-of-way footprint for land use planning. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 9 3.2 DRAFT PURPOSE AND NEED Need for the Project A number of ‘needs’ have been described in previous sections of this document. The following summarizes the current understanding of project needs as voiced by the City of Cologne, Carver County, and Mn/DOT. The Hans Hagen Homes development on the south side of TH 212 will generate the need for a change in traffic control and/or access modifications at TH 212 and TH 284/CSAH 53 as it reaches full development2. In addition, to preserve its downtown area and provide safer access points along TH 212 in light of other anticipated future development, the City of Cologne is also planning to close access points at CR 36 East, CR 41, and Market Avenue. A system of potential frontage roads and a grade-separated crossing of the TC&W Railroad are also proposed, in addition to access to downtown via Lake Street. All of these proposed changes to the area roadway network serve to accommodate future traffic mobility and safety needs. However, these changes place additional pressure on the existing roadway network in other areas, and limit access to downtown and anticipated areas of future development. Anticipated growth and development in the Cologne area, along with the associated access changes and system improvements proposed by the City of Cologne to accommodate that growth, are the primary drivers of a future interchange. Factors associated with this growth and development include mobility, safety, access, and community cohesion. Based on these factors, and the findings of the Cologne Transportation Planning Study (EDMS #837594), the following needs and issues have been identified: With the proposed local improvements, forecasted traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the existing TH 212/Market Avenue intersection. Connectivity between the existing community and the future annexed portions of the city (primarily to the south and east) is important to the City of Cologne. Safe and efficient access to the downtown area is important to the City of Cologne, as well as preserving the integrity of its downtown. TH 284 would require significant safety and capacity upgrades to retain its function as the primary regional minor arterial corridor in the area; therefore, an alternate route is needed. The at-grade railroad crossing at Market Avenue is a mobility and safety concern as traffic volume increases. Purpose of the Project The purpose of a future TH 212/Market Avenue interchange is to provide a safe north/south access point from TH 212 that accommodates an anticipated increase in future traffic volumes due to development in the Cologne area. The interchange would take pressure off other local 2 Timeline for full development is dependent on market conditions; not expected for several years. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 10 roads that are anticipated to lack necessary capacity in the future, while preserving downtown Cologne. 3.3 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Potential resource impacts were reviewed during the analysis and probable future studies, permits and approvals, and regulatory requirements were identified (as applicable). Information and data presented in this section were obtained from local, county, state, and federal data sources, private data sources, agency correspondence, project-specific studies, and observations made during field reconnaissance. The evaluation is based on the existing conditions within the footprint and current (2010) laws, regulations, and environmental practices. 3.3.1 Social Issues 3.3.1.1 Environmental Justice Background Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” issued in February 1994, requires that the evaluation of environmental justice be addressed (to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law) in all federal planning and programming activities. The Market Avenue interchange may require federal permits and may receive federal funding in the future. As such, potential environmental justice issues were considered in this Environmental Screening. The purpose of Executive Order 12898 is to identify, address, and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Disproportionate is defined in two ways, 1) the impact is “predominantly borne” by the minority or low-income population group or 2) the impact is “more severe” than that experienced by non-minority or non-low-income populations. The steps for defining potential environmental justice impacts include the following: 1. Identification of the location of low-income population and/or minority population in the project area; 2. Identification of the impacts of the project area upon the identified low-income population and/or minority population; and 3. Determination of whether or not the impacts are disproportionately high or adverse. Existing Conditions Land use surrounding Market Avenue is primarily agricultural, with two residential homes located inside the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. To the west of Market Avenue, land use in the City of Cologne is primarily residential and commercial. To obtain a better understanding of the demographic composition of the area, the 2000 Census was reviewed for population, racial/ethnic, and economic data plus field review of land uses. The census data were reviewed at the Census Tract/Block Group level. The footprint is located within two Block Groups, which are located within separate Census Tracts (see Figure 4 in Appendix E). Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 11 As shown in Table 3-1, the 2000 Census reported minority population levels in both Block Groups as being one to two percent. This compares to about three percent for the City of Cologne, and about four percent in Carver County as a whole. Low-income populations for the purposes of this document are defined as persons with incomes below poverty level. The responses of households reporting income data are weighted to reflect the entire population. The disadvantage of this approach is that estimates for small groups, such as Block Groups, are not exact. As shown in Table 3-2, the 2000 Census reported low-income population levels in the general footprint area as being between two percent and five percent. This compares to about two percent for the City of Cologne, and about 3.5 percent for Carver County as a whole. Although the percentage of low-income households in one of the Block Groups is greater than the percentages for the city and county, the difference is nominal. Potential Impacts Available census data indicate that minority and low-income populations were located in the Block Groups of the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. However, populations within and adjacent to the footprint are not considered to be predominantly low-income or minority communities, nor are any reasonably identifiable low-income or minority populations present in the area. If the Market Avenue interchange were constructed, project impacts would be distributed evenly throughout the project area and the improvements would provide benefits for all who utilize the transportation facility. Therefore, construction of an intersection at Market Avenue would not likely have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to any minority population or low-income population, based on Census 2000 data. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Environmental justice issues should be re-evaluated during future project development. The evaluation should include a re-assessment of whether a population of concern exists at that time (using field review and the most current census data available), an analysis of whether that population (if present) would suffer disproportionately high and adverse effects due to the project, and if necessary, identification of any mitigation measures. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 12 Table 3-1. U.S. Census Data (2000) – Population, Household, and Race (Block Group Data) Demographic Group Households Population · White · Minorities - Black - American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut - Asian Pacific Islander - Other Race - Hispanic Origin(1) - Two or More Races (1) Census Tract 912.02 Census Tract 911 Block Group 2 Percent of Number Population 492 N/A 1,350 100% 1,321 98% 29 2% 0 0% 0 0% 18 1.3% 5 0.4% 17 1.3% 6 0.4% Block Group 2 Percent of Number Population 569 N/A 1,711 100% 1,692 99% 19 1% 0 0% 3 0.2% 6 0.4% 3 0.2% 28 2% 7 0.4% City of Cologne Number 385 1,012 986 26 0 15 0 5 15 6 Percent of Population N/A 100% 97% 3% 0% 1.5% 0% 0.5% 1.5% 0.6% Carver County Number 24,356 70,205 67,361 2,844 417 129 1,106 613 1,791 579 Percent of Population N/A 100% 95.9% 4.1% 0.6% 0.2% 1.6% 0.9% 2.6% 0.8% Source: U.S. 2000 Census Data (http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html). By definition, the Hispanic Origin group also includes other racial groups (White, Black, American Indian, Asian, Other). Table 3-2. U.S. Census Data (2000) – Income and Poverty (Block Group Data) Demographic Group 1999 Median Household Income Persons Below 1999 Poverty Level Persons for Whom Poverty Status is Determined(1) (1) Census Tract 912.02 Census Tract 911 Block Group 2 Percent of Number Population $63,971 N/A 50 5% Block Group 2 Percent of Number Population $63,967 N/A 42 2% 968 1,706 N/A N/A City of Cologne Carver County $54,583 19 Percent of Population N/A 1.9% $65,540 2,391 Percent of Population N/A 3.5% 1,018 N/A 68,614 N/A Number Number Source: U.S. 2000 Census Data (http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html). Numbers are less than population numbers, as poverty status determined for smaller areas such as block groups use weighted samples. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint May 2010 Page 13 3.3.1.2 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Background Minnesota Statute 160.264 (Replacing Bikeways and Pedestrian Ways) states that whenever an existing bikeway, pedestrian way, or roadway used by bicycles or pedestrians or the sole access to such is destroyed by any new, reconstructed, or relocated federal, state, or local highway, the road authority responsible shall replace the destroyed facility or access with a comparable facility or access. Replacement is not required where it would be contrary to public safety or when sparsity of population, other available ways, or other factors indicate an absence of need for such a facility or access. Sparsely populated areas with low volume bicycle use should generally be accommodated through cooperative use of available roadway and shoulder areas. Existing Conditions The majority of the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint and immediate vicinity is located in a sparsely populated agricultural setting. There are no existing sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or multi-use recreational trails within the footprint. TH 212 is designated as a bikeway by Mn/DOT. Currently, bicyclists are permitted to use the TH 212 roadway shoulder as a transportation facility. The City of Cologne’s land use plan indicates that future trails are planned north-south along Market Avenue (see Appendix F) within and near the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Potential Impacts If the Market Avenue interchange were constructed, bicycles would not be accommodated on the TH 212 roadway shoulder through the interchange area3. However, grade-separated crossings of TH 212 and the TC&W Railroad would provide safer north/south crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians and would be consistent with the City’s future park and trail plans. The footprint of the Market Avenue interchange helps identify future right-of-way needs. With future right-ofway needs identified for the roadway, communities would be able to incorporate plans for the potential interchange improvements into their planning for future trails. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future project development, incorporation of sidewalks and trails into the Market Avenue interchange should be considered. Collaboration with Cologne and area communities should occur to plan for adequate, safe trail connections and crossings of TH 212, including mobility on TH 212 by bicyclists. 3 By state law bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of motor vehicles, except when provisions in law address bicyclists specifically (169.01, 169.22, and 169.305). Bicyclists are allowed to use public streets and highways in the state, except controlled-access freeways (MN statute 169.222, subd. 1, 169.305 subd. 1c). Generally bicycling is allowed on all roads unless the road is signed indicating bicycling is prohibited. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 14 3.3.1.3 Property Acquisition, Relocation, and Access Background The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq) and 49 CFR Part 24 promulgated pursuant thereto, requires transportation authorities (e.g., Mn/DOT) to follow specific procedures regarding land acquisition and landowner relocations on all transportation projects undertaken by a federal agency or with federal financial assistance. The authority for this assurance is found in Minnesota Statutes 117.51, 117.52, 117.53, and 645.31(2). Mn/DOT complies with the Uniform Act for Mn/DOT right-of-way acquisitions, including when Mn/DOT acts as an agent for counties, cities, and townships in acquiring property. The responsibility for this compliance is found in Minnesota Statutes 161.36. In regards to access management, Mn/DOT has adopted guidelines to improve traffic safety and operations. Access management is the planning, design, and implementation of land use and transportation strategies in an effort to maintain a safe flow of traffic while accommodating the access needs of adjacent development. Existing Conditions The Market Avenue Interchange Footprint encompasses a total of 90.1 acres, with 43.1 acres located within existing right-of-way and 47 acres located in potential land acquisition areas. There are 18 recorded parcels within the footprint. Residential homes and associated structures are located on two of the parcels. A small portion of a third parcel also has standing structures, but the area within the footprint does not include a dwelling unit. Multiple property and field accesses are located within or adjacent to the footprint. See Figure 5 in Appendix E. Potential Impacts Up to approximately 47 acres of land may need to be acquired to construct the Market Avenue interchange. Of the 18 parcels located within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint, up to seven parcels may be considered total takes. Two of the seven total takes would be residential relocations. The buildings associated with the potential relocations include two houses, two garages, and one shed. Two other sheds not related to the residential relocations may need to be moved. In addition, 20 access points located within or adjacent to the footprint could warrant access relocation due to direct impacts and/or to meet Mn/DOT’s access management guidelines. Figure 5 illustrates these potential impacts. Dependent on interchange geometrics selected, access on Market Avenue will need to be evaluated in relation to ramp termini. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Property acquisition, relocations, and access modifications are anticipated in order to construct an interchange at Market Avenue. These issues should be re-evaluated during future project development. Coordination with each landowner regarding the purchase and/or relocation options of their respective properties would be required by the applicable transportation authority. Means to minimize the impact to the property should also be discussed. Full compliance with the Uniform Act, as amended, would need to be achieved by the transportation Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 15 authority. Additionally, Mn/DOT’s access management guidelines should be further reviewed during future project development, along with coordination with Carver County and Cologne. 3.3.1.4 Economics Background NEPA and MEPA specifically require the consideration of economic impacts of proposed projects. Although the potential Market Avenue interchange is not considered a federal undertaking at this time, potential economic impacts were evaluated. Existing Conditions Land use surrounding Market Avenue is primarily agricultural, with two residential homes located inside the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. No commercial businesses are presently located within the footprint or immediate vicinity. Currently, the City of Cologne’s downtown commercial area can be accessed from TH 212 from the east (via CR 36 East) and from the south (via TH 284/CSAH 53). Potential Impacts Residential relocations and property acquisitions within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint would cause land that is currently being used for residential or agricultural purposes to be converted to public right-of-way. These acquisitions could result in changes to the property tax revenue base of Carver County. Year 2008 net property taxes payable for Carver County were approximately $148 million. It is reasonable to assume that the potential tax losses due to property acquisition for the interchange represent a minor amount of the total taxes payable to the county. The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, would not require the acquisition of land from any commercial properties based on current conditions. In 2009, the City of Cologne plans to annex an area of Benton Township on the north side of TH 212 and west of Market Avenue, near the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. The City anticipates future commercial growth and development in this area. An interchange at Market Avenue would provide easy access to the city’s commercial district for vehicles traveling on TH 212 and would support growth on the eastern edge of Cologne. Interchange areas often draw commercial development (such as gas stations, restaurants, and retail stores), potentially increasing the economic value of land surrounding the interchange. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Economic impacts would need to be reevaluated when the project move forward, as part of the NEPA/MEPA process. Coordination with the City of Cologne should continue regarding planning for an interchange at Market Avenue. 3.3.2 Visual Character Background Per Mn/DOT guidance on visual quality, a Visual Impact Assessment is strongly recommended for a project that requires an EIS, EA (federal) or EAW (state). For other projects, a Visual Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 16 Impact Assessment is generally recommended if the project involves 1) grading beyond the shoulder of the roadway; 2) structures such as bridges and walls; 3) lighting, railings, and fencing; 4) pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and other amenities; and/or 5) vegetation modification (addition or removal). The following describes the general visual character of the interchange study area and the potential for visual impacts, but is not considered a complete Visual Impact Assessment. Existing Conditions The visual character within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint and greater vicinity is dominated by rural residential development, agricultural fields, and maintained right-of-way grasslands, with linear tree windbreaks, relatively small woodlots, and various wetlands scattered throughout. The visual character of the area includes the existing TH 212 and Market Avenue intersection and surrounding roadways. No designated scenic views, vistas, or byways are located within the interchange study area. In addition, the footprint does not contain assigned areas for viewing the surrounding landscape. Potential Impacts Temporary and permanent visual impacts to the rural landscape could result from the construction of a Market Avenue interchange, given the required clearance for a bridge over the railroad and the length of an elevated roadway at Market Avenue. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements A Visual Impact Assessment may need to be completed during future project development. 3.3.3 Land Use Background No specific laws or executive orders regulate the topic of land use impacts. However, NEPA and MEPA form the general basis of consideration for land use issues. The following describes the general land use in the area, existing and planned parks, recreation areas, and trails, and overall compatibility with local land use plans. While state highways are not subject to the local land use plans, the compatibility of a proposed project with local planning efforts is an important consideration. Existing and Planned Conditions Current land use surrounding Market Avenue is primarily agricultural, with two residential homes located inside the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. No commercial businesses are presently located within the footprint or immediate vicinity. To the west of the potential interchange, land use in the City of Cologne is primarily residential and commercial. Currently, the City of Cologne’s downtown commercial area can be accessed from TH 212 from the east (via CR 36 East) and from the south (via TH 284/CSAH 53). There are no publicly owned parks, recreational areas, or trails presently located within or adjacent to the footprint. