SP 1013-78 - Minnesota Department of Transportation

advertisement
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
Download