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 17 Land use surrounding the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint is likely to change in the future regardless of the potential interchange. The City of Cologne is currently in the process of adopting its 2030 Comprehensive Plan; a draft version was submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review in May 2009. The City of Cologne has an orderly annexation agreement with Benton Township for land located northwest of the TH 212/Market Avenue intersection. To grow as planned, the city needs to expand by approximately 900 acres. Additional annexation is likely to occur on all sides of the city, although this expansion is unlikely to reach further east than Market Avenue within the next twenty years. The City’s future land use plan shows that the area surrounding the potential interchange is planned for light industrial and commercial land uses. A map of the City’s future land use is included in Appendix F; the map is an excerpt from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (May 2009). The City of Cologne’s land use plan further indicates that future trails are planned within and near the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint; a future park concept is also shown northwest of the footprint. In addition to the City’s future park and trail plan, Carver County calls for a new regional park (Miller Lake Regional Park) and associated trail connections to be developed around the 2030 timeframe, per their Carver County 2030 Comprehensive Plan adopted February 2010. The area for this potential regional park is located approximately one to 1.5 miles northeast of the footprint. Compatibility with Local Land Use Plans The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, would impact current agricultural land uses but would be consistent with the City’s planned future light industrial and commercial land uses. The potential Market Avenue interchange could provide the City of Cologne and its anticipated annexation area with greater roadway capacity and improved accessibility. If desired, the City of Cologne and Carver County can use zoning laws and land use regulations to control land use change within and around the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint The City of Cologne supports the construction of an interchange at TH 212 and Market Avenue, according the Cologne Transportation Planning Study (Mn/DOT, Carver County, and City of Cologne, October 2004, EDMS #837594). The City anticipates closure of TH 284/CSAH 53 access at TH 212, but would like to maintain a right-in/right-out access to downtown from TH 212. The City is planning several future roadway improvements in the area surrounding the potential Market Avenue interchange. These improvements would not be part of the interchange project and do not yet have construction funding by the City. A new local parkway is anticipated to carry traffic from CSAH 53 to Market Street where it could access TH 212 from the potential interchange. The City also anticipates a slight realignment of CR 36 East prior to the potential interchange at TH 212 and Market Avenue. This is due to the existing railroad crossing on the north side of TH 212. The parkway will also connect to CR 36 on the west side of the city via a new railroad crossing. Plans for a park and ride facility will likely be considered if the interchange at TH 212 and Market Avenue is constructed. The potential Market Avenue interchange would not preclude planned land uses. Planning for an interchange will provide the City of Cologne, and Carver County, with better guidance in future land use planning and decision making. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 18 Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements The purpose of planning for right-of-way needs is to anticipate roadway improvements, which allows development to occur in areas adjacent to the roadway in a manner that would not require costly acquisitions, relocations, and community impacts in the future. If planning efforts do not consider a potential interchange at Market Avenue, development and redevelopment may encroach on the footprint, potentially resulting in a greater potential for social and economic impacts in the future. Coordination with the City of Cologne should continue regarding planning for an interchange at Market Avenue. The City may consider adopting the footprint into their Comprehensive Plan or other land use regulations to assist with land planning around the intersection. 3.3.4 Soil Conditions Background Knowledge of the soil conditions on a site is useful in evaluating several environmental resources—such as farmlands (prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance), wetlands (hydric soils), groundwater (susceptibility to contamination), and surface water quality (steep slopes and erodible soils). The soils information presented below was used during the evaluation of these resources. Existing Conditions Soils within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint are mapped under the Lester-Hayden-Peat Association, according to Soil Survey of Carver County, Minnesota (U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 1968). This association has soils that formed in loamy glacial till. Lester and Hayden soils are well drained loams, with Hayden soils being more strongly sloping than Lester soils. Peat, typically found in depressions, is variable in depth and is underlain by silty material. Less extensive soils in the Lester-Hayden-Peat Association include the Cordova, Webster, and LeSueur soils. Table 3-3 lists the soil map units that are located within the footprint; the soil map units are illustrated in Figure 6 in Appendix E. Table 3-3. Soil Map Units within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint Map Unit CE3 CW Map Unit Name Lester clay loam, 18 to 25% slopes, severely eroded Cordova-Webster complex (loam) Drainage Class Well drained Permeability (inches/hr) 0.6 to 2.0 Hydric Soil --- Farmland Rating --- Poorly drained 0.2 to 0.6 All Hydric Prime Farmland if drained Prime Farmland if drained Prime Farmland if drained Prime Farmland GL Glencoe clay loam Very poorly drained 0.1 to 2.0 All Hydric HM Hamel loam Poorly drained 0.2 to 0.6 All Hydric LA Le Sueur-Lester loams, 1 to 4% slopes Moderately well drained 0.6 to 2.0 --- Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 19 Map Unit LB2 Lester loam, 2 to 6% slopes Drainage Class Well drained Permeability (inches/hr) 0.6 to 2.0 Hydric Soil --- LC Lester loam, 6 to 12% slopes Well drained 0.6 to 2.0 --- LC2 Lester loam, 6 to 12% slopes, eroded Lester loam, 12 to 18% slopes, eroded Lester loam, 18 to 25% slopes, eroded Houghton and Muskego soils (muck) Terril loam, 0 to 6% slopes Well drained 0.6 to 2.0 --- Well drained 0.6 to 2.0 --- Farmland Rating Prime Farmland Statewide Importance Statewide Importance --- Well drained 0.6 to 2.0 --- --- Very poorly drained Moderately well drained 0.6 to 6.0 0.1 to 0.2 0.6 to 2.0 All Hydric --- Statewide Importance Prime Farmland LD2 LE2 MK TB Map Unit Name Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed April 9, 2009). Soil map units that have areas with greater than 12 percent slopes can generally be subject to erosion when vegetation is removed. In addition, soil map units that contain descriptions like “eroded” can be an indication of an erosion hazard. The following soil map units within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint are associated with steep slopes and/or erodible soils (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed April 9, 2009): CE3 – Lester clay loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded LC2 – Lester loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded LD2 – Lester loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded LE2 – Lester loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes, eroded Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey data regarding the hazard of soil loss from exposed off-road and off-trail areas were also reviewed. The ratings indicate the likelihood and severity of erosion after disturbance activities expose 50 to 75 percent of the soil surface. The ratings are based on slope and soil erosion factor K (factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water). The hazard is described as slight, moderate, severe, or very severe. Per NRCS, definitions of these terms are listed below: Slight indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. Moderate indicates that some erosion is likely and that erosion control measures may be needed. Severe indicates that erosion is very likely and that erosion control measures are advised. Very severe indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage are likely, and that erosion control measures will be costly. Soil map units CE3, LD2, and LE2 are rated as moderate for erosion potential by the NRCS; all other soil map units are rated as slight. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 20 3.3.5 Farmlands 3.3.5.1 Prime or Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance Background Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and other agricultural crops. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops (e.g., cranberry bogs, wild rice areas, and orchards). Designation of prime and unique farmland is made by the NRCS. Farmland of statewide or local importance is land in addition to prime and unique farmland that is of statewide or local importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Designation of this farmland is made by appropriate state and local agencies in coordination with the NRCS. Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance are determined by soil map units, whereas the unique farmland designation is based on land use. Congress enacted the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) as a subtitle of the 1981 Agriculture and Food Act. FPPA ensures that impacts on agricultural lands are considered during the environmental decision-making process. To rate the relative impact of a project on farmlands subject to FPPA, project sponsors and local NRCS staff fill out a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006). The rating form is based on a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system. LESA is a numerical system that measures the quality of farmland. In general, the higher the LESA score, the more appropriate the site is for protection. Existing Conditions Approximately 51 acres of prime farmland and 33 acres of farmland of statewide importance are located within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed April 9, 2009), of which 21 acres of prime farmland and 19 acres of farmland of statewide importance are located within existing TH 212 right-of-way. Figure 6 in Appendix E shows the location of these resources displayed by soil map units. See Table 3-3 for a list of soils indicating prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. No unique farmland is located within the interchange footprint. Potential Impacts Based on the ultimate right-of-way needed for the selected interchange within the footprint area, up to 30 acres of prime farmland and 14 acres of farmland of statewide importance could be converted by the Market Avenue interchange. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future project development, if a federal NEPA process is used, Form AD-1006 should be completed and submitted to the local NRCS office for review to determine the relative impact on farmlands. Per FPPA guidance, sites receiving a score of less than 160 do not require further evaluation. Alternatives should be considered for sites with a score equal to or greater than 160. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 21 3.3.5.2 Agricultural Preserves Background Two Minnesota statutes (Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act [M.S. 473H] and State Agricultural Land Preservation Policy [M.S. 40A]) were enacted in the 1980s to establish an agricultural land protection program. Under this program, local governments may identify suitable areas for agricultural preserves and offer property tax credits and other incentives to farmers who place a restrictive covenant on applicable land to limit its use to agriculture for a defined time period (at least eight years). Agricultural preserve land may be used for essential services, including transportation, only if no other alternatives exist. When 10 or more acres of land from an individual parcel registered with the agricultural preserves program will be impacted, the procedure in M.S. 473H.15 (Eminent Domain Actions) must be followed. The first step of this procedure requires filing a Notice of Intent with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at least 60 days prior to acquiring the land. The EQB reviews the proposed action to determine the effect of the action on the agricultural resources within the preserves; the review process may be carried out jointly with any other environmental impact review. Existing Conditions Four parcels with 18 acres of land included in the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program are found within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint; one individual parcel has more than 10 acres enrolled (http://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/LWS/docs/ag_preserves.pdf, accessed May 17, 2007). Figure 6 in Appendix E shows the locations of these resources. Potential Impacts Any agricultural preserve land within the footprint today, or by future enrollment, could be converted to non-agricultural use by construction of an interchange in this location. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Given the interchange may not be constructed for many years and the amount of land under restrictive covenant may change, a re-evaluation of agricultural preserves (number of parcels and acreage of land) would be necessary during future project development to determine impacts and necessary procedures. 3.3.6 Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Background The Section 4(f) legislation, as established under the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (SAFETEA-LU), provides protection for publicly owned parks, recreation areas, historic sites, and wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges from conversion to a transportation use. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may not approve the use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site, unless a determination is made that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 22 from the property and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use (23 CFR 774). Additional protection is provided for outdoor recreational lands under the Section 6(f) legislation (16 USC 4602-8(f) (3)) where Land and Water Conservation (LAWCON) funds were used for the planning, acquisition, or development of property. These properties may be converted to non-outdoor recreational use only if replacement land of at least the same fair market values and reasonable equivalent usefulness and location is assured. Existing Conditions There are no existing publicly owned parks, recreation areas, or wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. In addition, the footprint does not contain outdoor recreational lands where LAWCON funds have been used for planning, acquisition, or development of property. However, historic properties are located within the interchange footprint and immediate vicinity. Potential Impacts The Market Avenue interchange could potentially result in adverse effects to historic properties. See Section 3.3.7 (Cultural Resources) for additional information. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future project development, a formal Section 4(f) evaluation could be required for historic properties if adverse effects are identified. The need for this evaluation would be dependent on the outcome of the future historic properties assessment (see Section 3.3.7). In addition, the area should be re-evaluated for publicly owned parks, trails, and recreation areas, since land use in the vicinity of the footprint is likely to change over the years. 3.3.7 Cultural Resources Background Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) requires that impacts to historic properties, defined as those eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), be considered before implementation of a federal undertaking. Although the potential Market Avenue interchange is not considered a federal undertaking at this time, the cultural resources evaluation for the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint was conducted in accordance with Section 106. The following tasks were performed as part of the evaluation: Phase I and II archaeological survey/evaluation; Historical archaeological analysis; Phase I and II historic structures identification/evaluation; and Effects analysis of the potential Market Avenue interchange on properties listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 23 Two reports contain the results of these analyses (Phase I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 21CR0145, Trunk Highway 212 Improvement Project (Part C), Carver County, Minnesota, dated January 2008, EDMS #838085; and Phase I and II (Identification and Evaluation) Investigation of Historic Structures Near US Highway 212 and Market Avenue in the Vicinity of Cologne, Carver County, Minnesota (SP 1013-78, TH 212, Pt C), dated February 2008, EDMS #837603). These reports are available for review at Mn/DOT Metro District. A summary of the findings is provided below. 3.3.7.1 Archaeological Sites Existing Conditions For the Phase I archaeological survey, the original Area of Potential Effect (APE) was defined as 500 feet on either side of the existing TH 212 and Market Avenue roadways and 1,000 feet around the existing TH 212 and Market Avenue intersection. The APE for archaeological resources changed during consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and is now defined by the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint, which is less extensive than the original APE. Figure 7 in Appendix E illustrates the initial archaeological APE and the current footprint. The Phase I archaeological survey identified two archaeological sites (21CR0146 and 21CR0145) within the original APE (see Figure 7). Site 21CR0146 produced an isolated biface (i.e., two-sided stone tool) within a cultivated field; no additional cultural materials were identified. This site was recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP as it did not produce diagnostic cultural materials. SHPO concurred with this determination. Site 21CR0145 is a precontact artifact scatter located on a wooded upland on the shore of a drained lake. This site produced a concentration of cultural material from within an intact soil profile, thus a Phase II archaeological evaluation was conducted. Due to the overall scarcity of artifacts encountered across the site during the Phase II evaluation, site 21CR0145 was considered unable to yield information important to understanding the past and was recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. SHPO, however, did not concur with this determination. The SHPO response letter (dated April 8, 2008) is included in Appendix G. Two farmsteads were also evaluated during the Phase I survey to determine their archaeological potential through application of the Minnesota farmstead historic context (see Figure 7). The Hesse/Laumann farmstead (12830 CR 41) is only partially located within the original APE. The portion of the farmstead within the original APE does not meet the requirements for a potentially NRHP-eligible farmstead archaeological site. Therefore, no further work was recommended at this location. During the evaluation, the Sauter/Thaemert farmstead (13040 Market Avenue) appeared to have moderate to high potential for containing significant intact archaeological resources; however, subsurface excavation was not permissible. The Phase I report recommended testing for historic archaeological resources for this location. Potential Impacts Site 21CR0145 is located outside the revised archaeological APE. Therefore, it is anticipated that this site would not likely be affected by the Market Avenue interchange. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 24 The Sauter/Thaemert farmstead has moderate to high potential for containing archaeological resources, and could be a potentially NRHP-eligible farmstead archaeological site. Similar to site 21CR0145, the farmstead is not located within the revised archaeological APE. Therefore, the Market Avenue interchange would not likely impact the site. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements A re-evaluation of archaeological resources and further consultation with SHPO should be conducted during future project development. 3.3.7.2 Historic Structures Existing Conditions An architectural history APE was established by taking into consideration the possibility of right-of-way acquisition, construction activity, visual and auditory effects, changes to traffic patterns, and impacts from raised highway structures. This resulted in an APE that is broader than the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. The architectural history APE is illustrated in Figure 7 in Appendix E. A total of 34 properties in the architectural history APE were inventoried during the Phase I standing structures (architecture-history) investigation. After conducting fieldwork and research, 18 properties were identified for further evaluation to determine their NRHP eligibility (Phase II properties). During the Phase II investigation, 15 properties were found to be listed on, or eligible for listing on, the NRHP (see Table 3-4 and Figure 7). Grey highlighting in the table indicates the historic properties that could be adversely affected by a Market Avenue interchange project. Table 3-4. Phase II Properties Listed on or Eligible for Listing on the NRHP SHPO Inventory # Name Address CR-BNT-126 Sauter Farmstead(2) 13040 Market Avenue Benton Township CR-BNT-135 Meuleners Farmstead 410 Park Street E Benton Township CR-BNT-136 Hastings & Dakota RR, Benton Township Segment Twin Cities & Western Railroad CR-BNT-137 CM&StP Benton Cutoff, Benton Township Segment Twin Cities & Western Railroad CR-CLC-002 Mohrbacher House (a) 215 Lake Street E Cologne Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint NRHP Eligibility(1) Eligible under Criterion C, house*, barn Eligible under Criterion C, barn Eligible under Criterion A, railroad Eligible under Criterion A, railroad Eligible under Criterion C, house Potential Adverse Effect? Yes No Yes Possible No April 2010 Page 25 SHPO Inventory # Name Address CR-CLC-005 Mohrbacher House (b) 102 Paul Avenue S Cologne CR-CLC-008 Knotz House 302 Paul Avenue S Cologne CR-CLC-017 Dols and Jorissen/American House 101 Paul Avenue N Cologne CR-CLC-021 Schepers Bros/Eiden Bros Hardware 112 Paul Avenue N Cologne CR-CLC-025 Jorissen Furniture and Undertaking 204 Paul Avenue S Cologne CR-CLC-027 Hastings & Dakota RR, Cologne Segment Twin Cities & Western Railroad CR-DHL-036 Hesse Farmstead(2) 12830 CR 41 Dahlgren Township CR-DHL-037 Buehler Farmstead 9170 CR 36 E Dahlgren Township CR-DHL-040 CM&StP Benton Cutoff, Dahlgren Township Segment Twin Cities & Western Railroad CR-DHL-041 Hastings & Dakota RR, Dahlgren Township Segment Twin Cities & Western Railroad (1) NRHP Eligibility(1) Listed under Criteria B & C, house* Listed under Criterion B, house Eligible under Criterion A(3), house – now commercial building Eligible under Criterion A, commercial building Eligible under Criteria A or B, commercial building Eligible under Criterion A, railroad Eligible under Criterion C, farmhouse* Eligible under Criterion C, barn Eligible under Criterion A, railroad Eligible under Criterion A, railroad Potential Adverse Effect? No No No(3) No No Yes Yes No Possible Yes Criterion A – property is associated with important broad pattern of history. Criterion B – property is associated with an important person. Criterion C – property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. (2) Also evaluated during Phase I archaeological survey. (3) SHPO questioned NRHP eligibility due to recent rehabilitation of the building; SHPO did not formally concur with the “no adverse effect” determination for this property. * Chaska Brick House Potential Impacts The footprint has been drawn to avoid direct impacts to eligible structures (two Chaska brick houses within Sauter and Hesse farmsteads). If constructed, the Market Avenue interchange could potentially result in adverse effects to the adjacent NRHP-eligible properties, including Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 26 five segments of historic railroad (Table 3-4). SHPO concurred with these findings; the SHPO response letter (dated January 22, 2009) is included in Appendix G. During Section 106 consultation, SHPO questioned the NRHP eligibility of site CR-CLC-017 (Dols and Jorissen/American House) due to recent rehabilitation of the building. SHPO stated that no further evaluation of site CR-CLC-017 is necessary, unless a change in project plans would result in potential effects to the property. However, SHPO did not formally concur with the “no adverse effect” determination for this property. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Given it may be many years before the interchange is constructed, additional properties within the APE may become eligible for listing on the NRHP. Therefore, the Phase I historic structures evaluation should be updated during future project development. Additional consultation with SHPO would be required to verify which historic properties could potentially be adversely impacted by the Market Avenue interchange. A Programmatic Agreement with SHPO would likely be required to address the mitigation measures needed to ensure the preservation of the NRHP-eligible properties. 3.3.8 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources Existing Conditions Vegetation within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint includes a mix of naturallyoccurring and landscaped plant species. Land use primarily consists of rural residential, agricultural fields, and maintained right-of-way grasslands, with linear tree windbreaks, relatively small woodlots, and various wetlands scattered throughout. The greater vicinity is comprised of similar land use. Grasslands within the existing right-of-way are occasionally maintained during the growing season via mowing and/or other methods. Vegetation is comprised of grasses and forbs, generally including smooth brome, bluegrass, goldenrod, milkweed, and asters. These areas typically have low diversity, and therefore low quality habitat. However, these areas may provide nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds such as pheasant, and for small mammals such as mice and gophers, which provide food sources for hawks and owls. Woodlots within and adjacent to the footprint are consistent with the Mesic Hardwood Forest (MH) and Fire-Dependent Forest/Woodland (FD) Systems of the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section, Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [DNR], 2005). MH communities are generally characterized by basswood, maples, and oaks; other dominant tree species include a mixture of elms, paper birch, quaking and big-toothed aspen, black and green ash, bitternut hickory, black cherry, and hackberry. FD communities are primarily dominated by aspen and oaks, with bur oaks as the most common species. The woodlots within the interchange study area consist of similar tree species. Eastern cottonwood, maples, oaks, elms, birch, and ash trees were identified as dominant species during field observations. Other less extensive but common tree species identified were spruce and aspen. Woodlots and tree windbreaks around residences and agricultural fields serve as wildlife Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 27 habitat, though the habitat is considered relatively low quality. Wildlife in these areas generally includes songbirds and small mammals, but may consist of raptors, woodpeckers, waterfowl, deer, raccoon, skunk, muskrat, and snakes. There are several wetlands (see Section 3.3.10.1) of various types located within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. The most common wetland type is shallow marsh, which is typically dominated with cattails and other emergent vegetation. Seasonally flooded basins are also present, most of which are planted annually to agricultural crops. These and other wetlands in the area provide habitat for ducks, geese, muskrat, other small mammals, birds, frogs, turtles, and salamanders. Potential Impacts Grasslands, woodlots, tree windbreaks, and wetlands could be converted to right-of-way for the Market Avenue interchange. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Design modifications near woodlots and wetlands should be considered during final design to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitats to the extent feasible. 3.3.9 Special Status Species and Critical Habitat Background This section discusses plant and animal species that are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate for listing under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is the geographic area, whether occupied by listed species or not, that is determined to be essential for the conservation and management of federally-listed species. This section also discusses state-listed plant and animal species and significant ecological resources. In Minnesota, the DNR Division of Ecological Resources maintains the Natural Heritage Information System, a collection of databases that provides information on the state’s rare plants and animals, native plant communities, and other rare features. Existing Conditions County distribution information on federally-listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for Minnesota (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/minnesotcty.html, accessed September 8, 2009) indicates no federally-listed species presently occur in Carver County. According to the USFWS’s Critical Habitat Portal (http://crithab.fws.gov, accessed September 8, 2009), no final or proposed critical habitat is located in the county. The DNR Division of Ecological Resources reviewed the interchange study area for the presence of rare plant and animal species and other significant ecological resources within approximately one mile of the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Based on the DNR’s review, no recorded rare features are located within the footprint. The DNR’s response is included in Appendix G. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 28 Potential Impacts Based on 2009 USFWS information sources and the DNR’s review, it is anticipated that the Market Avenue interchange would not result in impacts to state- or federally-listed species or critical habitat. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future project development, an updated review with the USFWS should be conducted as necessary to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, if the project will be federally funded. In addition, the DNR Division of Ecological Resources should review the project area for the presence of rare plant and animal species and other significant ecological resources in the area, given that new information may be available in the future. 3.3.10 Water Resources 3.3.10.1 Wetlands Background There are several laws that regulate activity within wetland areas with the intent to preserve wetlands, water quality, and wildlife habitat, among other important wetland functions. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, at the federal level, is implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and requires applicants to document avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts prior to approving a permit. Mn/DOT is also required to meet Executive Order 11990, which states that all federal projects must demonstrate that there are no practicable alternatives to construction in wetlands. Similarly, at the state level, there is the Public Waters Work Permit that is implemented by the DNR for activities in waters that are identified on Public Waters Inventory (PWI) maps. In addition, there is the Wetland Conservation Act, which is implemented by Mn/DOT in this case, with oversight and review by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and the applicable local governments. Additional layers of regulation addressing grading and erosion control in and around wetlands are also currently in place by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Carver County. Existing Conditions Mn/DOT conducted a wetland inventory for the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint and surrounding area during the summer of 2007. In general, the study area covered a 1,000-foot radius around the existing TH 212 and Market Avenue intersection. Wetland boundaries were estimated based on field review, aerial photography, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, and NRCS Carver County Soil Survey maps. The results of the wetland inventory are summarized below. A copy of the complete Wetland Inventory (dated July 26, 2007) is on file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #839909). A total of 21 wetlands, including one DNR protected waters (DNR #34W; ID #1069/1070), were identified within the interchange study area. The inventoried wetlands are listed in Table 3-5 and are shown on Figure 8 in Appendix E. The wetland type and estimated size are provided Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 29 for each wetland; the data source is also indicated. Grey highlighting in the table indicates the wetlands that are located within or partially within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Table 3-5. Wetland Characteristics and Potential Impacts ID # Classification Cowardin 1054 PEMCd 1055 PEMC 1056 PEMCd 1057 PEMAd 1058 PUBG 1059 PUBF 1060 PEMC 1061 PEMAd 1062 PEMAd 1063 PEMC 1064 PEMAd 1065 PEMC 1066 PEMC 1067 PEMC 1068 PEMC 1069 PEMAd 1070 PEMCd Eggers and Reed 2007 Shallow Marsh Shallow Marsh Shallow Marsh Seasonally Flooded Basin Shallow, Open Water Deep Marsh Shallow Marsh Seasonally Flooded Basin Seasonally Flooded Basin Shallow Marsh Seasonally Flooded Basin Shallow Marsh Shallow Marsh Shallow Marsh Shallow Marsh Seasonally Flooded Basin Shallow Marsh Area within Study Area DNR NWI(1) Data Source/ Disturbance Potential Impact sq ft acres 2,752 0.06 P 7,915 0.18 P 140,446 3.22 N 16,807 0.39 N 8,442 0.19 P Mapping 0.001 20,510 0.47 P Mapping 0 5,155 0.12 P Mapping 0 32,975 0.76 N Mapping / farmed 0.11 15,024 0.34 P Mapping / farmed 0 24,331 0.56 N Mapping 0.16 57,456 1.32 P Mapping 0 28,987 0.67 P 30,636 0.70 P 50,727 1.16 P 17,908 0.41 P 762,037 17.49 34W P Mapping / farmed 1.60 93,767 2.15 34W P Mapping 0.13 Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint acres Mapping Mapping and field review Mapping and field review Ditch with wetland vegetation Mapping and field review Mapping / farmed Mapping / farmed Mapping and field review 0 0 1.95 0.39 0.43 0.15 0 0.41 April 2010 Page 30 ID # Classification Cowardin 1071 PEMAd 1072 PEMAd 1073 PEMAd 1074 PEMCd Eggers and Reed 2007 Seasonally Flooded Basin Seasonally Flooded Basin Seasonally Flooded Basin Shallow Marsh Total (1) Area within Study Area DNR NWI(1) sq ft acres 15,629 0.36 N 11,971 0.27 N 22,341 0.51 N 21,442 0.49 N 1,387,258 31.9 Data Source/ Disturbance Potential Impact acres Ditch with wetland vegetation Ditch with wetland vegetation Ditch with wetland vegetation Mapping 0 0 0 0 5.3 NWI notations: Y = Yes, this is an NWI labeled wetland; N = No, this is not an NWI labeled wetland; and P = There is partial overlap between this wetland and the NWI mapping. Grey highlighting in the table indicates the wetlands that are located within or partially within the footprint. Potential Impacts The interchange footprint has been configured to avoid as much wetland as possible at this planning stage, with impacts primarily associated with ditches crossing through the study area and wetlands at the fringe of the footprint. The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, could impact up to 5.3 acres of wetland, potentially affecting 10 wetlands (Table 3-5 and Figure 8). A general comparison of potential wetland impacts by the footprint concepts are illustrated is the exhibits found in Appendix C. Of the total acres of wetland within the footprint, roughly 3.4 acres are located within existing TH 212 right-of-way. Several of the wetlands are farmed and/or have been previously modified by ditches, drain tile, or other farming practices. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Detailed wetland delineations and quality assessments should be conducted, as needed, during future project development. During the NEPA/MEPA review process, completion of a Wetland Assessment and Two Part Finding would be required to meet Executive Order 11990, which requires wetland avoidance and minimization to be incorporated into the interchange design. In addition, coordination with the Corps, DNR, BWSR, MPCA (401 Certification) would be required to obtain the necessary approvals and to determine the specific permit and mitigation requirements for the project. 3.3.10.2 Surface Waters Background The DNR Division of Waters maintains maps that show protected water bodies in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103G. The statute requires that a permit be obtained before making any alterations in the course, current, or cross-section of these waters. The types of protected waters that exist under this classification are basins, ditches, and watercourses. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 31 The Carver County Ditch Authority has jurisdiction over county ditches. Changes to such ditches must be in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Existing Conditions PWI Maps, aerial photographs, topographic maps, and the Carver County Water Management Plan (June 2001) were reviewed to identify surface waters, ditches, and watercourses in the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. One public ditch (Carver County Ditch No. 6) and one protected wetland (DNR #34W) are located approximately one-half mile east of the existing intersection of TH 212 and Market Avenue (see Figure 8 in Appendix E). County Ditch No. 6 ultimately flows south to Bevens Creek. This ditch is not located within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Two non-public drainage ditches cross the footprint; these ditches direct surface water flow to County Ditch No. 6. The DNR protected wetland is partially located within the footprint. Given the agricultural land use, soils, rolling topography, and the known presence of surface inlets within the footprint, it is likely that there are also subsurface agricultural drain tile systems present; however, the locations for these systems are unknown. Potential Impacts The Market Avenue Interchange Footprint includes portions of the existing non-public drainage ditches that flow through the area. The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, could change the current ditch alignments, depending on the interchange design. In addition, the interchange could impact up to 1.7 acres of the DNR protected wetland (DNR# 34W). Impacts to subsurface agricultural drain tile systems could also occur. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future evaluations, coordination with the DNR, and property owners would be required to address potential impacts. 3.3.10.3 Groundwater Background Groundwater sensitivity characterizes the surface water/groundwater interface in relation to its effect on groundwater quality and describes the estimated vertical travel time for water-borne surface contaminants to enter the uppermost bedrock aquifers. High groundwater sensitivity does not necessarily indicate that water quality has been or would become degraded, while low groundwater sensitivity does not guarantee that water will remain pristine. Potential for groundwater contamination depends on the following factors: 1) the properties of the contaminant itself; 2) the direction of groundwater movement; 3) permeability of the soils above the water resource; and 4) the presence or absence of a confining layer above the water resource. Hydrogeology, soil conditions, and information contained in the Carver County Water Management Plan (June 2001) were reviewed to aid in the evaluation of potential impacts to groundwater. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 32 Existing conditions Several aquifers exist within the Carver County region, but the interchange study area is predominately located above the St. Peter, Prairie du Chien/Jordan, and St. Lawrence/Franconia aquifers. The St. Peter aquifer is made up solely by the St. Peter sandstone formation, with pumping yields ranging from 100 to 250 gallons per minute (gpm). The Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer yields from 500 to 1,000 gpm and can exceed 2,000 gpm. This formation consists of several types of rock in the Prairie du Chien group and Jordan sandstone. The Lawrence/ Franconia bed acts as a confining layer due to its silty and shaley composition. The formation is present throughout the county and is missing only in areas where erosion has created bedrock valleys. While it does perform a confining function, it does not completely stop the movement of water. The rate of flow through this formation is slower than other formations typically considered aquifers. According to County Well Index well records, the minimum depth to groundwater is zero feet; the average depth is around 175 feet below ground surface. The regional groundwater flow direction is estimated to be southeasterly. It should be noted that the depth and gradient of the water table might change seasonally in response to variation in precipitation and recharge, and over time in response to urban development such as stormwater controls, impervious surfaces, and water wells. Per the Carver County Water Management Plan, the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint is primarily located within an area with low to medium groundwater sensitivity. However, there appears to be portions of the footprint that are classified as having high groundwater sensitivity. Potential Impacts Despite the loamy nature and relatively slow permeability rates of the dominant soils in the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint (see Table 3-3), there is potential for groundwater contamination due to the shallow water table and potential high groundwater sensitivity in portions of the footprint. Infiltration of surface water runoff should not be permitted in highly sensitive groundwater areas. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future project development, the anticipated construction limits should be further evaluated to determine the likely extent of highly sensitive groundwater areas, if they exist. If so, a management plan would be required for properly handling, treating, storing, and disposing of solid wastes, hazardous materials, petroleum products, and other regulated materials/wastes that are used or generated during construction. 3.3.10.4 Wells Background Wells are regulated by the Minnesota Department of Health's Well Management Program. Wells impacted by a project (within right-of-way) need to be abandoned and sealed by a licensed contractor according to Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) standards (Minnesota Rules Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 33 Chapter 4725). Temporarily dewatering a well typically requires a DNR groundwater appropriation permit. Existing Conditions There are no MDH designated Wellhead Protection Areas or wells that have completed MDH source water assessments located within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Source water assessments provide basic information about public water supplies and their susceptibility to contamination. Five private wells are located within or adjacent to the footprint. The wells are summarized in Table 3-6 and are shown in Figure 8. Wells were identified using the County Well Index database (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/cwi). Table 3-6. Private Wells within or adjacent to the Footprint Number 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Unique Well Number 484758 484792 W0020007 450949 543723 Address Township 13040 Market Avenue 9620 CR 36 East Market Avenue, south of TH 212 9475 CR 36 East 12880 CR 41 Benton Benton Dahlgren Dahlgren Dahlgren Located within Footprint No Yes Yes No No Potential Impacts The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, could result in permanent impacts to two wells (484792 and W0020007), which would require abandoning and sealing the wells per state and local regulations. Wells 484758, 450949, and 543723 are situated adjacent to the footprint and may need to be protected during construction. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future project development, wells should be re-evaluated to determine their presence within the project footprint. Permanent impacts to wells would require abandonment of the wells per state and local regulations. If any additional wells are discovered within the construction limits, these wells would also need to be properly abandoned. If temporary dewatering is needed during project construction, a DNR groundwater appropriation permit may be required. 3.3.10.5 Floodplains Existing Conditions Per Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps that encompass the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint, no designated 100-year floodplains are located within or immediately adjacent to the footprint. Potential Impacts Based on current FEMA maps, the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint does not likely encroach into a designated floodplain area. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 34 Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future project development, the applicable FEMA maps should be re-evaluated to verify that floodplains do not occur in the interchange study area. 3.3.10.6 Water-Related Management Districts Background This section discusses Wild and Scenic Rivers, Canoe and Boating Routes, and Shoreland Zoning Districts. The purpose of the Federal and State Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts is to preserve and protect Wild and Scenic Rivers and their immediate environments for benefit of present and future generations. The purpose of Minnesota Statute 85.32 (Canoe and Boating Routes) is to mark rivers which have historic and scenic values and to mark appropriately points of interest, portages, campsites, and all dams, rapids, waterfalls, whirlpools, and other serious hazards which are dangerous to canoe and watercraft travelers. According to Carver County Ordinance 57, Chapter 153 (Water Resources Management), development and land use changes in shoreland areas shall meet the requirements of Minnesota Rules Parts 6120.3300. Existing Conditions There are no state or federally designated wild or scenic rivers or canoe and boating routes within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint, nor is the footprint located within a local shoreland zoning district. Potential Impacts No wild or scenic rivers, canoe or boating routes, or shoreland management areas would be impacted by an interchange at Market Avenue. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future evaluations, coordination with Carver County and/or DNR should be conducted to confirm that no management districts have been established within the footprint area. 3.3.10.7 Water Quality Background Carver County manages surface waters within its jurisdiction through Ordinance 57. The county ordinance includes policies that regulate runoff rate, runoff quality, and runoff volume. In accordance with the requirements, proposed peak flow rates from a project are limited to that of the pre-project condition. Stormwater treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as stormwater ponds or infiltration basins are required in order to meet water quality standards, and to provide infiltration/filtration of 0.34 inches of runoff from a project’s total impervious area. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 35 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, managed by the MPCA, requires permanent stormwater treatment BMPs for projects that create new areas of impervious surfaces. The MPCA requires additional stormwater treatment measures when an area drains to impaired waters (i.e., treatment of 1 inch of runoff from the additional impervious surface area instead of 0.5 inch of runoff). Currently, a NPDES permit is required for construction activities that disturb one or more acres of total land area. Mn/DOT has also developed specific requirements for surface water management that includes criteria for culvert, ditch, and BMP design. Existing Conditions Benton Lake and Bevens Creek are MPCA-designated impaired waters. These resources are located within one mile of the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Land use surrounding Market Avenue is primarily agricultural, with two residential homes located inside the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Farming practices in the area are generally row crops with some areas of pasture or hayland. There are several clusters of wetland areas within the footprint. While forestland and grassland generally do not produce much stormwater runoff, agricultural land (especially row crops) is considered to have a relatively high runoff rate. For the most part, stormwater runoff flows directly into the surrounding ditches and is conveyed to adjacent watercourses. Vegetated ditches and medians may provide limited surface water quality treatment via sedimentation and filtration of stormwater. Stormwater from the footprint area drains to County Ditch No. 6 and ultimately to Bevens Creek. Potential Impacts Up to approximately 90 acres of land, some of which includes potential erosion-prone areas, could be graded and/or excavated within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, could result in an increase in impervious area of up to 12.6 acres. This would result in an increase in stormwater runoff volumes and peak discharges, which may lead to additional pollutant loading, erosion, and sedimentation if not properly controlled. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements If the Market Avenue interchange is constructed, it is anticipated that a NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MN F100001, issued August 1, 2008, or current version at the time of construction) from the MPCA would be required. Impaired waters in the area would also need to be identified. Among other requirements, the General Permit currently mandates the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which details how stormwater is controlled (e.g., BMPs). Special attention would need to be given to areas with steep slopes, erodible soils, and nearby water resources. Also, relevant BMPs contained in Mn/DOT’s standard specifications 1717, 2573, and 2575 (2005 edition or current version at the time of construction), special provisions, and details would likely need to be used. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 36 3.3.11 Air Quality Background Air quality analysis for transportation projects includes two pollutant types: carbon monoxide (CO) and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). Carbon monoxide is the traffic-related pollutant of most concern in urban areas. It is also the pollutant with the most well established tools for determining the effects of air quality of a specific roadway improvement. All environmental documentation must include a discussion of MSATs. However, due to lack of existing scientific evidence of the health impacts of MSATs, or tools to analyze their effects on a project-level scale, most of the text for this discussion is in the form of prepared statements developed by FHWA. The Market Avenue interchange project should fall into one of the following categories, which require the appropriate text: 1. Exempt projects or projects with no meaningful potential MSAT effects 2. Projects with low potential MSAT effects 3. Projects with higher potential MSAT effects Existing Conditions Carbon monoxide – The EPA re-designated the Twin Cities seven county metro area as a maintenance area for CO in 1999. The attainment status is contingent upon the implementation of measures to assure that CO concentrations remain below standards. The contingency stipulates that future CO concentrations be modeled for certain proposed transportation projects. The need for CO analysis is most commonly established by using Mn/DOT’s “Hot-Spot Screening Methodology" and determining whether a project is regionally significant. A cursory appraisal of the potential Market Avenue interchange indicates that the intersection would not exceed the hot-spot screening threshold. Additionally, the Market Avenue interchange, independent of other proposed TH 212 corridor improvements, may not be regarded as regionally significant. MSATs – Projects with higher potential MSAT effects are generally considered to include roadways carrying an ADT of more than 140,000 vehicles per day. In the future, neither the Market Avenue intersection nor the TH 212 corridor to the west and east of the junction are expected to carry this much traffic. Therefore, it is likely that the Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, would have low potential MSAT effects. Specific language relating to the construction of a new interchange is provided by FHWA. Potential Impacts It is anticipated that the Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, would not result in significant impacts to air quality. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Analysis of air quality will need to be completed consistent with the regulatory requirements in place at the time the project moves forward. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 37 3.3.12 Noise Background Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. Sound travels in a wave motion and produces a sound pressure level. This sound pressure level is commonly measured in decibels. Decibels (dB) represent the logarithm of the ratio of a sound energy relative to a reference sound energy. For highway traffic noise, an adjustment, or weighting, of the high- and low- pitched sound is made to approximate the way that an average person hears sound. The adjusted sound levels are stated in units of “A-weighted decibels” (dBA). A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible by the human ear; a 5 dBA increase is noticeable; and a 10 dBA increase is heard twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases to where there is 10 times the sound energy level over a reference level, then there is a 10 dBA increase and it is heard twice as loud. Table 3-7 provides a rough comparison of the noise levels of some common noise sources. Table 3-7. Decibel Levels of Common Noise Sources Sound Pressure Level (dBA) 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Noise Source Jet Engine (at 75 feet) Jet Aircraft (at 300 feet) Rock and Roll Concert Pneumatic Chipper Jointer/Planer Chainsaw Heavy Truck Traffic Business Office Conversational Speech Library Bedroom Secluded Woods Whisper Source: A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/noise.html and Highway Traffic Noise, Federal Highway Administration, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/htnoise.htm. In Minnesota, traffic noise impacts are evaluated by measuring and/or modeling the traffic noise levels that are exceeded 10 percent and 50 percent of the time during the hours of the day and/or night that have the loudest traffic scenario. These numbers are identified as the L10 and L50 levels, respectively. The L10 value is the noise level that is exceeded for a total of 10 percent, or six minutes, of an hour. The L50 value is the noise level that is exceeded for a total of 50 percent, or 30 minutes, of an hour. The L10 value is compared to the FHWA noise abatement criteria (see discussion of Federal noise abatement criteria below). Along with the volume of traffic and other factors (e.g., topography of the area and vehicle speed) that affect the loudness of traffic noise, the distance of a receptor from a sound’s source is also an important factor. Sound level decreases as distance from a source increases. A general principal regarding sound level decrease due to increasing distance from a line source (roadway) Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 38 that is commonly used is as follows: beyond approximately 50 feet from the sound source, each doubling of distance from the line source over hard ground (such as pavement or water) will reduce the sound level by 3 dBA, whereas each doubling of distance over soft ground (such as vegetated, or grassy ground) results in a sound level decrease of 4.5 dBA. Minnesota state noise standards have been established for daytime and nighttime periods. For residential land uses (identified as Noise Area Classification 1 or NAC-1), the Minnesota state standards for L10 are 65 dBA for daytime and 55 dBA for nighttime; the standards for L50 are 60 dBA for daytime and 50 dBA for nighttime. The MPCA defines daytime as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and nighttime from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. State noise standards are depicted in Table 3-8. Table 3-8. Minnesota State Noise Standards Land Use Code Residential Commercial Industrial(1) NAC-1 NAC-2 NAC-3 (1) Daytime (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) dBA L10 of 65 L50 of 60 L10 of 70 L50 of 65 L10 of 80 L50 of 75 Nighttime (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) dBA L10 of 55 L50 of 50 L10 of 70 L50 of 65 L10 of 80 L50 of 75 Under Mn/DOT’s noise policy, the FHWA noise abatement criterion for category C supersede Minnesota's noise level standards in industrial areas, as the Federal noise abatement criterion is lower that the State standard (FHWA NAC 75 dBA versus Minnesota's standard 80 dBA). For residential and parkland uses (Federal Land Use Category B), the Federal L10 noise abatement criterion is 70 dBA for both daytime and nighttime. For commercial uses (Federal Land Use Category B), the Federal L10 noise abatement criterion is 75 dBA for both daytime and nighttime. Locations where noise levels are “approaching” or exceeding the criterion level must be evaluated for noise abatement reasonableness. Mn/DOT defines a level as “approaching” the criterion level when it is 1 dBA or less below the criterion level (e.g., 69 dBA is defined as “approaching” the Federal noise abatement criterion for residential land uses) or exceeding the criterion level must be evaluated for noise abatement reasonableness. Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) are shown in Table 3-9. Table 3-9. Federal Noise Abatement Criteria Category A B C D E (1) L10 dBA 60 70 75 N/A 55(1) Land Use Special areas requiring serenity Residential and recreational areas Commercial and industrial areas Undeveloped areas Residential, hospitals, libraries, etc. Applies to interior noise levels. All other land uses are exterior levels. In addition to the identified noise criteria, FHWA also defines a noise impact as a “substantial increase” in the future noise levels over the existing noise levels (i.e., predicted noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels). In Minnesota, an increase of 5 dBA or greater is considered a substantial noise level increase. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 39 Existing Conditions Noise level monitoring is commonly performed during a noise study to document existing noise levels. Existing noise levels were monitored at one site (13045 Market Avenue) within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. This site was chosen to represent an area of outdoor human activity (i.e., residential land uses). This residence is located along the east side of Market Avenue, approximately 650 feet south of TH 212. Daytime noise levels were monitored on May 17, 2007 during the p.m. peak hour (5:00 p.m.-5:30 p.m.). A trained noise monitoring technician was present for the entire monitoring session to ensure correct operation of the instrumentation. Daytime L10 noise levels observed at the one monitor location were 54.5 dBA. Daytime L50 noise levels observed were 51.0 dBA. Potential Impacts Potential Traffic Noise Impacts At this time, it is not feasible to describe the potential traffic noise impacts of a Market Avenue interchange on surrounding land uses. The evaluation of traffic noise impacts and mitigation measures (see discussion below) requires a detailed knowledge of the horizontal and vertical alignment of the potential interchange. Because the specific horizontal and vertical alignments of the Market Avenue interchange are unknown, the evaluation of potential traffic noise impacts and the consideration of mitigation measures cannot be completed with the level of accuracy necessary to identify potential impacts and justify noise mitigation decisions (i.e., feasibility and reasonableness). Traffic Noise and Land Use Planning FHWA and Mn/DOT encourage local governments responsible for land use and land development processes to practice land use planning and controls in the area of highways to help minimize noise impacts and help prevent future traffic noise impacts on currently undeveloped lands. These practices include prohibiting noise sensitive land uses from being located immediately adjacent to a highway, providing buffer zones between the highway and noisesensitive land uses (i.e., increasing the distance between the highway and the noise-sensitive land use), or ensuring that developments are planned in such a way as to minimize noise impacts (Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, FHWA, June 1995). Traffic noise should be considered by local units of government responsible for land use decisions for future developments adjacent to the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Examples of site plan elements that could reduce noise on residential developments include: berms, fencing, and increased setbacks. Vegetation is only effective if it is at least 100 feet deep, tall enough to block views of the roadway, and dense enough so that the roadway can not been seen through the vegetation (e.g., branches down to ground level with trees/shrubs planted very close together so there are no gaps in the vegetation). As such, the depth, height, and density of vegetation needed make vegetative screening not practical as an element to reduce noise levels. Commercial buildings directly adjoining the roadway would also block some traffic noise for residential receptors, as well as increasing the distance between the roadway and residences, resulting in noise levels potentially meeting State standards at residential areas closer to the roadway. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 40 Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements During future project development, a detailed traffic noise analysis should be conducted for the Market Avenue interchange. Noise abatement measures should be evaluated as part of future environmental documentation and project design, as required. Where applicable, this should include the evaluation of noise barriers (i.e., noise walls), consistent with FHWA and Mn/DOT policy in place at that time, where predicted noise levels exceed State noise standards, or where predicted noise levels result in a substantial increase compared to existing conditions (increase of 5 dBA or greater). 3.3.13 Geologic Hazards Background The geology of a project site and the presence of geologic hazards (such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, and karst conditions) are important considerations during project development to identify, to the extent feasible, potential safety and/or construction issues. Existing Conditions The surface elevation at the existing TH 212 and Market Avenue intersection is approximately 950 feet above mean sea level, based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The topography is generally flat. According to Carver County Water Management Plan (Carver County, June 2001), the naturally occurring surficial deposits within the interchange study area consist of unlithified glacial till and glacial outwash. These Pleistocene glacial deposits cover older bedrock units of the Paleozoic Era and are typically in the range of 150-250 feet thick, but may be as much as 300 feet thick. Based on County Well Index well records (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/cwi, accessed July 17, 2007), bedrock occurs at depths ranging from approximately 185 feet to 280 feet below ground surface (bgs). The average depth is approximately 230 feet bgs. These depths are supported by information contained in Carver County Water Management Plan (Carver County, June 2001). Bedrock consists of areas of sandstone, shale, dolostone, and limestone of the Ordovician group and sandstone, shale, and carbonate of the Cambrian group. Per review of United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles and DNR data (http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us, accessed March 26, 2009), there are no known sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, or near-surface karst conditions within the interchange study area. However, according to a map of karsts in Minnesota and information obtained from the MPCA (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/karst.html, accessed March 26, 2009), covered karsts may be present below portions of the interchange study area. Covered karsts are areas underlain by carbonate bedrock but with more than 100 feet of sediment cover. In comparison, active karsts have less than 50 feet of sediment cover. Due to the resolution and scale of the karst map, the exact location of covered karsts relative to the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint is unknown. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 41 Potential Impacts Due to the geology of the project site and the depths involved, any covered karsts that may be present would not likely be disturbed by or cause environmental problems for the Market Avenue interchange. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements More detailed and up-to-date information regarding geologic hazards may become available in the future; therefore, a re-evaluation should be conducted during future project development to confirm the information presented above. 3.3.14 Contaminated Properties Background The presence of contaminated properties (properties where soil and/or groundwater are known or suspected to be impacted with pollutants, contaminants, or hazardous wastes, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 115B.02) is a concern in the development of highway interchange projects because of potential liabilities associated with the acquisition of such properties, potential cleanup costs, and safety concerns associated with construction personnel encountering hazardous materials. Contaminated properties are also a concern because they can cause construction delays and increase overall project costs. Hazardous materials identified during construction projects must be properly handled and treated in accordance with appropriate federal and state regulations. Improper management of hazardous materials can worsen their impact on the environment. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA), persons may be held strictly liable for environmental contamination on properties that they either currently own or operate or owned or operated at the time of release. Strict liability means that a potentially responsible party may be liable for contamination based solely on property ownership and without regard to fault or negligence. However, CERCLA (as amended) provides three liability exemptions. These exemptions include 1) Innocent Landowner, 2) Bona Fide Purchasers, and 3) Contiguous Property Owners. MERLA also provides certain liability protections. Existing Conditions A Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Limited Phase I ESA) was performed, in accordance with Mn/DOT guidance, to identify potentially contaminated properties. This assessment is labeled “limited” as it did not include interviews, contact with private landowners, or access to properties outside of existing public right-of-way. The Limited Phase I ESA for the project was conducted between May and October 2007. The assessment included all properties within or partially within 1,000 feet of the existing TH 212 and Market Avenue intersection. Based on the most extensive footprint of the initial design layouts, several properties located beyond 1,000 feet were also evaluated. The properties were ranked as having a high, medium, low, or unlikely potential for contamination. Per guidelines set forth by Mn/DOT: Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 42 Sites with high potential for contamination include all active and inactive Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) and MERLA sites, all active and inactive dump sites, and all active Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites; Sites with medium potential for contamination include all closed LUST sites, all sites with Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs), all sites with vehicle repair activities, and all sites with historical demolitions; Sites with low potential for contamination include small hazardous waste generators and possibly farmsteads and residences; and Sites that are classified as unlikely appear to have an unlikely chance of contamination. The results of the Limited Phase I ESA are summarized below. Copies of the complete Limited Phase I ESA (dated October 10, 2007) are on file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #738587). A total of 26 sites within the interchange study area were evaluated during the Limited Phase I ESA. The assessment identified no sites with high potential, seven sites with medium potential, four sites with low potential, and 15 sites with unlikely potential for contamination. Figure 9 in Appendix E shows the locations of the sites (rankings are also indicated). Table 3-10 summarizes the low- and medium-ranked sites (no high-ranked sites were identified during the Limited Phase I ESA). Grey highlighting in the table indicates the potentially contaminated properties that are located within or partially within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Table 3-10. Summary of Sites with Potential for Contamination Site # C02 Site Name Twin Cities & Western Railroad (railroad wye) Location No street address Benton Township T115N, R25W, S13 C04 Twin Cities & Western Railroad C06 Farmstead C07 Residential C09 Farmstead C10 Farmstead C16 Farmstead No street address Benton and Dahlgren Township T115N, R25W, S13 and T115N, R24W, S18 410 Park Street E Cologne 9620 CR 36 E Benton Township 12450 Market Avenue Benton Township 13040 Market Avenue Benton Township 9475 CR 36 E Dahlgren Township Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint Rank and Rationale Medium – Parcel has a medium potential to be contaminated due to a spill of 300 gallons of diesel fuel that occurred along an unknown location of the railroad in 2000. Medium – Parcel has a medium potential to be contaminated due to a spill of 300 gallons of diesel fuel that occurred along an unknown location of the railroad in 2000. Medium – Evidence of UST onsite (fuel pump). Medium – An historical demolition occurred onsite. Medium – An historical demolition occurred onsite. Medium – Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) observed onsite. Low – Potential for use/storage of hazardous materials, petroleum products, and/or other chemicals associated with farming activities. April 2010 Page 43 Site # C18 Site Name Cultivated Cropland Location No street address Dahlgren Township T115N, R24W, S07 9380 CR 36 E Dahlgren Township C20 Farmstead C22 Farmstead 12830 CR 41 Dahlgren Township C25 Farmstead 9170 CR 36 E Dahlgren Township Rank and Rationale Medium – An historical demolition potentially occurred onsite. Low – Potential for use/storage of hazardous materials, petroleum products, and/or other chemicals associated with farming activities. Low – Potential for use/storage of hazardous materials, petroleum products, and/or other chemicals associated with farming activities. Low – Potential for use/storage of hazardous materials, petroleum products, and/or other chemicals associated with farming activities. Grey highlighting in the table indicates the potentially contaminated properties that are located within or partially within the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. Unidentified environmental hazards may also be located within the interchange study area. Potential Impacts The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, could result in impacts (via construction activities and/or property acquisition) to two low-ranked sites and five medium-ranked sites (see Table 3-10 and Figure 9). These sites are potentially contaminated and could result in additional cleanup costs, safety hazards, and/or environmental liability. Anticipated Future Actions/Requirements Typically, hazardous materials site assessments are valid for 180 days. Because of the timeframe involved with the Market Avenue interchange decision-making process, a future re-assessment of contamination potential for all sites within or near the applicable interchange study area will be required. During final design, the area(s) of concern for any potentially contaminated site that may be impacted should be further assessed to determine the presence, type, and magnitude of contaminated soil and/or groundwater. The results of the investigation should be used to determine if impacts to the contaminated materials can be avoided or minimized. Coordination with the MPCA VIC Program, MPCA Voluntary Petroleum Investigation and Cleanup Program, and/or Minnesota Department of Agriculture Incident Response Program should be conducted, when appropriate, to obtain assurances that Mn/DOT’s contaminated site acquisition and/or contaminated site cleanup work would not associate the agency with longterm environmental liability for the contamination. 3.4 SUMMARY OF SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The Environmental Screening for the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint did not identify any significant obstacles, or issues that would prevent further consideration of a potential interchange Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 44 at Market Avenue. However, some level of social and environmental impact would occur if an interchange were constructed. During future project development, further evaluation of the resources and conditions within the footprint and surrounding area would be required. Coordination with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies would also be necessary. Table 3-11 includes a summary of the social and environmental issues associated with the footprint. Table 3-11. Summary of Social and Environmental Issues Social and Environmental Issues Environmental Justice Pedestrians and Bicyclists Property Acquisition, Relocation, and Access Economics Visual Character Land Use Soil Conditions Prime or Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance Agricultural Preserves Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Archaeological Sites Historic Structures Potential Impacts Construction of an intersection at Market Avenue would not likely have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to any minority population or low-income population. An interchange at Market Avenue would provide improved connectivity for current and future residents. Safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists would be improved. Up to approximately 47 acres of land may need to be acquired to construct the Market Avenue interchange. Up to seven parcels may be considered total takes. Two of the seven total takes would be residential relocations. Twenty access points located within or adjacent to the footprint could warrant access relocation, consolidation or closure. Property acquisitions could result in minor changes to the property tax revenue base of Carver County. An interchange at Market Avenue would provide easy access to the City of Cologne’s commercial district and would support growth on the eastern edge of the city. Visual impacts to the rural landscape could result from the construction of a Market Avenue interchange, given the required clearance for a bridge over the railroad and the length of an elevated roadway at Market Avenue. The potential Market Avenue interchange would not preclude planned land uses. Planning for an interchange will provide the City of Cologne, and Carver County, with better guidance in future land use planning. The soil conditions within the footprint were considered during the evaluation of farmlands, wetlands, groundwater, and surface water quality. Up to 30 acres of prime farmland and 14 acres of farmland of statewide importance could be converted by the Market Avenue interchange. Any agricultural preserve land within the footprint today, or by future enrollment, could be converted to non-agricultural use by construction of an interchange at Market Avenue. The Market Avenue interchange could potentially result in adverse effects to historic properties. The Sauter/Thaemert farmstead and site 21CR0145 are located outside the revised archaeological APE; therefore, it is anticipated that these sites would not be affected by the Market Avenue interchange. If constructed, the Market Avenue interchange could potentially result in adverse effects to seven NRHP-eligible properties, including two Chaska brick houses (Sauter and Hesse farmsteads) and five segments of historic railroad. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 45 Social and Environmental Issues Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources Special Status Species and Critical Habitat Wetlands Surface Waters Groundwater Wells Floodplains Water-Related Management Districts Water Quality Air Quality Noise Geologic Hazards Contaminated Properties Potential Impacts Grasslands, woodlots, tree windbreaks, and wetlands could be converted to public right-of-way for the Market Avenue interchange. It is anticipated that the Market Avenue interchange would not result in impacts to state- or federally-listed species or critical habitat. The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, could impact up to 5.3 acres of wetland, potentially affecting 10 wetlands. Of the total acres of wetland, roughly 3.4 acres are located within existing right-of-way. The Market Avenue interchange could change the current alignments of non-public drainage ditches. The interchange could impact up to 1.7 acres of a DNR protected wetland (DNR# 34W). Impacts to subsurface agricultural drain tile systems could also occur. There is potential for groundwater contamination due to the shallow water table and high groundwater sensitivity in portions of the footprint. The Market Avenue interchange could result in permanent impacts to two wells, which would require abandoning and sealing the wells per state and local regulations. Three other wells are situated adjacent to the footprint. The footprint does not encroach into a designated floodplain area. No wild or scenic rivers, canoe or boating routes, or shoreland management areas would be impacted by an interchange at Market Avenue. Up to approximately 90 acres of land, some of which includes potential erosion-prone areas, could be graded and/or excavated within the footprint. The Market Avenue interchange could result in an increase in impervious area of 12.6 acres; this would result in an increase in stormwater runoff volumes and peak discharges. It is anticipated that the Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, would not result in significant impacts to air quality. At this time, it is not feasible to describe the potential traffic noise impacts of a Market Avenue interchange on surrounding land uses. Due to the geology of the project site and the depths involved, any covered karsts that may be present would not likely be disturbed by or cause environmental problems for the Market Avenue interchange. The Market Avenue interchange, if constructed, could result in impacts to two low-ranked sites and five medium-ranked sites. These sites are potentially contaminated and could result in additional cleanup costs, safety hazards, and/or environmental liability. 4.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES A public involvement plan (PIP) was developed and implemented early in the project development process to outline the basic framework and tools for engaging the public on this potential interchange project. The cornerstone of the PIP is the three project committees: Project Management Team (PMT); Technical Advisory Committee (TAC); and Public Advisory Committee (PAC). Information on each of these committees is summarized in Table 4-1. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 46 Table 4-1. Summary of Project Committees Committee Project Management Team Purpose · Facilitate project decision-making Technical Advisory Committee · Provide input and guidance to PMT · Review project technical elements · Liaisons to local jurisdictions · Provide input and guidance to PMT · Communication link to constituents · Discuss implementation strategies/priorities Public Advisory Committee Membership · Mn/DOT · FHWA · Consultant team · Representatives from local cities and townships Meeting Frequency · Monthly through life of project · Elected officials from local cities and townships · Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition · Metropolitan Council · Approximately every six months through life of project · Every other month through life of project To engage the general public in the project, a series of open houses were held to collect public input and inform residents of decisions that have been made. All open houses were held at Cologne Community Center in the City of Cologne. Open houses were held at the following dates and times: July 10, 2007 — 5:00 PM-8:00 PM — 119 attendees signed in October 23, 2007 — 4:30 PM-7:00 PM — 73 attendees signed in May 19, 2009 — 4:30 PM-7:00 PM — 92 attendees signed in January 26, 2010 — 4:30 PM-7:00PM— 55 attendees signed in A mailing list was developed for the project that included all residents and businesses within one-half mile of the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint, as well as state, federal, and local agencies and groups. This mailing list was used throughout the public involvement process to inform the public of upcoming events and recent developments. Mailings included reminder postcards to residents immediately adjacent to the footprint, and project newsletters mailed approximately two weeks before each open house. Press releases to local newspapers and updates to city newsletters were also used to inform the public of project events. The project website was also updated on a regular basis to keep information and graphics current. 4.2 AGENCY COORDINATION AND REVIEW The following matrix (Table 4-2) summarizes agency and local jurisdiction involvement in the planning and execution of this document. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 47 Table 4-2. Agency and Local Jurisdiction Involvement Matrix Agency/Local Jurisdiction Federal Highway Administration Minnesota Department of Transportation · · · · · · Geometrics Right-of-Way Environmental Hazardous Materials Traffic Water Resources · Materials · Cultural Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency State Historic Preservation Office Metropolitan Council Carver County City of Cologne Benton Township Dahlgren Township 5.0 Involvement Guidance on requirements, document review Project leadership, local funding, document review, federal funding Layout concept review Potential acquisitions Document review and guidance Phase I hazardous materials report review Analysis and forecast document review Wetland inventory and water resources/drainage report review Soil and construction review Historic architectural and archaeological field review and documentation, coordination with SHPO Consultation on state-listed species and water resources Consultation on hazardous materials and sites Historic architectural and archaeological document review and determination of effects Participation in TAC and PAC Local planning, participation in TAC and PAC Local planning, participation in TAC and PAC Participation in TAC and PAC Participation in TAC and PAC ESTIMATED COSTS Planning level costs have been estimated for a future Market Avenue interchange. As of May 2010, the estimated total project cost is $41,279,000 (2008 dollars). Pavement costs were estimated based on the interchange configuration that yielded the largest quantity of pavement. Soil correction costs include the likelihood of a significant amount of organic material located within the interchange area (approximated at 600,000 cubic yards). The estimate does not account for inflation. See Appendix H for a breakdown of the planning level costs. Based on each identified interchange option a rough estimate range of costs for the Market Avenue Interchange is $25,000,000 to $41,000,000 dependent on major item costs such as rightof-way, organic material removal (depth) and replacement material, selection type of bridge (length and width) requirements from railroad, mitigation needs and requirements. The cost is also dependent on local cost sharing for connecting to local roadways, storm water management and integrating other modes of transportation into the project. An abbreviated value engineering exercise was performed for the potential Market Avenue interchange; the findings are included in the Value Engineering Study Report for TH 212 from Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 48 CSAH 34 in Norwood Young America to CSAH 11 in Carver, SP 1013-77, -78 and -79, dated August 2009 (EDMS #837222). The most significant recommendation was to get a better understanding about the potential costs of soil correction. Mn/DOT anticipates performing additional geotechnical evaluations to refine the estimated soil correction cost. 6.0 REFERENCE MATERIALS The sources used in the preparation of this document are listed below. Some of these documents have been uploaded to Mn/DOT’s electronic data management system (EDMS) and have been hyperlinked in the electronic version of this document to the corresponding EDMS files. Carver County. Carver County Water Management Plan. June 2001. Available online at http://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/LWS/index.asp. Carver County. DRAFT Carver County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. July 2009. Carver County. DRAFT Carver County Roadway Systems Plan. January 2008. Available online at http://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/LWS/docs/04a_ROADWAY_SYSTEM_ PLAN_080101.pdf. Carver County. Metropolitan Agricultural Preserve Program, Carver County and the Seven County Metro Area. Map. 2006. Available online at http://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/LWS/docs/ag_preserves.pdf, accessed May 17, 2007. Carver County. Ordinance Codification: Title V, Environmental Services, Chapter 52, Sewage Treatment System. November 6, 2007. Available online at http://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/lws/pz/ordinances.asp. Carver County. Ordinance Codification: Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153, Water Resources Management. November 6, 2007. Available online at http://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/lws/pz/ordinances.asp. City of Cologne. Code of Ordinances: Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153, Zoning Code. December 12, 2007. Available online at http://www.ci.cologne.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={8FF6331C-E84B-4166BC79-AB8904DF81F7}. City of Cologne. DRAFT City of Cologne 2030 Comprehensive Plan. May 2009. Drees, Hilary (Benton Board of Supervisors). Phone conversation regarding Benton Township Ditch No. 1. August 31, 2009. EVS, Inc. Utility Summary Memorandum for TH 212, SP 1013-78 (Part C), Carver County, MN. September 14, 2009. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 49 Farmland Information Center. Farmland Protection Policy Act. Fact Sheet. August 2006. Available online at http://www.farmlandinfo.org, accessed April 10, 2007. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Carver County, Panels 50 and 75 of 115. January 6, 1988. Granger, Susan and Scott Kelly. Phase I and II (Identification and Evaluation) Investigation of Historic Structures Near US Highway 212 and Market Avenue in the Vicinity of Cologne, Carver County, Minnesota (SP 1013-78, TH 212, Pt C). Gemini Research. February 18, 2008. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #837603). Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Market Avenue Interchange Geometrics Technical Memorandum. September 30, 2009. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for TH 212 Preliminary Design from Carver CR 147 (CSAH 11) to Norwood Young America, Carver County, Minnesota (Parts A, B, and C). October 10, 2007. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #738587). Kimley-Horn and Associates, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and Rani Engineering, Inc. Water Resources Preliminary Design Report for TH 212, SP 1013-77, SP 1013-78, and SP 101379. August 2009. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #751283). Larson, Jon (Environmental Reviewer, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board). Phone conversation regarding agricultural preserves and eminent domain actions. July 14, 2009. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Minnesota’s Agricultural Land Preservation Statutes. Webpage. Available online at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation, accessed May 17, 2007. Minnesota Department of Health. County Well Index Online. Interactive Mapping Tool. Available online at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/cwi, accessed July 17, 2007. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. St. Paul, MN. July 2005. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Geospatial data/GIS shapefiles. DNR Data Deli. Available online at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota’s Wild and Scenic Rivers. Website. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/index.html, accessed August 31, 2009. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 50 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Protected Waters and Wetlands, Carver County, Minnesota, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2. Public Waters Inventory Map. 1986, revised 1997. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Access Management. Website. Available online at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Drainage Manual. August 30, 2000. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Highway 212 Interregional Corridor Management Plan. April 2002. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #770329). Minnesota Department of Transportation. Road Design Manual. March 8, 2005. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Carver County, and City of Cologne. Cologne Transportation Planning Study. October 2004. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #837594). Minnesota Department of Transportation, Highway Project Development Process. General information and guidance on environmental resources. Website. Available online at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/hpdp/environment.html. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Services. General information and guidance on environmental resources. Website. Available online at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Services. Mn/DOT Noise Policy for Type I and Type II Federal-Aid Projects as per 23 CFR 772. Webpage. Available online at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/noise_analysis/policy.html. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Services. TH 212 Wetland Inventory. July 26, 2007. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #839909). Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Chapter 85.32, Canoe and Boating Routes. State Statute. Available online at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us, accessed August 31, 2009. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Chapter 115B, Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. State Statute. Available online at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us, accessed May 14, 2009. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Chapter 473H, Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves. State Statute. Available online at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us, accessed May 17, 2007. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Chapter 4725, Wells and Borings. State Rule. Available online at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us, accessed August 31, 2009. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 51 Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Chapter 6120, Department of Natural Resources, Shoreland and Floodplain Management. State Rule. Available online at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us, accessed August 31, 2009. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Chapter 8420, Wetland Conservation Act. State Rule. Available online at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us, accessed July 8, 2009. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. Available online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/noise.html, accessed September 9, 2009. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Karsts in Minnesota. Webpage. Available online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/karst.html, accessed March 26, 2009). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minnesota’s Impaired Waters and TMDLs. June 10, 2008. Available online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/tmdl-303dlist.html. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum for TH 212, SP 101377, 1013-78, and 1013-79. September 28, 2007. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #738213). SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Travel Demand Forecast Memorandum for TH 212, SP 1013-77, 1013-78, and 1013-79. July 25, 2009. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #738216). Terrell, Dr. Michelle M. and Erika L. Eigenberger. Phase I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 21CR0145, Trunk Highway 212 Improvement Project (Part C), Carver County, Minnesota. Two Pines Resource Group, LLC. January 2008. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #838085). U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Data. Website. Available online at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. Farmland Protection Policy Act. Webpage. Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fppa, accessed April 10, 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. Geospatial soils data/GIS shapefile. Soil Data Mart. Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed March 27, 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. Soils information and characteristics. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed April 9, 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS). Soil Survey of Carver County, Minnesota. November 1968. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/htnoise.htm. Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 52 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. June 1995. 67 pp. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/ 020306guidmem.htm. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as Amended. Website. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/act.htm. The most current version of the Uniform Act is available at http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C61.txt. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Webpage, updated August 12, 2009. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/justice/02.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund: Laws, Policy, and Guidance. Website. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy, accessed May 14, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. County Distribution of Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species: Minnesota. Webpage, updated July 28, 2009. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/minnesot-cty.html, accessed September 8, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Critical Habitat Portal. Interactive Mapping Tool. Available online at http://crithab.fws.gov, accessed September 8, 2009. U.S. Geological Survey. Waconia, Minnesota, 7.5-minute Topographic Map. 1957, revised 1981. Value Management Strategies, Inc. Value Engineering Study Report for TH 212 from CSAH 34 in Norwood Young America to CSAH 11 in Carver, SP 1013-77, -78 and -79. August 2009. On file at Mn/DOT Metro District (EDMS #837222). Engineering Documentation and Environmental Screening S.P. 1013-78, TH 212/Market Avenue Interchange Footprint April 2010 Page 53 APPENDIX A FHWA LETTER OF POSITION This page was intentionally left blank. APPENDIX B RECOMMENDED ROADWAY SYSTEM PLAN EXCERPT FROM COLOGNE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY (OCTOBER 2004) This page was intentionally left blank. October 2004 1.2 Recommended Conceptual Future Access After studying 15 access concepts and weighing the pros and cons of each, the study partners selected a recommended alternative and developed a phased approach for short and long-range planning for the segment of Highway 212. The Study PMT developed the phases to accomplish the short-and long-range planning goals consistent with the IRC philosophy established for the corridor. A complete scoping-Ievel review and analysis of each of the concepts is described in Section 4.0 of this report. Illustrations of the concepts are shown in Appendix B. 1.2.1 Recommended Concept The recommended concept for the Highway 212 Corridor is illustrated on the fo 1I0wing Figure 2. This plan provides for an interchange, local city/township/county road connections and frontage/backage roads, and uncontrolled intersection access closures. Specifically, the component projects of the long-range plan and its merits include the following: • • • • • • Cologne Transportation Plan Compressed diamond interchange at Market Avenue (.76 miles east of the present day intersection of TH 212 / TH 284 / CSAH 53); Access to Downtown Cologne via Lake Street; Access closure at TH 284, Market Avenue, CSAH 36 (east) and CSAH41; Potential frontage road shown that connects CSAH 36 (east) with Laurel Avenue; Grade separated crossing of the TC&W Railroad and no disturbance to the railroad's currently used "wye" adjacent to the community; and, No disturbance to the City's planned Louis Street extension and railroad relocation (connectivity goal). Page 5 APPENDIX C MARKET AVENUE INTERCHANGE GEOMETRICS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM This page was intentionally left blank. To: Nicole Peterson, P.E. From: Dan Coyle, P.E. Date: September 30, 2009 Project: Trunk Highway (TH) 212 – Preliminary Design Market Avenue Interchange Geometrics SP 1013-77, 1013-79, 1013-78 Mn/DOT Contract No. 87522 Attachments: Horizontal Geometric Layouts for Market Avenue Interchange: A Horizontal Geometric Layouts for Market Avenue Interchange: B Horizontal Geometric Layouts for Market Avenue Interchange: C Vertical Geometric Layouts for Market Avenue Interchanges: A, B and C INTRODUCTION The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide geometric design background for the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint. The intent of this memorandum is to summarize for the local agencies and the DOT the history and background as to how the footprint area was established. It is anticipated that the planning and engineering staff will use this footprint area and interchange concepts to support discussions and approval for future development and land use and to protect the area for future transportation needs. This identified footprint area is not intended to be an official map of the interchange area. BACKGROUND Mn/DOT in partnership with Carver County, City of Cologne, and surrounding townships, published the Cologne Transportation Planning Study in October 2004. This study resulted in a recommended transportation plan for the Cologne area, which consists of access closures and changes at TH 284/CSAH 53, County Road (CR) 36 East, and CR 41, a grade-separated railroad crossing, and most notably an interchange at TH 212 and Market Avenue. It is intended that Market Avenue would become the north/south connector that is needed to replace the current function of TH 284/CSAH 53. The Cologne Transportation Planning Study recommended interchange location requires considerable modifications to the surrounding local county/township/city roadway system. For the purpose of the TH 212 Preliminary Design Project, these local road modifications are assumed to be in place for the purpose of developing the Market Avenue interchange options. STANDARD DESIGN CRITERIA The following tables list the standard design criteria used as the basis for interchange option design. Table 1 shows design criteria for Market Avenue, Table 2 the interchange ramps, and Table 3 the interchange loops. At this stage in concept development, no design exceptions were considered. Page 1 of 6 TABLE 1 TH 212 DESIGN STANDARDS – CSAH 41 (MARKET AVENUE) MN/DOT RDM RURAL CATEGORY REFERENCE Functional Classification Collector Design Speed Table 2-5.07A 55 mph Horizontal Alignment Maximum degree of curvature maximum superelevation rate Table 3-3,02A NA 6.0% Vertical Alignment maximum grade Table 3-4.02A (Rolling) 6.0% minimum grade Section 3.4.02 0.5% K-value Stopping (crest) Figure 3-4.04A 118 ft (55 mph) K-value Stopping (headlight sag) Figure 3-4.04D 116 ft (55 mph) Clearance over TH 212 LRFD Bridge Design Manual Table 2.1.3.1 16 ft 4 in (pavement to low bridge chord) Clearance over railroad LRFD Bridge Design Manual Table 2.1.3.1 23 ft (top rail to low brdg chord) Lane width 4-3.01.02 12 ft Shoulder width (right) Table 4-4.01A 9.5 ft usable (8 ft paved) Section 4-6.01 1V:4H 1V:3H Table 4-6.04A 36 ft (55 mph) (left) Sideslopes (inslope) (backslope) Clearzone (tangent – fill section) Number of Lanes 2 Centerline Spacing NA Right-of-way width (minimum) 60 ft Page 2 of 6 TABLE 2 TH 212 DESIGN STANDARDS – INTERCHANGE RAMP MN/DOT RDM CATEGORY REFERENCE Functional Classification RURAL Principal Arterial Design Speed Table 6-3.04A 70 mph (mainline) 50 mph (ramp) Horizontal Alignment Maximum degree of curvature Maximum superelevation rate Table 3-3.02A Figure 6-3.02A 850 ft 6.0% Vertical Alignment Maximum grade Table 6-3.04B 5% Minimum grade Section 3.4.02 0.5% K-value Stopping (crest) Figure 3-4.04A 84 ft K-value Stopping (headlight sag) Figure 3-4.04D 96 ft Lane width Table 6-3.04C 16 ft Shoulder width (right) Table 6-3.04C 6 ft (left) Table 6-3.04C 4 ft Section 4-6.01 1V:6H 1V:3H Table 4-6, 04A 22 ft (50 mph) Sideslopes (inslope) (backslope) Clearzone (tangent – fill section) Number of Lanes 1 Centerline Spacing NA Right-of-way width (minimum) NA Page 3 of 6 TABLE 3 TH 212 DESIGN STANDARDS – INTERCHANGE LOOP MN/DOT RDM CATEGORY REFERENCE Functional Classification RURAL Principal Arterial Design Speed Table 6-3.04A 70 mph (mainline) 50 mph (loop) Horizontal Alignment Maximum degree of curvature Maximum superelevation rate Figure 6-2.03A Figure 6-3.02A 190 ft 6.0% Vertical Alignment Maximum grade Table 6-3.04B 5% Minimum grade Section 3.4.02 0.5% K-value Stopping (crest) Figure 3-4.04A 84 ft K-value Stopping (headlight sag) Figure 3-4.04D 96 ft Lane width Table 6-3.04C 18 ft Shoulder width (right) Table 6-3.04C 6 ft (left) Table 6-3.04C 4 ft Section 4-6.01 1V:6H 1V:3H Table 4-6, 04A 22 ft (50 mph) Sideslopes (inslope) (backslope) Clearzone (tangent – fill section) Number of Lanes 1 Centerline Spacing NA Right-of-way width (minimum) NA Page 4 of 6 INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES The interchange options selected for evaluation are variations of diamond and folded diamond interchanges, which are consistent with the concepts from the Cologne Transportation Planning Study. Each quadrant of the interchange was evaluated for both a standard diamond ramp and a ramp/loop pair. The following are the interchange options that were used in the development of the footprint (see corresponding attachments): Interchange A – Standard diamond with southeast ramp folded into the southwest quadrant Interchange B – Standard diamond Interchange C – Standard diamond with northeast ramp folded into the northwest quadrant and the southwest ramp folded into the southeast quadrant Horizontal and vertical geometrics were developed for each interchange option. Right-of-way needs for the three configurations were determined by estimating the limits of construction at one or more critical cross locations for each ramp. Construction limits were estimated from the cut/fill heights shown on the profiles. Roundabouts were considered as an option for the ramp intersections at Market Avenue. It was assumed that the ramp intersection spacing would be reduced from what is depicted in the layout drawings to permit roundabouts to fit within the interchange footprint. It is possible that the grading required for a roundabout between TH 212 and the railroad would eliminate a roundabout from consideration at this ramp intersection. Note that a folded ramp in the northeast quadrant was not an option because the loop profile grade would exceed 10%. The steep ramp profile grade is caused by the short loop length in comparison to the large vertical separation created by the proximity to the railroad overpass. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The following items were key design considerations in the geometric layout for the Market Avenue interchange: The vertical clearance requirements for Market Avenue over the Twin Cities & Western Railroad. Horizontal distance from the existing railroad right-of-way to the interchange ramps. Avoidance or minimization of impacts to historic railroad segment. Avoidance of Chaska brick houses. Other design considerations that will require further analysis to resolve include: Soil corrections for organic material; as-built plans (SP 1013-07 in 1973) indicate up to 30-feet of organic material was encountered in the Market Avenue intersection when TH 212 was widened to 4lanes during construction of the Cologne Bypass. Traffic analysis to support choice of ramps and loops. It is assumed that the predominant movement will be to and from the east. Stormwater management design based on regulations in force at the time of final design. See Water Resources Preliminary Design Report for TH 212, SP 1013-77, SP 1013-78, and SP 1013-79 (EDMS #751283). Page 5 of 6 FOOTPRINT The potential right-of-way needed for the Market Avenue interchange is illustrated by an interchange footprint, which represents the combined area of the three geometric layout concepts (A, B, and C). It is anticipated that the footprint will be refined in the future when an interchange configuration is chosen. The resolution of the footprint into a specific interchange geometry will depend heavily on traffic volumes and the interchange movements that would be best served by free flow. Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX D UTILITY INFORMATION This page was intentionally left blank. MEMORANDUM CLIENT: PROJECT: SUBJECT: DATE: Minnesota Department of Transportation TH 212, SP 1013-78 (Part C), Carver County, MN Utility Summary 14 September 2009 The following is a brief summary of utility information gathered by EVS as a part of the Advanced Design Submittal for the project. A. Electric Power 1. Service Provider: 2. Point of Contact: 3. Service Provider: 4. Point of Contact: MVEC Daryl Hoffman Engineering Supervisor 125 Minnesota Valley Electric Dr. Jordan, MN 55352 Telephone Number: 952-492-8243 Email Address: darylh@mvec.net Xcel Energy Bob Koehler Senior Agent 414 Nicollet Mall, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1993 Telephone Number: 612-330-6766 Email Address: bob.koehler@xcelenergy.com B. Natural Gas 1. Service Provider: 2. Point of Contact: CenterPoint Energy Andrew Balgobin Administration Engineer PO Box 1165 700 West Linden Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 Telephone Number: 612-321-5426 Email Address: Andrew.Balgobin@CenterPointEnergy.com C. Mn DOT 1. Service Provider: 2. Point of Contact: EVS Department of Transportation Dave Lindorff One Call Operation’s 6000 Minnehaha Avenue St. Paul, MN 55111 MEMORANDUM Utility Summary for Mn/DOT Trunk Highway 212 S.P. 1013-78 (Part C) Page 2 D. Communications, Telephone and Fiber Optics 1. Service Provider: 2. Point of Contact: 3. Service Provider: 4. Point of Contact: End of Memo Mediacom Steve Hennes Construction Manager 14309 Huntington Avenue South Savage, MN 55378 Telephone Number: 952-895-0218 Email Address: shennes@mediacomcc.com MCI Darin Zumach Manager 2400 Glenville Richardson, TX 75082 Telephone Number: 763-591-4187 Email Address: darin.zumach@mci.com Project Name: TH 212 SP 1013-78 (Part "C") UTILITIES TABULATION - COMMUNICATIONS ALIGNMENT STATION TO STATION OFFSET (FT) DESCRIPTION OWNER REMARKS LS2EB 345+33 R 2 - 346+05 R 2 217L - 221L T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 346+05 R 2 - 358+62 R 2 221L - 219L T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 346+76 R 2 - 347+18 R 2 477R - 330R T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 346+76 R 2 - 350+87 R 2 477R - 519R T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 350+87 R 2 - 365+66 R 2 519R - 126L T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 356+66 R 2 - 358+46 R 2 5056L - 3380L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 358+31 R 2 - 358+99 R 2 237R - 377R T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 358+46 R 2 - 358+71 R 2 3380L - 3388L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 358+62 R 2 - 367+36 R 2 219L - 320L T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 358+71 R 2 - 358+83 R 2 3388L - 3394L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 358+83 R 2 - 359+80 R 2 3394L - 3454L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 359+80 R 2 - 361+21 R 2 3454L - 3601L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 361+25 R 2 - 362+95 R 2 3606L - 3729L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 362+91 R 2 - 368+08 R 2 267R - 153L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MCI (1) LS2EB 362+95 R 2 - 364+61 R 2 3729L - 3764L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 364+61 R 2 - 365+82 R 2 3764L - 3790L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 365+66 R 2 - 371+06 R 2 126L - 1230L T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 365+82 R 2 - 366+25 R 2 3790L - 3799L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 366+25 R 2 - 366+42 R 2 3799L - 3802L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 366+45 R 2 - 366+60 R 2 3803L - 3806L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 366+60 R 2 - 415+33 R 3 3806L - 3507L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 374+64 R 2 192R TEL PED UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 374+64 R 2 - 387+81 R 2 192R - 83R T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 383+62 R 2 - 384+09 R 2 4125R - 4593R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 383+62 R 2 - 384+12 R 2 4125R - 3283R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 384+07 R 2 - 384+30 R 2 4578R - 4703R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 384+12 R 2 - 384+56 R 2 3283R - 3146R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 384+30 R 2 - 384+33 R 2 4703R - 4733R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 384+56 R 2 - 389+52 R 2 3146R - 2115R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 386+71 R 2 - 386+83 R 2 2665L - 2608L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 386+71 R 2 - 387+32 R 2 2665L - 2741L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 386+83 R 2 - 387+24 R 2 2608L - 2556L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 387+24 R 2 - 387+74 R 2 2556L - 2501L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 387+32 R 2 - 388+78 R 2 2741L - 2799L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 387+45 R 2 75R TEL VAULT MCI (1) LS2EB 387+45 R 2 - 387+75 R 2 75R - 83R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MCI (1) LS2EB 387+50 R 2 184L TEL PED UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 387+50 R 2 - 387+57 R 2 184L - 186L T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 387+57 R 2 186L TEL PED UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 387+57 R 2 - 387+81 R 2 186L - 83R T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 387+67 R 2 186L TEL VAULT MCI (1) LS2EB 387+67 R 2 - 387+75 R 2 186L - 83R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MCI (1) LS2EB 387+74 R 2 - 391+88 R 2 2501L - 0 FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 387+75 R 2 83R TEL VAULT MCI (1) LS2EB 387+81 R 2 83R TEL PED UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 388+78 R 2 - 389+61 R 2 2799L - 2820L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 389+52 R 2 - 390+63 R 2 2115R - 1898R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 389+61 R 2 - 399+78 R 2 2820L - 2948L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 390+63 R 2 - 390+88 R 2 1898R - 1833R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 390+88 R 2 - 391+31 R 2 1833R - 1694R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 391+31 R 2 - 391+84 R 2 1694R - 1391R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 391+64 R 2 - 391+88 R 2 295R - 0 FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 391+64 R 2 - 391+90 R 2 295R - 1226R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 391+84 R 2 - 391+90 R 2 1391R - 1226R FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 399+78 R 2 - 411+56 R 3 2948L - 3011L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 411+56 R 3 - 413+18 R 3 3011L - 3138L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 413+18 R 3 - 414+19 R 3 3138L - 3268L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 414+19 R 3 - 414+36 R 3 3268L - 3300L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 414+36 R 3 - 414+51 R 3 3300L - 3331L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 414+51 R 3 - 414+83 R 3 3331L - 3401L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 414+83 R 3 - 415+33 R 3 3401L - 3507L FIBER OPTIC BURIED MEDIACOM (2) LS2EB 417+57 R 3 - 419+08 R 3 460R - 522R T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 419+08 R 3 - 425+78 R 3 522R - 965R T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 424+00 R 3 - 430+73 R 3 1215R - 268R T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 430+73 R 3 - 432+59 R 3 268R - 168R T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 432+59 R 3 - 433+32 R 3 168R T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) LS2EB 433+32 R 3 - 433+80 R 3 168R - 251L T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 433+80 R 3 - 434+97 R 3 251L - 432L T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) LS2EB 434+97 R 3 - 439+37 R 3 432L - 1052L T-BUR UNKNOWN (2) Existing Utilities - Communications 1 Project Name: TH 212 SP 1013-78 (Part "C") UTILITIES TABULATION - COMMUNICATIONS ALIGNMENT STATION TO STATION OFFSET (FT) DESCRIPTION OWNER REMARKS LS2EB 472+35 R 4 - 473+01 R 5 272L - 231L T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) LCEB 473+01 R 1 - 474+51 R 1 231L - 224L T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) LCEB 474+51 R 1 224L TEL PED UNKNOWN (1) LCEB 474+51 R 1 - 480+63 R 1 224L - 191L T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) LCEB 480+63 R 1 191L TEL PED UNKNOWN (1) LCEB 480+63 R 1 - 484+47 R 1 191L - 201L T-BUR UNKNOWN (1) (1) Based on S1013_fip.dgn from KHA (2) Based on as-built drawings from utility companies. Existing Utilities - Communications 2 Project Name: TH 212 SP 1013-78 (Part "C") UTILITIES TABULATION - POWER ALIGNMENT STATION TO STATION OFFSET (FT) DESCRIPTION OWNER REMARKS LS2EB 365+72 R 2 134R P POLE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 365+72 R 2 - 369+31 R 2 134R - 118R OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 369+31 R 2 118R P POLE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 369+31 R 2 - 371+68 R 2 118R - 104R OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 371+68 R 2 104R P POLE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 371+68 R 2 - 373+96 R 2 104R - 92R OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 372+23 R 2 184L P POLE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 372+23 R 2 - 373+96 R 2 184L - 92R OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 373+96 R 2 92R P POLE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 373+96 R 2 - 374+62 R 2 92R - 192R OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 374+62 R 2 192R P POLE XCEL ENERGY (1) LS2EB 386+59 R 2 - 388+02 R 2 799L - 92R P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 386+59 R 2 - 391+14 R 2 799L - 834L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 388+02 R 2 - 389+95 R 2 92R - 110R P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 389+95 R 2 - 391+37 R 2 110R - 306R P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 391+14 R 2 - 392+49 R 2 834L - 876L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 391+37 R 2 - 391+68 R 2 306R - 1226R P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 391+61 R 2 71R P POLE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 391+61 R 2 - 392+53 R 2 71R - 39L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 391+66 R 2 51L P POLE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 391+66 R 2 - 392+52 R 2 51L - 150L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 391+66 R 2 - 392+53 R 2 51L - 39L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 392+49 R 2 - 403+33 R 2 876L - 725L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 392+52 R 2 151L P POLE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 392+52 R 2 150L P METER MN DOT (1) LS2EB 392+52 R 2 - 393+14 R 2 151L - 225L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 392+53 R 2 39L P POLE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 393+14 R 2 225L P POLE MN DOT (1) LS2EB 431+15 R 3 - 432+55 R 3 1054L - 1042L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 432+57 R 3 - 439+89 R 3 1041L - 1005L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 439+89 R 3 - 443+52 R 3 1005L - 986L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 443+52 R 3 - 444+68 R 3 986L - 981L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 444+68 R 3 - 448+91 R 3 981L - 973L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 448+91 R 3 1113L - 973L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 448+91 R 3 - 456+53 R 3 1113L - 1221L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 456+53 R 3 - 466+86 R 3 1221L - 804L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 466+04 R 3 - 466+50 R 3 701L - 635L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 466+04 R 3 - 466+86 R 3 701L - 804L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 466+50 R 3 - 469+38 R 3 635L - 766L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 469+38 R 3 - 469+93 R 4 766L - 1422L P-BUR XCEL ENERGY (2) LS2EB 473+15 R 4 297L P POLE MVEC (1) LS2EB 473+15 R 4 - 475+90 R 4 297L - 283L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MVEC (1) LS2EB 475+90 R 4 283L P POLE MVEC (1) LS2EB 475+90 R 4 - 477+19 R 4 283L - 264L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MVEC (1) LS2EB 477+19 R 4 264L P POLE MVEC (1) LS2EB 477+19 R 4 - 479+03 R 4 264L - 260L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MVEC (1) LS2EB 479+03 R 4 260L P POLE MVEC (1) LS2EB 479+03 R 4 - 473+01 R 5 260L - 247L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MVEC (1) LCEB 473+01 R 1 - 474+58 R 1 247L - 237L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MVEC (1) LCEB 474+58 R 1 - 478+43 R 1 237L - 215L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MVEC (1) LCEB 474+58 R 1 237L P POLE MVEC (1) LCEB 478+43 R 1 - 481+59 R 1 215L - 190L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MVEC (1) LCEB 478+43 R 1 215L P POLE MVEC (1) LCEB 481+59 R 1 - 484+47 R 1 190L - 186L OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MVEC (1) LCEB 481+59 R 1 190L P POLE MVEC (1) (1) Based on S1013_fip.dgn from KHA (2) Based on as-built drawings from utility companies. Existing Utilities - Power 3 Project Name: TH 212 SP 1013-78 (Part "C") UTILITIES TABULATION - GAS ALIGNMENT STATION TO STATION OFFSET (FT) DESCRIPTION OWNER REMARKS LS2EB 345+33 R 2 - 345+99 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 345+99 R 2 - 347+00 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 347+00 R 2 - 348+00 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 348+00 R 2 - 349+01 R 2 80R - 81R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 349+01 R 2 - 350+00 R 2 81R - 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 350+00 R 2 - 351+00 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 351+00 R 2 - 352+02 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 352+02 R 2 - 353+02 R 2 80R - 81R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 353+02 R 2 - 354+01 R 2 81R - 73R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 354+01 R 2 - 355+00 R 2 73R - 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 355+00 R 2 - 356+01 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 356+01 R 2 - 357+00 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 357+00 R 2 - 358+01 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 358+01 R 2 - 359+02 R 2 80R - 79R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 359+02 R 2 - 360+00 R 2 79R - 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 360+00 R 2 - 361+00 R 2 80R - 77R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 361+00 R 2 - 361+33 R 2 77R - 74R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 361+33 R 2 - 362+08 R 2 74R - 152R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 362+08 R 2 - 366+51 R 2 152R - 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 366+51 R 2 - 368+61 R 2 80R - 81R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 368+61 R 2 - 370+33 R 2 81R - 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 370+33 R 2 - 373+67 R 2 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 373+67 R 2 - 375+81 R 2 80R - 72R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 375+81 R 2 - 377+92 R 2 72R - 79R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 377+92 R 2 - 378+20 R 2 79R - 78R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 378+20 R 2 - 378+86 R 2 78R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 378+86 R 2 - 380+37 R 2 78R - 80R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 380+37 R 2 - 382+93 R 2 80R - 82R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 382+93 R 2 - 384+60 R 2 82R - 77R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 384+60 R 2 - 386+26 R 2 77R - 81R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 386+26 R 2 - 387+49 R 2 81R - 86R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 387+01 R 2 - 387+70 R 2 318L - 86R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 387+01 R 2 - 387+70 R 2 318L - 86R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 387+49 R 2 - 387+70 R 2 86R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 387+70 R 2 - 388+71 R 2 86R - 88R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 388+71 R 2 - 389+77 R 2 88R - 87R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 389+77 R 2 - 390+19 R 2 87R - 88R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 390+19 R 2 - 391+45 R 2 88R - 281R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (1) LS2EB 391+45 R 2 - 391+64 R 2 281R - 711R GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY (2) (1) Based on S1013_fip.dgn from KHA (2) Based on as-built drawings from utility companies. Existing Utilities - Gas 4 APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING FIGURES 4 THROUGH 9 Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Census Block Groups Potential Property Acquisition and Relocations Soils, Farmlands, and Agricultural Preserves Cultural Resources Water Resources Potentially Contaminated Properties This page was intentionally left blank. <Double-click here to enter title> 5 Carver 284 Miles 1 Waconia Chaska Laketown Twp Waconia Twp Kelly Ave 912.02 Block Group 2 2 Victoria Market Avenue Interchange Footprint Cologne 911 Block Group 2 Salem Ave Market Ave 212 Benton Twp C A R V E R Dahlgren Twp 212 Carver C O U N T Y Hancock Twp San Francisco Twp Jordan 169 25 Source: 2000 Census SCOTT COUNTY Belle Plaine FIGURE 4 CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 Market Avenue <Double-click here to enter title> 92 273 87 89 119 CR 116 116 102 ! TH 21 2 81 88 # Potential Property Relocations Potential Access Relocations Parcel Boundary Lines Interchange Footprint Potential Property Acquisition 88 84 103 118 84 243 CR Existing ROW: 43.1 acres Potential ROW Acquisition: 47.0 acres Total Footprint: 90.1 acres 41 ^ 118 112 ´ 103 1 inch = 600 feet 12 115 117 Market Avenue 2 TH HWY 284 116 Paul Ave N 96 261 ^ 84 81 84 93 Legend 81 119 CR 36 92 88 81 ^ 36 FIGURE 5 POTENTIAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATIONS Aerial Photo Source: Carver County (2006) S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 HM HM CE3 CD3 LD LF PM LA LB2 LC2 CD3 CE3 LA GL CD3 LC CW LD2 LE2 LD2 TB TB LA CR LD2 LB2 LD LC2 LD2 GL HM Benton St LB2 36 LA LD2 LB2 LB2 CE3 LC2 Legend TB LB2 W Interchange Footprint HM GL LC2 LB2 CC3 LE2 HM LA GL CC3 CD3 LA LD2 LC2 CE3 LA LC2 MK LC2 EX CW PM LF MK CW KC2 KC2 HM LC2 CD3 LC2 HM LA MK LA LA CC3 HM LC LD Market Avenue HM PM LD2 PM W TC& LD MP Agricultural Preserves (2006) LA LB2 GL R Parcel Boundary Lines ad ailro Prime Farmland Statewide Important Farmlands LC2 CR 36 LA W TC& LA a od Railr Potential Erodible Soils LC2 TH LE2 HM LC2 LC2 LD2 2 MK LA MK 21 MK LA LB2 CW CR LE2 KC2 Prime Farmland: 51 acres Statewide Importance: 33 acres Agricultural Preserves: 18 acres CW 41 Paul Ave N LC PM LA LC2 LD2 LC2 LC2 LB2 PM GL LC2 ´ LC2 LB2 LA LA CW GL LA HM GL GL LA Market Avenue PM LA LD2 LS CS KC2 LB2 LC2 LA LC2 LC LC LA KC2 GL GL KB LA LE2 LA LD2 HM HM LD2 KC2 LC2 KB2 FIGURE 6 SOILS, FARMLANDS, AND AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES LA HM HM LD2 LC2 LS LB2 GL TB LA LC2 CW CT LA CD3 LC 1 inch = 600 feet TB GL KB Source: MnDNR Data Deli; Carver County, 2006 S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 Market Avenue <Double-click here to enter title> Site 21CR0146 ve N CR-DHL-040 CM &StP Benton Cutoff, Dahlgren Twp Segment A P a ul ( ! CR CR-CLC-002 Mohrbacher House (a) ( ! CR-CLC-017 Dols and Jorissen/ American House ( ! ! ( (! ! ( CR-CLC-021 Schepers Bros/ Eiden Bros Hardware CR-CLC-005 Mohrbacher House (b)** CR-CLC-027 Hastings & Dakota RR, Cologne Segment CR-CLC-008 Knotz House T ( ! 12 H2 CR-BNT-136 Hastings & Dakota RR, Benton Twp Segment Site 21CR0145 CR-DHL-041 Hastings & Dakota RR, Dahlgren Twp Segment ! ( ( ! CR-CLC-025 Jorissen Furniture and Undertaking ! ( ( ! ( ! CR-BNT-137 CM & StP Benton Cutoff, Benton Twp Segment Legend ( ! NRHP Eligible Properties NRHP Eligible Railroad Architectural History APE Investigated Archaeological Sites Initial Archaeological APE Revised Archaeological APE (Interchange Footprint) * - Also reviewed for archaeological integrity ** - Denotes Chaska Brick House ( CR-DHL-036 ! Hesse Farmstead * ** CR 41 !CR-BNT-126 ( Sauter Farmstead * ** ´ 2 TH 21 1 inch = 800 feet HWY 284 Market Avenue ( ! CR-BNT-135 Meuleners Farmstead 36 CR-DHL-037 Buehler Farmstead 134th Street FIGURE 7 CULTURAL RESOURCES Source: Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Report (January 2008) Phase I and Phase II Investigation of Historic Structures (February 2008) Aerial Photo Source: Carver County (2006) S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 Market Avenue PEMAd 1064 PEMC 1077 PEMAd 1073 CR PEMAd 1072 450949 k PEMC 1065 484792 36 k & TC PEMC 1067 PEMC 1066 ! W Ra ilro 2 TH ad PEMAd 1071 12 PEMCd 1074 Legend PEMCd 1075 k Wells ! ! ! ! Interchange Footprint PEMC 1068 ! ! ! Potential Wetland Impacts ! Inventoried Wetlands ! ! ! ! ! PEMCd 1056 ! ! ! ! ! PEMAd 1069 ! PEMAd 1957 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! PEMCd 1070 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! No. 6 ! ! ! PEMCd 1054 ! PEMC 1063 W0020007 k CR 41 ´ 1 inch = 600 feet Ca k 543723 Ditch ounty C r rve ! Paul Ave N ! TC& WR DNR #34W ! ! ! ad ailro ! ! ! CR 36 ! ! PEMC 1055 Non-public Ditches TH 21 PEMA 1061 2 484758 k PUBF 1059 PEMC 1060 PUBG 1058 Market Avenue HWY 284 PEMAd 1062 FIGURE 8 WATER RESOURCES Source: MnDOT Wetland Inventory (July 2007) Aerial Photo Source: Carver County (2006) S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 ate align Historical Demo RR Potential ! ! Historical Demo C20 ! ( X C08 C09 C07 CR C19 ) " ) " C06 X ! Historical Demo X 36 TH ) C15 " C04 ) " Unpermitted Dump Site (actual location unknown) Potential for Contamination X ^ X C13 High Medium ( ! Low ) " Unlikely C12 " ) ) C03 " X Legend 212 C26 " ) ) " C14 RR C02 ) C17 " ( C16 ! ) " C05 C25 ! ( X C18 Interchange Footprint Potential Property Acqusition ) " ) " C24 " ) C23 Parcel Boundary Lines C01 " ) C11 C22 ! ( CR 41 ) " C21 ´ X C10 1 inch = 600 feet Market Avenue HWY 284 TH 212 FIGURE 9 POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES Source: Limited Phase I ESA Report (October 2007) S.P. 1013-78 May 2010 APPENDIX F MAP OF FUTURE LAND USE EXCERPT FROM CITY OF COLOGNE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (MAY 2009) This page was intentionally left blank. CR 153 City of Cologne 118TH ST Carver County, MN Figure 5 Future Land Use Land Use Designation MARKET AVE 122ND BENT O Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Commercial N Central Business District Light Industrial Benton Lake A CS WTF Meuwissen Lake TH 2 WTF tern Wes ies & t i C Twin 12 H3 Park 6 Public/Institutional pany Com oad r l i a R Future Park Concept TH 2 21 Road/Trail Corridors MARKET AVE Trail Corridors NWI Wetlands water streams 134TH ST U CO Y NT A RO D 53 0 500 June 2008 1,000 2,000 Feet This page was intentionally left blank. APPENDIX G AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Cultural Resources March 7, 2008 .................... Mn/DOT Letter to SHPO, Archaeology Sites April 8, 2008 ...................... SHPO Response Letter, Archaeology Sites November 21, 2008 ............ Mn/DOT Letter to SHPO, Historic Structures January 22, 2009 ................ SHPO Response Letter, Historic Structures State Rare Plant and Animal Species June 30, 2007 ..................... DNR Response Letter for S.P. 1013-77, 1013-78, and 1013-79 March 26, 2009 .................. DNR Update Letter for S.P. 1013-77, 1013-78, and 1013-79 This page was intentionally left blank. Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services Mail stop 620 Office Tel: (651) 366-3614 Fax: (651) 366-3603 395 John Ireland Boulevard March 7, 200~ Mr. Dennis Gimmestad State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Blvd. W. . St. Paul, MN 55101-1906 Regar4ing: S.P. 1013-78 (TI:l212 Part C, Carver County) Intersection ofTH 212 and Market Avenue T. 115 N., R. 24 W., S. 7. &" 18, Dahlgren Twp. T. 115 N., R. 25 W., S. 12 & 13, Benton Twp. Dear Mr. Gimmestad: We have reviewed the above-referenced undertaking pursuant to our FHWA-delegated responsibilities for compliance with Section 106 oftheNational HistoricPreservatioi:l Act, as amended (36 CFR 800). The project involves the construction of a grade-separated intersection· at TH 212 and Market Avenue and other related activities near at Cologne. This letter discusses only the archaeology of the project since'a determination of effect on the archi(ectura~ properties has not been completed. . The results ofthe Phase I and II precontact and historic archaeology by Two Pines Resource . Group is included in the enclosed report entitled Phase 1 Archaeologic;al Survey artd.Phase II .. Archaeological Evaluation ofSite 21 CR0145, Trunk Highway 212 Improvement Project (Part. C),' Carver County, Minnesota. Two archaeological sites were recorded, neither ofwhich are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. At the time of the survey in 2007, the APE was defined as a large area, depicted in Figure 2 of the report. Since that time, the APE has been reduced to exclude construction activities at the location of site 21CR145 (see enclosed Figure Cl and aerial photo). The nearest construction will now be confined to an area north ofthe old railroad right-of-way and subsequently nort,h of 21CR145. The Sauter/Thaemert farmstead was identified in the repo~ as an area to be tested for historic archaeological resources. Recent.plans (see Figure C2) place' the construction rightof-way for the interchange outside and to the north of the farmstead buildings. leaving the area identified for testing outside of the APE. . In summary, we have determined that there will be no historic properties affected by the proposed project. If the project scope changes. we will conduct an additional reView. Si~relY~ .,. CraigJo 'lA------ n. enc cc: Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn Scott Anfinson, State Archaeologist MnlDOT CO File Victoria Nill, MnlDOT Metro' Rose Richter, MnlDOT Metro Joe Hudak, MnJDOT CRU MnlDOT CRU Project File Michelle Terrell, Two Pines ."" MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY State Historic Preservation Office April 8, 2008 Mr. Craig Johnson Cultural Resources Unit MN Dept. of Transportation Transportation Building, MS 620 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 Re: 1', \ S.P. 1013-78, T.H. 212 Part C Construction of a grade separated intersection at T.H. 212 and Market Avenue T115 R24 S7 & S18, Dahlgren Twp., Carver County T115 R25 S12 & S13, Benton Twp., Carver County SHPO Number: 2008-1462 Dear Mr. Johnson> Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800), and to the respohsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. We have reviewed the archaeological survey of the project area, completed by Two Pines Resource Group. We have the following comments: 1. We concur with your determination that site 21 CR0146 does not meet National Register criteria. 2. We do not concur with the determination that site 21CR0145 does not meet National Register criteria. We note that you indicate that this site no longer lies within the area of potential effect. If it --were located in the APE, we would recommend additional evaluation. We cannot concur with your determination that no historic properties will be affected by the project at this time, because the results of the history/architecture investigation are not yet known. We look forward to working with you to complete the review. Sincerely, -----l i~ I\/----:::> Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs & Compliance Officer cc: Michelle Terrell, Two Pines 345 Kellogg Boulevard West/Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1906/Telephone 651-296-6126 Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 November 21,2008 Mr. D.ennis Gimmestad State 'Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Blvd. W. St. Paul, MN 55101-1906 re: SP 1013-78 Part C, TH212/Market Street Interchange, in the vicinity oftologne Carver County Dear Mr. Gimmestad, We are providing your office with this information pursuant to our FHWA-delegated responsibilities for compliance with Section 106'ofthe National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (36 CFR 800). ' Please frnd enclosed a fmal copy of Phase I and II Investigation 0/Historic Structures Near US Highway 212 and Market Avenue in the Vicinity o/Cologne, Carver County, Minnesota, 'completed for MnDOT by Gemini in February, 2008. The report was completed in'order to identifY and evaluate cultural ~esources within the project's area ofpotential effect. The undertaking is located within a s'egment ofTH 212 that was constructed as the Cologne bypass in 1973. The undertaking is located between two segments OfTH 212 that are currently under separate review as SP 1013-77 and 79, parts A andH. This project, SP 1017-78, Pmt C, has separate utility and may not use federal funds. The area of potential effect has been evaluated to the ~tandards of Section 106. The project proposes to construct a grade-separated diamond interchange that will cmTy Market Avenue over TH 212, the National Register-eligible Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul· Railroad Benton cutoff, (now Twin City and Western Railroad) and the ,abandoned Hastings and Dakota Railroad. In order to limit access to the previously reconstructed TH 212, the project will also close the intersections ofTH 212 with St. Paul Avenue in Cologne and with County Road 36 east of Cologne (see enclosed figure Cl from SRF Consulting). Th~se actions will divert traffic taking St. Paul Avenue (TH 284) into Cologne, or three miles north to Waconia, onto Market Avenue up to the historic·route ofTH 212. This route was changed with the construction ofthe 4~lane Cologne bypass in 1973 (see enclosed figure A). The report identified 15 properties as either listed on or eligible for·the National Register of Historic Places (see table 3.9 and Figure 1 ofthe Gemini repOlt). Several properties were found to meet National Register criterion C as representative ofthe type ofembellished vernacular brick construction that flourished in several areas of the state associated with Germanic An equal opportunity employer immigration arid local brickworks. We concur with the findings ofthe rep0l1. The following is an assessment of effects to each.National Register-eligible or listed property: See Figur~ 1, Sheets 1 and 2 hi Gemini Research report for historic property locations. CR-BNT-126 Sauter Barn The Sauter barn, built in 1925, meets National Register criterion C as a well-preserved example of a pre-World War II dairy barn that is timber-framed in superstructure wi¢. traditional mortise and tenon joinery secured with wood pegs, but built to accommodate a modem dairy stable in its lower level and designed with consideration to ~~mal health and economy oflabor. The proposed Market Street/TH 212 intersection reconstruction will grade separate the intersection of Market and TH 212 with an overpass and diamond. The Sauter bam ~d the associated farm operation will be impacted by the construction of an offramp' to Market that will begin due north. ofthe barn and will bisect"an associated cultivated field to the east before it crosses Market street and twns northeasterly (figure B). The right-of-way acquisition/preservation would be within 100 feet ofthe eligible bam and even closer to the house and other outbuildings. It is our opinion·that the proximity of the project to ~he farmstead will have adverse effects to the agricultural setting of the property,.diminishing the property's ability to reflect its historic function and period. CR-BNT-135 Meuleners Bam The Meuleners Barn, built ca. 1919, meets National Register criterion C as a well-preserved example of a pre-World War II dairy barn that is timber-framed in superstructure with traditional mortise and tenon joinery secured with wood pegs, but built to accon;unodate a modem dairy stable in its lower level and designed with considerati9n to animal health and economy oflabor. The Meuleners Barn i~ located at the edge of Cologne at the intersection ofthe old TH 212 (County Road 36) and North Edward Avenue (figure C). The only impacts to this property are that there may be an increase in vehicles using County Road 36 to access Paul Avenue and Cologne's main street or to travel north to the community of Waconia via Paul AvenuelTH 284. County Road 36 will not be altered and no acreage taken. County Road 36 passes on the south perimeter ofthe farmyard. The barn is located ~80 feet from the road and the residence is located within the trees about 275 feet from the road. Edward Avenue on the west-perimeter is 40 feet west offue barn and 295 feet from the house. Acrc;>ss Edward Avenue are residences. No aspect ofthe p~oject would threaten the viability 01' diJ.l?inish the setting ofthis'''urban'; farmstead. No adve.rse effect. CR-BNT:-136, CR-CLC-027, and CR-DHL-41, H~stings & Dakota RR, Benton and Dahlgren Twp Segments and City of Cologne Segment This line has previously been determined eligible and this rep011 evaluates the integrity of the segments within the Area ofpotential effect (APE). Roughly'1200 feet of this abandoned, but eligible rail line ~n the Benton and Dahlgren segments is located within the footprint of the interchange diamond. Adverse effect. CR~BNT-137 and'CR-D~~040, , CM&StP Benton Cutoff, Benton and DahlgrenTwp Segments , , This line has previously been determined eligible and this report evaluates the integrity ofthe segments within the Area of poten~al effect (APE). The west end of the eligible Benton Township segment is the railroad wye that was the historic terminus Of the Benton Cutoff. The Benton Township segment lUllS east to Market Avenue (see enclosed aerial). The Dahlgren Township segment continues east from Mark;et Avenue to County Road 36. A bridge, roughly 30 feet high~ will be builtto carry Market Avenue over the live (now Twin' Cities & Westel1;1) line. ,The bridge may impact the historic 100' right ofway, but bridge design i~ not yet developed to a degree that the impact-can be discerned with certainty. The ramp ofthe interchange diamond wo:uld abut, but would not overlap,. the' railroad right-of-w~y. Possible adverse effect. CR-CLC-002 Mohrbacher, Adam and Mary House, 215 Lake Street East (same as TH 3,6/01d TH212) . This house is set back about 45 feet from the cui.'b behind a broad front yard (Figure D). There will be no physical changes to Lake Street. There maybe some additional traffic on Lake Street (Old TH 212) that would have previously bypassed the Mohtbacher house by using Paul Avenue from the intersection ofTH 212 into Cologne or to continue . on toWaconia three miles to the north. However, traffic currently heading to Waconia may continue to use the alternate route frolp. Market Avenue north to County Road 140, skirting Cologne. This house is nearly % niile from Market Av.enue.and·the new 3'0 foot high bridge and from TH 212 and the 25 foot high bridge, making visible and noise effects qnlikely. No adverse effect. ' , CR-CLC-005 Mohrbacher, Paul, House, 102 Paul Avenue South This h<?use is listed on the National Register ofHistoric Places. It is located on Paul Avenue, south of the commercial district. It will experience less traffic. Paul Avenue is nearly % mile from Market Avenue and the new 30 foot high bridge and from TH 212 and the 25 fqot high ' bridge, making ~isible and noise effects unlikely. No adverse effect. CR-CLC-008 Knotz, John and Rosa, Hous~, 302 Paul Avenue South This house is located on Paul Avenue, south, ofthe commercial district. It will experience less' traffic. Paul Avenue is nearly % mile from Market Avenue and the new 30 foot high bridge and from ill, 212 and the 25 foot high bridge, making visible and noise effects unlikely. No adverse effect. CR-CLC-O17 Dols and JorissenlAmerican House, 101 Paul Avenue North This building is located on Paul Avenue, in the commercial district. It yvill experience less traffic. Paul Avenue is nearly % mile from Market Avenue and the new 30 foot high bridge ana. from TH 212 and the 25 foot high bridge, making visible an.d noise effects unlikely. No adverse effect. CR~CLC-021 Schepers BroslEiden Bros Hardware, 112 Paul A~enue North This building is located on P,,-u1 Avenue, in the commercial district. It will experience less traffic. Paul Avenue is nearly % mile from Market Avenue and the new 30 foot high bridge artdfrom TH 212 and the 25 foot high bridge, making visible and noise effects unlikely. No adverse effect. . CR~CLC"025 Jorissen Furniture~d Undet:taking 204 Paul Avenue South This building is located on Paul Avenue, south ofthe commercial district. It will exp'erien~e less traffic. Paul Avenue is nearly % mile from Market Avenue and the new ~O foot high bridge, and from the TH 212 and the 25 foot high bridge, making visible and noise effects unlikely. No adverse effect. . CR"DHL~036 Hesse Farmhouse The farmhouse is about 500' from the proposed ramp (Figure.E). A large, but not recommended eli~ble, barn stands between the house and'the proposed ramp at about 300'. It is. our opinion that the proximity of the project to this property will have an adyerse effect to the agricultural setting ofthis property. It will also close the current access to Market Avenue and the owner will need to take County Road 130 and Kelly Avenue about 1.~ miles to access TH 212 (figure G). CR~DHL-037 Buehler Barn This eligible barn is located just east ofthe intersection ofTH 212 and County'Road 36 (figure F). This intersection will be closed and will close the farm's ac~ess to ill 212 but will retain the 'existing access to County Road 36. County Road 36 is roughly parallel to m 212 and therefore the distance to Cologne or north and southbound routes is unchanged. However, to travel east on . TH 212, the owner will need to travel % mile west to the new Market Avenue intersection (figure G). The property is about % east of the new bridges, therefore noise and visual effects are not likely. No adverse effect. If you have additional questions regarding this project, please contact me at (651) 366-3624. ac '0 SIUSS'~~ HIstorian, Cultural Resource Unit Office of Environmental Services cc: MnD0r C 0 file CRU project file Joseph Hudak, CRU Nicole Peterson, Metro l krJ.. Minnesota Historical Society State Historic PreselVation Office January 22, 2009 Ms. Jackie Sluss Cultural Resources Unit MN Dept. of Transportation Transportation Building, MS 620 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 Re: S.P. 1013-78, Part C, T.H. 212/Market Street Interchange, vicinity of Cologne . Carver County . SHPO Number: 2008-1462 Dear Ms. Sluss; . Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Qfficer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800), and to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Your submittal indicates that the project has potential adverse effects on the following properties: the Sauter.Barn, the Hastings & Dakota Railroad (Benton and Dahlgren Township segments and City of Cologne segment), the CM&StP Benton Cutoff (Benton and Dahlgren Township segments), and the Hesse Farmhouse. . The survey for this project included a property at 101 Paul Avenue North (Dais and Jorissen/American House; CR-CLC-017). The property is recommended as eligible. We have some questions about the recent rehabilitation of this property and the potential effects that rehabilitation may have had on the property's historic integrity. However, the submittal does not identify any potential project effects (adverse or not adverse) to this property. Therefore, it would seem unnecessary to complete further evaluation of the property as part of this review, unless a change in project plans would result in potential effects to the property. With possible exception of the evaluation of 101 Paul Avenue North, we concur with the other evaluations included in the submittal. . We note that we previously recommended additional evaluation of site 21CR0145, should it lie in the area of potential effect. It is our understanding that it is not in the area of potential effect based on current plans. We look forward to consulting with you to seek ways to avoid, reduce, and/or mitigate the potent/al effects on historic properties. Contact us at 651- 259- 3456 with questions or concerns. . Sincerely, Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs & Compliance Officer cc: Tom Cinadr Susan Granger, <3emini Research Minnesota Historical Society. 34S Kellogg Boulevard West. Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 651-259-3000 • 888-727-8386 • www.mnhs.org Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road 81. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4010 June 30, 2007 Richard Martig Metro District 1500 West Co. Rd. B2 Roseville, MN" 55113 Jessica Laabs Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc 2550 University Ave W Suite 345N St. Paul, :MN 55114 RE: Response to MnDOT/DNR Questionnaire Request Form Regarding Natural Resources and Recreational Resources, TH 212 Rehabilitation (S.P. 1013-7x), Carver County Dear Mr. Martig and Ms.Laabs: The MilIDesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has completed the information request for ecological resources in the TH 212. corridor from the west end of "new TH 212" currently being constructed through to the City ofNorwood~Young America, all in Carver County. We received three EarIyNotification Memo's for approximately 11 miles ofroad (SP 1013-77, -78, & -79), though have combined them for a single review. The following information was submitted to me during DNR field review ofthe.project. 1. Two Public Waters are located within the Project boundaries: Barnes Lake (l0-109P): Ifthere is an alignment shift north ofthe existing alignment near the City ofYoung America, there is potential that Barnes Lake may be impacted by this project. In addition to the possible need for a Public Waters Work Permit, please note item #2 below. Therefore, the project should avoid impacts to this area ifpcissible. Carver Creek: Ifthe project goes forward, this crossing wm need to be rebuilt and a Public Waters Permit will be required. However, work at this crossing may qualify for' authorization under General Permit (GP) 2004-0001 should the conditions ofthe permit be met. As the project moves forward, design ofthe crossing should meet the conditions listed in the GP. Additional design considerations and information on specific GP conditions are: • GP 2004-0001 Condition #7: DNR staff did not identify concerns for exotic invasive species in this area. • GP 2004-0001 Condition #12: it is unlmown ifthe crossings will be bridges ofIarge culverts. However, a hydrologic report, including 2yr velocities, will be required for review prior to authorization under the GP. • GP 2004-0001 Condition #18: Crossing design must allow for fish migration. For construction purposes, work exclusion dates for non-trout streams in DNR Region 3 is March 15 through June 15. It's a bit early in the process, though should project design begin, please contact me as soon as possible in order to identify further design needs ofthis project for authorization under the GP. Standard erosion control practices will suffice for DNR concerns. Additional guidance on concerns may also be found in the Manual "Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-0001". A pdfversion ofthis manual may be found at: htto://files.dnr.state.rnn.us/waters/watemlgmt section/pwpennitslDNR GP Guidance Manual.pdf 2. The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are !mown to occur within an approximate one-mile radius ofthe TH 212 (S.P. 1013-7x) project area. Based on this review, there are 34 records ofrare species or native plant communities in the area searched (for details, please see the attached database printouts). Following?Te specific comments for only those elements that may be impacted by the proposed project. Rare feature occurrences not listed below are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed project. • North ofTH 212 in TIISN R26W Section 13 there is a natural area around Barnes Lake that has been identified as a Regionally Significant Ecological Area (RSEA). In 2003 the DNR Central Region, in partnership with the Metropolitan Council, conducted a landscape-scale assessment ofthe seven-county metro area that identified ecologically significant terrestrial and wetland areas. The mapping ofRSEAs was done using two primary data sources. The first data source was native plant communities mapped by the Minnesota County Biological Survey. The remaining areas were derived using a modeling process that predicts the likelihood that high quality native animal habitats exist in a contiguous area. Shapefiles of the RSEAs are available on the DNR's data deli website at http://deli.dnr.slate.nm.us (named "Twin Cities Metro Regionally Significant Ecological Areas"). To view pdf versions of the final maps, refer to http://www.dnr.state.mn.uslrsealindex.hlIIll. Protective actions during construction should be taken to minimize disturbance to these sites of ecological significance. A standard guidance sheet for the protection of sites of ecological significance is included (page 1-6) in the manual "Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004·000I" mentioned in item #1. I have attached page 1-6 to the cover email. This page maybe used in your projects documents. In summary, page 1-6 states; 1) Locate field offices, store equipment and supplies at least 25 feet away froni. the identified sensitive area in accordance with MnlDOT spec 2031, and 2) Label area(s) as "designated sensitive area" on all plans. fu addition, should grading outside the PI (point ofIntersect) be proposed; 3) Walk the perimenter ofthe sensitive area with the grading foreman so that all personnel understand and agree on the edge ofthe area. 4) Leave a buffer ofundisturbed vegetation between the critical resource and the grading, 5) Redundant Best Management'practices may be required for protection of the area, and 6) Revegetate disturbed areas with native species suitable to the local habitat. fu addition, precautions should be taken to ensure that borrow and disposal areas are not located within native plant communities, and that, if adjacent to native plant communities, the above actions are taken to minimize disturbance. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by-county survey ofrare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Carver County. Our information about native plant communiijes is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on-site survey of all areas ofthe county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the project area. !fyou have questions regarding this letter, please e-mail me at peter.1eete@dot.state.rnn.us or call at (651) 366-3634. On behalf of the DNR · s~mi~ ··-;4~2.~.; "'iIJ""'f.r. ::.•.... ~ .. Peter Leete Transportation Hydrologist Office ofEnvironmental Services, mail stop 620 Minnesota Depar1IIJent of Transportation 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 c: ERDB file 20070805 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity Fosmo, Ashley From: Sent: To: Cc: SUbject: Attachments: Peter Leete [Peter.Leete@dot.state.mn.us] Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:29 PM Fosmo, Ashley Iisa.joyal@dnr.state.mn.us Re: DNR NHIS Request UPDATE - TH212 Part A, B, & C (SP1013-77, SP1013-79, SP1013-7B) DNR Response to MnDOT information reques~ TH 212 reconstruction (SP 1013-7x), Carver county; GP 2004-0001 signed 11-26-200B.pdf Ashley, Your are correct. Unless there has been a change in the scope of the project, there is no need to re-review the project at this time. I've attached to 6/30/2007 communications. The only change on this end is that the GP to MnDOT has been amended and extended another 5 years. I've attached it.f.or your information as conditions in it may have changed. Contact me if you have any'questions peter Peter Leete DNR Transportation Hydrologist (DNR-MnDOT OES Liaison) @MnDOT Office of Environmental Services 395 John Ireland Blvd., MS 620 st. Paul, MN 55155 ph:. 651-366-3634 »> <Ashley.Fosmo@kimley-horn.com> 3/24/2009 10:28 AM »> Hi' Peter, Per our telephone discussion on Monday, March 24, 2009, I am sending this email to request an update to the Natural Heritage Information Search Request for the Mn/DOT TH 212 Preliminary Design Project in Carver County, Minnesota. State project numbers associated with this project include: SP-1013-77 - Part A SP-1013-79 - Part B SP-1013-78 - Part C Kimley-Horn received a response letter from you on June 30, 2007 stating that there are two Public Waters located in the Project Boundaries. These include· Barnes Lake (10-109P) and Carver Creek. Also, there is a natural area within the project·boundary. This includes Barnes Lake Natural Area. Protective actions were advised to minimize disturbance to these sites of ecological significances and General Public Waters permits will have to be obtained before this project goes into construction. 1 This page was intentionally left blank. APPENDIX H PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE AS OF MAY 2010 This page was intentionally left blank. Market Avenue Interchange – Estimate Assumptions a. Excavation – Muck material. No geotechnical work was performed to develop the concepts for the footprinted area for the interchange. This quantity assumes a worse condition both depth and width within the footprinted area. Future project development requires definition as to the actual location (length and depth of muck material) since this a major item within the estimate and has high risk associated to cost, constructability and final selection of an interchange type. b. Granular subgrade – quantity correlates to the muck removal quantity. Major item that can be mitigated by immediate geotech investigation and review. c. Assumed asphaltic pavement for mainline pavement. d. Refer to project drainage report for assumption and defined areas for ponds and water quality – wetland mitigations. e. Non quantifiable items include those items that are not identified at this stage of development, such as fencing, cross road signing & striping, driveway construction, mitigation needs, etc. f. Temporary pavement and drainage is estimated at 2% based on existing conditions (year 2010) which is a minor intersection and evaluating the profiles between the mainline of TH 212 and the overpass for Market Avenue. Since existing condition is not a current interchange – consultant team assumed a 2% amount to accommodate temporary pavement and drainage. g. Contingency risk is placed at 20% since project estimate considered a large quantity related to Muck material (removal) & granular subgrade material. h. Right of way costs were escalated by doubling the 2008 estimated costs, since the project is not in the MnDOT long range plan. PRINTED: 5/13/2010 6:53 AM Concept Cost Estimate for the Market Avenue Interchange (based upon 2008 bid price information) TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT EST. QUANTITY PAVING AND GRADING COSTS 1 Excavation - common & subgrade cu. yd. $4.00 2 Excavation - muck a cu. yd. $6.00 3 Excavation - rock cu. yd. $12.00 4 Common Borrow cu. yd. $4.00 5 Granular Subgrade b cu. yd. $12.00 6 Mainline Pavement ($40 to $80) c sq. yd. $45.00 7 Mainline Shoulder Pavement ($25 to $60) sq. yd. $30.00 8 County Road Pavement sq. yd. $30.00 9 County Road Shoulder Pavement sq. yd. $20.00 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: MISC. UNIT or PERCENTAGE OF PAVING AND GRADING COSTS 1 Local Utilities - Sanitary Sewers lump sum $10,000 2 Local Utilities - Watermains lump sum $10,000 3 Removals - Pavement sq. yd. $3.00 4 Removals - Buildings each $50,000 5 Removals - Drainage lin. ft. $20 6 Water Quality Ponds & Wetland Mitigation d l.s. $550,000 7 Drainage - urban 1% 8 Drainage - rural mile $100,000 9 Turf Establishment & Erosion Control 4% 10 Landscaping 2% SUBTOTAL MISC. PERCENTAGE COSTS: BRIDGE COSTS 1 Bridge -Market Ave. over T.H. 212 sq. ft. $140 2 Bridge - Market Avenue over R.R. sq. ft. $140 SUBTOTAL BRIDGE COSTS: RETAINING WALLS & OTHER MINOR STRUCTURAL COSTS 1 CIP Ret. Walls lin. ft. $800 2 Ret. Walls Architectural Treatments (normal) sq. ft. $15 SUBTOTAL RETAINING WALLS & OTHER MINOR STRUCTURAL COSTS: SIGNING COSTS 1 Mainline Striping mile $20,000 2 Mainline Signing mile $40,000 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: 15,000 600,000 $60,000 $3,600,000 300,000 610,000 13,000 8,000 8,000 2,000 $1,200,000 $7,320,000 $585,000 $240,000 $240,000 $40,000 $13,285,000 1 1 12,000 5 500 1 $10,000 $10,000 $36,000 $250,000 $10,000 $550,000 $133,000 $180,000 $531,000 $266,000 $1,976,000 1.8 22,750 7,000 $3,185,000 $980,000 $4,165,000 700 105,000 $560,000 $1,575,000 $2,135,000 1.8 1.8 $36,000 $72,000 $108,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 1 Mobilization 2 Non Quantified Minor Items (10% to 30%) 3 Temporary Pavement & Drainage 4 Traffic Control $21,669,000 e f 5% 15% 2% 3% $1,083,000 $3,250,000 $433,000 $650,000 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $5,416,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: 1 Contingency or "risk" (10% to 30%) EST. AMOUNT g $27,085,000 20% $5,417,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: $32,502,000 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: RAILROAD AGREEMENTS Lump Sum $250,000 1 $250,000 UTILITY AGREEMENTS Lump Sum $45,000 1 $45,000 TURN BACK AGREEMENTS Lump Sum PROJECT MITIGATION Lump Sum 1 $2,000,000 h Lump Sum $2,000,000 DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Sum 20% R/W ACQUISITIONS SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS $6,500,000 $8,795,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST (based upon 2008 bid price information) $41,297,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST (BASED on 2008 assumed unit costs) $41,297,000 5/6/2010 Right of Way Cost Estimate For the Market Avenue Interchange Footprint TEMP ID 81 84 87 88 92 112 118 119 261 ZONING RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL TOTAL ACREAGE 11.93 81.87 0.74 60.04 82.92 0.85 113.87 61.24 3.35 TOTAL SQ. FT 519,671 3,566,257 32,234 2,615,342 3,611,995 37,026 4,960,177 2,667,614 145,926 ASSESSED ASSESSED BLDG. LAND $189,600 $356,600 $66,000 $124,300 $268,900 $83,200 $1,564,400 $1,049,000 $61,200 EST. $/AC (X 1.25) $55,000 $23,000.00 $80,600 $11,000.00 $0 TOTAL $0 $11,000.00 $85,000 $11,000.00 $156,100 TOTAL $173,800 $11,000.00 $84,100 $11,000.00 $0 $11,000.00 PARTIAL ACQ. 1.39 16.09 0.00 0.78 0.39 0.00 20.72 1.56 3.35 PARTIAL ACQ. $31,970 $176,990 $0 $8,580 $4,290 $0 $227,920 $17,160 $36,850 TOTAL ACQ. $ (x1.25) $0.00 $0.00 $82,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $299,125.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $381,625 RELO TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,970 $176,990 $82,500 $8,580 $4,290 $334,125 $227,920 $17,160 $36,850 $35,000 $920,385 $35,000

SP 1013-78 - Minnesota Department of Transportation

Related documents

Products

Support

SP 1013-78 - Minnesota Department of Transportation

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib