ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Trunk Highway 100 Reconstruction in St. Louis Park State Project: Minnesota Project Number: not yet available

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Trunk Highway 100 Reconstruction in St. Louis Park State Project: Minnesota Project Number: not yet available (Highway Reference Point: to ) From West 36th Street to Cedar Lake Road in City: St. Louis Park; in County: Hennepin of Minnesota Sections 9, 31; Township(s) 117N; Range(s) 21W, 22W Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C and M. S. 116D by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Minnesota Department of Transportation Contacts: FHW A: Emeka Ezekwemba Administration Engineer Gal tier Plaza 380 Jackson Street, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN Phone: MnDOT: April Crockett Project Manager MnDOT Metro District 1500 W. Co. Rd. B2 Roseville, MN Phone: Recommended for approval by: A Date Approved by: FHWA - Project Development Engineer i-!"r\a.c...,c.\o. U E.1.e.lot.'""C.-.'Q"' II /2. 8( I;;J... Date To request this document in an alternative format, call Bruce Lattu at or (Greater Minnesota);711 or (Minnesota Relay). You may also send an to bruce.lattu@state.mn.us (Please request at least one week in advance).

2

3 Table of Contents 1. REPORT PURPOSE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT... 1 BACKGROUND... 2 Existing Condition of T.H The Early Years of T.H Interim Construction of T.H Current T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project Concerns... 3 PROJECT NEEDS... 3 Primary Needs... 3 Secondary Needs... 9 Additional Considerations PROJECT PURPOSE ALTERNATIVES A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED No-Build Alternative Build Alternatives B. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Preferred Alternative Geometric Design Features Summary of the Preferred Alternative C. COST AND FUNDING Project Cost Funding D. PROJECT SCHEDULE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PROJECT TITLE: REASON FOR EAW PREPARATION PROJECT LOCATION DESCRIPTION Major Project Features Construction Impacts Project Schedule Project Purpose Project Beneficiaries PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED Funding LAND USE Land Use and Development Environmental Hazards COVER TYPES FISH, WILDLIFE, AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES Existing Habitat Habitat Impacts State-listed species Federally-listed species PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES Wetland Analysis WATER USE iii

4 Public Water Supplies...40 Dewatering...40 Water Wells WATER-RELATED LAND-USE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT...41 Shoreland Zoning District...41 Floodplain Assessment...41 Wild and Scenic Rivers - Nationwide Rivers Inventory WATER SURFACE USE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION WATER QUALITY: SURFACE WATER RUNOFF WATER QUALITY: WASTEWATERS GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS...46 Groundwater...47 Bedrock and Geologic Hazards...47 Soil Granularity...48 Potential for Groundwater Contamination SOLID WASTES, HAZARDOUS WASTES, STORAGE TANKS TRAFFIC...51 Traffic Forecast...52 Traffic Operation...52 Traffic Safety VEHICLE-RELATED AIR EMISSIONS...54 Introduction to Transportation Air Quality...54 Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis STATIONARY SOURCE AIR EMISSIONS ODORS, NOISE, AND DUST...66 Odors and Dust during Construction...66 Noise during Construction...66 Traffic Noise Analysis NEARBY RESOURCES...72 Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources...72 Farmlands...72 Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails VISUAL IMPACTS COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS AND LAND-USE REGULATIONS...75 Metropolitan Council...75 City of St. Louis Park IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS...76 Scope of Cumulative Potential Effects...77 Past Actions...77 Future Actions Anticipated...77 Evaluation of Cumulative Potential Effects...78 Conclusion OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY OF ISSUES...80 EAW Item 6 - Construction Impacts...80 EAW Item 9 Environmental Hazards...81 EAW Item 11 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources...82 EAW Item 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources...83 EAW Item 13 - Water use...83 EAW Item 16 - Erosion and Sedimentation...84 EAW Item 17 - Water quality: surface water runoff...84 EAW Item 20 - Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks...84 EAW Item 24 - Odors, noise, and dust...85 iv

5 EAW Item 25 - Nearby resources...86 EAW Item 26 - Visual impacts...86 Accessibility (See page 94.)...87 Social Impacts (See page 94.)...87 Transit (See page 96.)...87 Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists (See page 97.)...87 Environmental Justice (See page 98.)...87 Right-of-Way (See page 106.)...88 RGU CERTIFICATION...89 ADDITIONAL FEDERAL ISSUES...91 ACCESSIBILITY...91 SOCIAL IMPACTS...91 Community Facilities Adjacent to the Project...91 Eruv...92 Public Service Facilities near the Project Area...93 Mitigation...93 TRANSIT...93 Mitigation...94 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS...94 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE...95 Background...95 Project Area Demographics...95 Environmental Justice Finding RIGHT-OF-WAY Public Right-of-Way Private Right-of-Way Mitigation ECONOMIC IMPACTS Impacts to Commercial Business Property Fiscal Impacts INDIRECT EFFECTS PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE EA PROCESS BEYOND THE PUBLIC MEETING APPENDIX A... 1 APPENDIX B... 7 APPENDIX C...18 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1- BRIDGE CONDITION DATA 4 TABLE 2 - INTERCHANGE CRASH DATA 5 TABLE 3 - CRASH LOCATIONS ALONG T.H TABLE 4- T.H. 100 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 8 TABLE 5 NO-BUILD T.H. 100 FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE 9 TABLE 6 NO-BUILD T.H. 100 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) 9 TABLE 7 - PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES 17 TABLE 8 - PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED 21 TABLE 9 - KNOWN OR POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT 26 TABLE 10: COVER TYPE IMPACTS FOR PROJECT SITE 33 v

6 TABLE 11 - T.H. 100 PROJECT AREA WETLAND BASIN FEATURES AND IMPACTS 36 TABLE 12 - NEARBY WELLS 41 TABLE 13 - STORMWATER BASINS DEPTH-TO-GROUNDWATER 48 TABLE T.H. 100 TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC [AADT] (VEHICLES PER DAY) 52 TABLE 15 NO-BUILD T.H. 100 FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE 53 TABLE 16 BUILD T.H. 100 FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE 53 TABLE 17 NO-BUILD AND BUILD T.H. 100 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) 54 TABLE 18 - ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 65 TABLE 19 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET 66 TABLE 20 - NOISE LEVELS OF COMMON NOISE SOURCES 68 TABLE 21 - MINNESOTA STATE NOISE STANDARDS 69 TABLE 22 - FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA (HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL IN DECIBELS [DBA]) 69 TABLE 23 - CONSIDERED NOISE BARRIERS 71 TABLE 24 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT 92 TABLE 25 - PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES NEAR THE PROJECT AREA 93 TABLE 26: MINORITY INFORMATION BY CENSUS BLOCK (2010 CENSUS) 98 TABLE 27: HOUSEHOLD INCOME INFORMATION BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP ( AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 5-YEAR ESTIMATES) 99 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP... VII FIGURE 2 - USGS MAP... IX FIGURE 3 SITE MAP (PROJECT LAYOUT)... XI FIGURE ST. LOUIS PARK PLANNED LAND USE MAP...23 FIGURE T.H. 100 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT KNOWN AND POTENTIAL CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES DRAFT SITE MAP...32 FIGURE 6 - WETLANDS MAP...39 FIGURE 7 - FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM)...42 FIGURE 8 - LOCATION OF POTENTIALLY STEEP SLOPES...44 FIGURE 9 - SOILS MAP...50 FIGURE 10 - ANNUAL VMT VS. MSAT EMISSIONS FIGURE 11 - TRANSIT SYSTEM MAP...94 FIGURE 12 - PROJECT AREA MAP OF CENSUS TRACTS, BLOCK-GROUPS, AND BLOCKS...97 vi

7 Figure 1 Project Location Map vii

8 This page left blank intentionally. viii

9 Figure 2 - USGS Map ix

10 This page left blank intentionally. x

11 Figure 3 Site Map (Project Layout)

12

13 1. REPORT PURPOSE This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides background information for the proposed road construction project on Trunk Highway (T.H.) 100 in the city of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. This document includes discussion of: Need for the proposed project; Alternatives considered; Environmental impacts and mitigation; and, Agency coordination and public involvement. This EA was prepared as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and state environmental review process to fulfill requirements of both 42 USC 4332 and M.S. 116D. At the federal level, the EA is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. At the state level, the EA is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for a state EIS or that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. At the state level, this document also serves as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Minnesota Rule allows the EA to take the place of the EAW form, provided that the EA addresses each of the environmental effects identified in the EAW form. This EA includes each of the environmental effects identified in the EAW form. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is the proposer and the state Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. Preparation of an EAW for this project is not mandatory under Minnesota Rules However, MnDOT has elected to follow the state EAW process in conjunction with the federal EA process. This document is made available for public review and comment in accordance with the requirements of 23 CFR (d) and Minnesota Rules through PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT This section of the EA is divided into three subsections: Background, Project Needs, and Project Purpose. The Background section summarizes project development to-date. The Project Needs section discusses transportation problems identified within the project area. Project Purpose section lists objectives addressing the project s needs that are to be met by the Preferred Alternative, and also summarizes other concerns that were taken into account when developing and evaluating alternatives. Alternatives that do not meet the transportation purpose are not considered viable, and therefore, are not analyzed in this EA. See Alternatives Considered but Rejected section on page 13, for additional information. Page 1

14 Background Existing Condition of T.H. 100 Trunk Highway 100 is a north-south freeway extending from I-494 on the south end to I- 694/I-94 on the north end within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It is the first northsouth freeway west of downtown Minneapolis, lying roughly four miles west of the downtown Minneapolis area (see Figure 1 - Project Location Map on page vii for the location of T.H. 100 in the Twin Cities metropolitan area). While T.H. 100 is a six-lane freeway north and south of the project area, it is a four-lane freeway within the project area, between T.H. 7 and Cedar Lake Road. Current (2010) ADT on T.H. 100 north of Minnetonka Boulevard between T.H. 7 and Cedar Lake Road is 129,000 (see Table 4 T.H. 100 Traffic Volumes on page 8). T.H. 100 passes under the following five bridges: #5598, Minnetonka Boulevard; #5462, T.H. 7/CSAH 25; #5308, Canadian Pacific (CP) railroad tracks; #5309, Southwest Light Rail Transit (SW LRT) and Cedar Lake LRT Trail; #27012, pedestrian bridge at 26th Street. The first four bridges listed above were built in the 1930s as part of the original construction of T.H The SW LRT and Cedar Lake LRT Trail bridge is currently undergoing environmental review. According to the plan discussed on the project website, the SW LRT is expected to be open for ridership in 2017, depending upon funding. For more details, see the SW LRT website at: The Early Years of T.H. 100 T.H. 100 had its beginnings in the 1930s when the roadway was constructed through the Minneapolis suburbs of Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, and St. Louis Park as the first through-way in Minnesota. The section of T.H. 100 south of T.H. 7 eventually was expanded to a six-lane freeway in the 1970s, and the section north of Cedar Lake Road to CSAH 81 in Robbinsdale was expanded to a six-lane freeway by The section of T.H. 100 between T.H. 7 and Cedar Lake Road remained a four-lane freeway, so that it created a traffic capacity constriction on T.H Interim Construction of T.H. 100 Construction in 2007 of the Minneapolis I-35W/Crosstown project (running parallel to and intersecting T.H. 100) was forecast to divert traffic off I-35W and onto other highways, including T.H In the fall of 2006, MnDOT Metro District anticipated the diverting of Crosstown traffic onto T.H. 100 by constructing an interim project on T.H. 100 to address the capacity constriction on T.H. 100 between T.H. 7 and Cedar Lake Road. The 2006 T.H. 100 Interim project converted the shoulders of this segment into a general purpose through-lane northbound and a collector-distributor lane southbound (see Figure 2 on page ix for a map of this area). These lanes were designed to increase capacity and throughput until such time as the future permanent T.H. 100 Build project could be constructed. Page 2

15 Current T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project Concerns The 2006 T.H. 100 Interim project helped reduce congestion in the area, but did not address the structurally-deficient bridges, nor did it adequately address the safety issues concerning the entrances and exits to and from T.H Therefore, there are transportation mobility and safety problems that remain to be addressed on the section of T.H. 100 from just south of T.H. 7 to Cedar Lake Road, which is the subject of this Environmental Assessment. Project Needs This section discusses the problems or unsatisfactory conditions that currently exist or are reasonably expected with the existing facility or project area. The identified Needs are defined with respect to their relative importance as project objectives (primary vs. secondary). Primary Needs This section discusses the primary transportation problems to be solved, i.e., the problems that led to initiation of the project. Bridge (Structures) Needs Table 1 on the following page lists bridge condition data for the five bridges in the project area. Four of the five project bridges, as listed here, were built in the 1930s and have structural and/or clearance problems that need to be addressed. #5308 Canadian Pacific (CP) railroad tracks; #5309 Southwest Light Rail Transit (SW LRT) and Cedar Lake LRT Trail; #5462 T.H.7/CSAH 25; and #5598 Minnetonka Boulevard. Bridges #5462 and #5598 (at T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard, respectively) are considered structurally deficient, by definition, because the deck or superstructure National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition ratings are 4 or less. A deck or superstructure condition rating of 4 indicates poor condition, and replacement or overlay should be planned. The decks of both these bridges are rated 4 ; the superstructure for Bridge #5598 is also rated 4. The vertical (height) under-clearances and the horizontal (width) clearances for the four bridges listed above do not meet MnDOT s current construction standards. See Table 1 Bridge Condition Data on page 4 for vertical and horizontal clearance dimensions of the project bridges. See Secondary Needs, Roadway Geometric Deficiencies on page 10 for a discussion of vertical and horizontal clearance concerns. Page 3

16 Table 1- Bridge Condition Data Bridges over T.H. 100 #5308 CP RAIL #5309 SW LRT and Cedar Lake LRT Regional Tr. Page 4 #5462 T.H. 7 and CSAH 25 #5598 Minnetonka Boulevard #27012 Pedestrian Bridge at 26th Street Year Built Deficient Status N N Structurally Structurally N deficient deficient Sufficiency Rating N N N National Bridge Inventory Condition Ratings Deck Superstructure Substructure Channel N N N N N Culvert N N N N N National Bridge Inventory Appraisal Ratings Structure N N 5 4 N Evaluation Deck Geometry N N 5 5 N Underclearances Waterway N N N N N Adequacy Approach N N 5 7 N Alignment Vertical Clearance (ft.) NB SB Horizontal Clearance (ft.) NB SB Table notes: 1. Data is taken from each bridge s 9/12/11 Structural Inventory Report 2. National Bridge Inventory (NBI) ratings range from 0 to 9, with 0 being a failed condition, and 9 being an excellent condition (such as newly constructed). N indicates the condition is not applicable to this bridge. NBI condition and appraisal ratings with values of 4 or less are highlighted in the table. A value of 4 indicates a rating of poor, and a value of 3 indicates a serious condition. 3. Vertical clearance refers to the minimum distance from the T.H. 100 road surface to the bottom of the bridge beam. Vertical clearances of less than 16 feet are highlighted in the table; new bridge construction standards call for a minimum 16-foot vertical clearance. 4. Horizontal clearance is the available roadway and shoulder width under a bridge. 5. Additional definition of ratings can be found in MnDOT s Bridge Inspection Manual.

17 Safety Needs Table 2, below, summarizes crash data for the T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard interchanges. The crash rate and severity rate data show the T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard interchanges to be comparatively less safe than most interchanges across Minnesota. Table 2 - Interchange Crash Data Interchange Location 1 Statewide Crash Cost Ranking Average Annual Crash Cost 2 Crash Rate (MEV) 3 Severity Rate (MEV) 4 T.H th $2.7 Million Minnetonka Blvd. Statewide Average Table notes: 76 th $1.9 Million Not applicable Not applicable Data is taken from MnDOT s 2009 Crash Data Toolkit spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contains general crash data pertaining to intersections, interchanges, and sections on the trunk highway system. The data in the spreadsheet is for calendar years 2007, 2008, and The 2009 Crash Data Toolkit contains data on 621 interchanges across Minnesota. 2. The 2009 Toolkit assigns the crash costs listed below to each crash type occurring in the three-year period, and then divides this resulting dollar value by three. (K) Fatal Crash* = $830,000 (A) Incapacitating Injury Crash = $415,000 (B) Non-incapacitating Injury Crash = $137,000 (C) Possible or Unknown Injury Crash = $91,000 (PD) Property Damage Only Crash = $12,000 A value of (2 x A) is used for Fatal Crashes in our calculations. There were no fatal crashes in the time period at either the T.H. 7 or Minnetonka Boulevard interchanges. 3. Crash rate is equal to the total number of crashes in the three-year period, divided by the total number of vehicles entering the interchange, divided by one million (i.e., crashes per million vehicles entering the interchange, or MEV). 4. Severity rate is similar to crash rate, but it weighs the crash rate for crash severity using the following weights: (K) Fatal Crash = 5 (A) Incapacitating Injury Crash = 4 (B) Non-incapacitating Injury Crash = 3 (C) Possible or Unknown Injury Crash = 2 (PD) Property Damage Only Crash = 1 After the 2006 T.H. 100 Interim project was completed, the number of crashes increased southbound and northbound by 49% and 17%, respectively. Specifically, southbound crashes doubled in the area of T.H. 7 after the project. Most of these crashes can be attributed to the substandard ramp from westbound T.H. 7 to go southbound on T.H This ramp has a yield sign posted at the ramp entrance onto the southbound T.H. 100 collector distributor (CD) road; there is no acceleration distance beyond the yield sign to 1 MN 100 at MN7 - Congestion Management and Safety Plan, MnDOT, August 2009 view at MnDOT EDMS document # Page 5

18 the CD road. It is likely that the crash problem at this location is a result of the yield condition and the lack of acceleration distance. A roadside safety assessment on T.H. 100 was performed in During the analysis period, 337 total incidents were reported for the Minnetonka Boulevard and T.H. 7/CSAH 25 interchanges. From the data, the following trends were identified: 212 incidents (63%) were rear-end collisions; 72 incidents (21%) were sideswipe collisions; 73% of collision severities were reported as no injury/property damage only; 23% were reported as possible injury. No fatalities were reported. Table 3 on page 7 is drawn from information in the Roadside Safety Assessment report. Based on the report, at the Minnetonka Boulevard interchange, over half the crashes occurred at the four locations identified in Table 3. Also based on the report, over half the crashes at the T.H. 7/CSAH 25 interchange occurred on the southbound entrance loop and on southbound T.H. 100, just downstream from the entrance loop. 2 The Road Safety Assessment (RSA) Minnesota Trunk Highway 100 (MNTH 100): County State Aid Highway 5 (CSAH 5; Minnetonka Boulevard) & Minnesota Trunk Highway 7 (MNTH 7) / County State Aid Highway 25 (CSAH 25), dated September 26, 2011, can be found in Mn/DOT EDMS at document # Page 6

19 Table 3 - Crash Locations along T.H. 100 T.H. 100 / Minnetonka Blvd. interchange Location Crashes 102 NB TH W. ramp intersection SB T.H E. ramp intersection 12 All other locations 51 Total 120 T.H. 100 / T.H. 7-CSAH 25 interchange Location Crashes B14 SB entrance ramp SB T.H E. ramp intersection 21 All other locations 81 Total 217 Page 7

20 Mobility (Congestion) Needs As a result of the 2006 T.H. 100 Interim project, improvements were seen in congestion, mobility, and speed within the targeted segment. The number of trips served increased by 32% during the morning peak period and by 34% during the afternoon peak period. The duration of congestion (defined as speeds falling below 45 mph) decreased by 77% during the morning peak period and by 80% during the afternoon peak period. 3 While these improvements are notable, growth in traffic volumes since this project have led to current conditions of 1-2 hours of congestion during the a.m. peak period, and 2-3 hours of congestion during the p.m. peak period. 4 Table 4, below, summarizes traffic volumes on T.H. 100, T.H. 7/CSAH 25, and Minnetonka Boulevard in 2005 (before the interim project), 2010 (existing volumes, including average annual daily traffic volumes [AADT]), and 2030 (forecast AADT). The table shows that traffic volumes increased on T.H. 100 after the 2006 T.H. 100 Interim project was constructed, and decreased or remained the same on T.H. 7/CSAH 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard traffic volumes are forecast to increase over 2010 volumes. Table 4- T.H. 100 Traffic Volumes Location 2005 AADT 1 AADT 2 AADT 3 T.H. 100 south of T.H. 7 98, , ,000 T.H. 100 north of Minnetonka Blvd 115, , ,000 (at 26 th Street) T.H. 7 west of T.H ,000 29,000 30,900 CSAH 25 east of T.H ,000 25,000 26,900 Minnetonka Blvd west of T.H. 100 NA 14,400 15,100 Minnetonka Blvd east of T.H ,100 17,700 18,500 Table notes: 1. AADT is average annual daily traffic. The 2005 traffic volumes are taken from MnDOT 2005 Traffic Volumes Map at 2. AADT is average annual daily traffic. The 2010 traffic volumes are taken from MnDOT 2010 Traffic Volumes Map at AADT traffic volumes taken from Traffic Forecast spreadsheet at MnDOT EDMS doc , v5. MnDOT has completed a CORSIM traffic modeling of T.H. 100, T.H. 7/CSAH 25, and Minnetonka Boulevard for the existing condition (the No-Build 2009 condition), and the existing condition with forecast traffic volumes (the No-Build 2030 condition). Table 5 lists the freeway levels of service (LOS) for T.H. 100 at several locations. LOS is a proxy measure for freeway mobility (i.e., LOS reflects congestion, throughput, and travel time). 5 The table shows that some sections of T.H. 100 from Excelsior Boulevard to Cedar 3 MN 100 at MN7 - Congestion Management and Safety Plan, MnDOT, August 2009 view at MnDOT EDMS doc Metropolitan Freeway System 2010 Congestion Report, MnDOT, February 2011 view at MnDOT EDMS doc Level of Service (LOS) is a method to estimate the quality of traffic flow through intersections or roadway segments. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates that demand exceeds capacity and that drivers experience significant delays. LOS A through D is Page 8

21 Lake Road currently (2009) operate poorly (LOS F) in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. The table also shows sections of T.H. 100 where the levels will decrease by at least one LOS by Added traffic demand and capacity constraints on I-394, and particularly congestion on the northbound T.H. 100 exit ramp to eastbound I-394, are expected to contribute to this future decrease in level of service. Table 5 No-Build T.H. 100 Freeway Level of Service Location on T.H. 100 No-Build 2009 No-Build 2030 a.m. Peak p.m. Peak a.m. Peak p.m. Peak NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB North of Excelsior Blvd C C D D D D F D South of T.H. 7 E D E D F D F D Between T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Blvd F E F F F F F F North of Minnetonka Blvd F F F F F F F F At Cedar Lake Road C C C C C E D E Source: T.H. 100 modeling data within EDMS doc , v1. Table notes: 1. Red bold text indicates LOS F. 2. Highlighted cells indicate decreased (worsened) LOS from 2009 to Table 6 lists the intersection level of service (LOS) for signalized intersections near the project area. The table shows that all intersections currently (2009) operate at level of service D (adequate) or better and will continue to do so in Table 6 No-Build T.H. 100 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Location No-Build 2009 No-Build 2030 a.m. Peak p.m. Peak a.m. Peak p.m. Peak Vernon Ave. at Minnetonka Blvd C C D B Minnetonka Blvd at T.H. 100, west ramp C A C A Utica Ave./ SB T.H. 100 ramp A A A A Minnetonka Blvd at T.H. 100, east ramp D B D B T.H. 7 at T.H. 100, west ramp A A A A T.H. 7 at T.H. 100, east ramp B B B B Source: T.H. 100 modeling data within EDMS doc , v1. Secondary Needs This section describes opportunities for other transportation problems or system improvements within the project study area that may be addressed, if feasible, concurrent with addressing the primary needs. generally perceived to be acceptable to drivers. LOS E indicates that the roadway is operating at, or very near, its capacity and that drivers experience substantial delays. Page 9

22 Roadway Geometric Deficiencies T.H. 100 has several roadway geometric deficiencies which prevent it from meeting MnDOT highway standards. The deficiencies, which are described below, contribute to the safety problems identified in the Primary Needs section on page 3. The deficiencies include: Entrance ramps are too short, so that vehicles are unable to accelerate to highway speeds before merging onto T.H. 100, thereby causing mainline T.H.100 vehicles to slow, which, in turn, leads to rear-end crashes and reduced mainline capacity; Lanes on T.H. 100 are 11 feet wide rather than the standard 12 foot width; Shoulders on T.H. 100 vary in width, but in general, are less than the standard 10- foot minimum width for left and right shoulders on a six-lane freeway. (It should be noted that the left shoulders north and south of the project area are also less than 10 feet wide). Bridge vertical under-clearance is inadequate. Vertical under-clearance, which is the height available from the roadway to the underside of a bridge beam, is less than the MnDOT new construction standard of 16 feet on the following four bridges: #5308 Canadian Pacific (CP) railroad tracks; #5309 Southwest Light Rail Transit (SW LRT) and Cedar Lake LRT Trail; #5462 T.H.7/CSAH 25; and #5598 Minnetonka Boulevard. See Table 1 Bridge Condition Data on page 4 for the vertical clearance dimensions of these bridges. Vertical under-clearances for the four bridges listed above have an NBI appraisal rating of 3. A National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition rating of 4 or less on a bridge deck or superstructure indicates poor condition, and replacement or overlay should be planned. Bridge #5598 (at Minnetonka Boulevard) has the lowest clearance of the project area bridges, at 13.9 feet. The legal vehicle-height limit in Minnesota without a special permit is 13 feet, six inches. Based on the memory of MnDOT maintenance personnel, in the past ten years (roughly 2002 to 2012), Bridges #5308, #5309, # 5462, and #5598 have been hit by vehicles with over- height loads about ten times each, all of which caused moderate or minor damage. It is possible that all the bridges have been hit more than ten times, as bridge strikes can occur without being reported. Most of the hits are considered minor in nature, requiring minor repair, due to the robust construction of the bridges. A minor repair is defined as a scrape, gouge, nick, or small bend. A moderate repair is a spall, or an exposed reinforcement or tensioning cable that is still intact. A major repair is required when the strength of a bridge member is impaired, and an engineer inspection is needed to determine the serviceability of the bridge. Bridge horizontal clearance is inadequate. Horizontal clearance is the available roadway and shoulder width under a bridge. Table 1 Bridge Condition Data on page 4 lists the horizontal clearance under each bridge. The narrowest horizontal clearance of the four bridges is 37 feet for northbound T.H. 100, under Bridge #5462 (at T.H. 7). The 2006 T.H. 100 Interim project constructed three 11-footwide lanes in each direction of T.H. 100 under the four bridges built in the 1930s. Any remaining width under these bridges was used for shoulders. These widths do not meet current MnDOT standards on six-lane freeways, which call for 12- foot-wide lanes and ten-foot-wide left and right shoulders (56 feet total width). Page 10

23 Design standards were developed to provide standard dimensions for roadway features, such as ramp lengths, and lane and shoulder widths. These standards have been developed by highway engineers over many years, and balance vehicle safety and construction costs. Highways are designed to meet these standards; however, design exceptions can be approved by MnDOT and FHWA, if appropriately justified. Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed on T.H. 100, since it is a freeway. However, T.H. 100 creates a barrier to pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to cross over it. Below is a description of the existing pedestrian and bicycle conditions within the project area. 6 Crossing over T.H. 100 Currently, pedestrians and bicyclists can cross T.H. 100 at the following locations from south to north: West 36th Street Bridge (Bridge # 27109): Eight-foot-wide sidewalk on north side of bridge, 10-foot-wide sidewalk on south side of bridge, with sidewalks approaching both ends of the bridge. Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail Bridge (Bridge #5309): Trail on the bridge. T.H. 7 / CSAH 25 Bridge (Bridge #5462): Shoulders on the bridge are about four feet wide, and there are no sidewalks approaching the bridge. Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge (Bridge #5598): Roughly seven-foot-wide sidewalks on north and south sides of the bridge, with sidewalks approaching both sides of the bridge. Pedestrian bridge at 26th Street (Bridge# 27012): Eight-foot-wide sidewalk with ramp structures approaching both ends of the bridge, and sidewalks leading away from the ramp structures. East of T.H. 100 There is a trail on the east side of T.H. 100, between T.H. 100 and Toledo Avenue on MnDOT right-of-way, running from Salem Avenue (just north of CSAH 25) to just south of Minnetonka Boulevard. West of T.H. 100 The section of T.H. 7 west of T.H. 100 is unsuitable for bicyclists because there is an interchange on T.H. 7 at Wooddale Avenue (about 3000 feet west of T.H.100). Local Streets There are sidewalks along the residential sides of most local streets (Minnetonka Boulevard, Toledo Avenue, Utica Avenue [north of about 27th Street], and Vernon Avenue). 6 A map of parks and trails in the City of St. Louis Park can be viewed at: Page 11

24 City Plans for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The plans for pedestrian and bicycle facilities identified by the City of St. Louis Park in their 2030 Comprehensive Plan 7 are listed below: The City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies Minnetonka Boulevard as a high priority Future Bikeway from just west of the intersection of T.H. 100, continuing east toward Minneapolis. This area includes the bridge over T.H The Minnetonka Boulevard Design Plan, developed collaboratively by Hennepin County, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka in 2008, calls for a continuous east/west onstreet bike route along Minnetonka Boulevard. This design bridges Minnetonka Boulevard over T.H. 100 with 6-foot bike lanes and six-foot sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. The City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies a future north/south trail along the east side of the T.H. 100 frontage road north of Minnetonka Boulevard. The City is considering an on-road trail on Toledo Avenue from the cul de sac to the 26 th Street pedestrian bridge, which would be installed separately from the T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project. Conclusion There is a need to maintain the existing pedestrian and bicycle crossings over T.H. 100, as well as the existing trail and sidewalks along T.H MnDOT recognizes the pedestrian and bicycle facilities described in St. Louis Park s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Additional Considerations This section describes other considerations taken into account during the selection of the Preferred Alternative. Access to T.H. 100 During the public involvement process, several alternatives were considered which removed access (entrance and exit ramps) on T.H. 100 in an attempt to decrease merge locations, thereby increasing vehicle safety. The community expressed a clear desire to maintain the existing access along T.H See the Alternatives Considered but Rejected section, beginning on page 13, for more information regarding reduced access along T.H Project Purpose The purposes of this project are listed below: Improve the safety of T.H. 100 by reducing the number of crashes; Improve bridge structural conditions; and Increase mobility on T.H Secondary purposes of this project are to meet geometric standards along T.H. 100 and to maintain bicycle and pedestrian crossings of T.H. 100 at existing locations. 7 The Bicycles and Pedestrians chapter of St. Louis Park s 2030 Comprehensive Plan can be viewed at: Page 12

25 3. ALTERNATIVES This section of the EA is divided into two subsections: A. Alternatives Considered but Rejected, discussing each design alternative reviewed for the project (designs A through D), and explaining why each rejected design was determined to be unacceptable for the project, including the No-Build Alternative; and, B. Preferred Alternative, describing the selected design and providing details of the proposed project. A. Alternatives Considered but Rejected The No-Build design along with four interchange design alternatives (A-D) were considered and rejected as not meeting the project s purpose and need. Alternative C was rejected but modified and became the Preferred Alternative. Each rejected alternative is described in this section. (See Appendix A for corresponding layouts.) No-Build Alternative The No-Build design would involve no improvements to T.H. 100; as with any roadway design, it would require ongoing maintenance and repair work. The No-Build assumes the development of light rail transit (LRT) along the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail corridor. The No-Build design provides the basis of comparison, or benchmark, for the Preferred Build Alternative and includes the impacts associated with doing nothing to improve T.H The No-Build Alternative was not selected as the Preferred Alternative because it does not meet the project needs. Under the 2030 No-Build conditions, T.H. 100 within the project limits is expected to operate poorly during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Build Alternatives The differences among the four Build Alternatives and the reasons why these alternatives were rejected are described below. All rejected Build Alternatives would address the structural and clearance deficiencies of the four bridges identified in the Project Needs section as well as the general features that follow here. See each alternative description, below, for discussions of individual features. NOTE: This section describing the Build Alternatives considered for the T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project is based on MnDOT s 2012 T.H. 100 Alternatives Analysis Report. Safety: All Build Alternatives would perform well with regard to addressing safety deficiencies, including crash reduction, merge conditions and acceleration length on ramps, lateral clearance under bridges, and the replacement of the two structurally-deficient bridges. Congestion and Capacity: The Build Alternatives differ operationally with regard to congestion, capacity, projected Levels of Service, and access (e.g., frontage road connections and access to the Groves Academy school). Page 13

26 Environmental Impacts: Differences in environmental impact vary among the Build Alternatives regarding ponding construction, likelihood of encountering contaminated soils, and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Alternative A: Baseline Design Alternative A provides for the mandatory replacement of the deficient bridges at T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard, but offers few mobility improvements. However, this design does add auxiliary lanes between T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard in both directions and lengthens the entrance ramp from Minnetonka Boulevard to northbound T.H. 100, thereby offering a moderate mobility enhancement. Alternative A fails operationally because it does not address the existing capacity and congestion (mobility) problems, nor does it address mainline weaving or access problems. In addition, it retains low-speed exits from northbound and southbound T.H. 100 to Minnetonka Boulevard, and it retains the short weaving segment on southbound T.H. 100 between Minnetonka Boulevard and T.H. 7 that would negatively affect speeds and capacity on the mainline. This design provides only minimal relief regarding congestion and safety concerns. Alternative B: Two-Way Frontage Road Alternative B replaces the deficient bridges at T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard, and it provides for a two-way frontage road connection to the east of T.H. 100 that would allow access to and from the south of Minnetonka Boulevard. In addition, this design eliminates weaving on northbound and southbound T.H. 100 between Minnetonka Boulevard and T.H. 7, it allows for two-way access onto Utica Avenue south of Minnetonka Boulevard, and it improves the entrance ramp from Minnetonka Boulevard to northbound T.H Alternative B has operational problems because it does not provide direct access from Minnetonka Boulevard to T.H. 100, and may concentrate traffic weaving off T.H. 7 to go southbound on T.H In addition, access from CSAH 5 to T.H. 100 requires more travel time. Alternative C: Bridge Braid Alternative C replaces the deficient bridges at T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard, and it eliminates the weaving on northbound and southbound T.H. 100 between Minnetonka Boulevard and T.H. 7. It also improves the entrance ramp from Minnetonka Boulevard to northbound T.H NOTE: Alternative C was selected for modification and became the Preferred Alternative. See the Preferred Alternative section, below, for a description of the modifications. Alternative D: Diverging Diamond Alternative D replaces the deficient bridges at T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard, and it resolves the weaving problem on northbound and southbound T.H. 100 between Minnetonka Boulevard and T.H. 7. The diverging diamond interchange at Minnetonka Boulevard eliminates the need for turn lanes on the bridge.` Page 14

27 Alternative D fails because it requires construction of an extra bridge and retaining walls for the southbound ramps between Minnetonka Boulevard and T.H. 7, increasing costs. B. Preferred Alternative Alternative C (see Appendix A) was modified from its original design to become the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure 3 on page xi. Modifications to Alternative C were based on peer review and a value engineering study. Modified Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative, includes the following geometric design features. Preferred Alternative Geometric Design Features The braided ramps for southbound T.H. 100 between Minnetonka Boulevard and T.H. 7 were converted to an auxiliary lane. Traffic operations analysis has found adequate level of service on the auxiliary lane for the weaving section by changing the design of the southbound exit ramp to T.H. 7, which has become part of the Preferred Alternative. The southbound exit ramp to T.H. 7 was split into an exit ramp to westbound T.H. 7 and an exit loop to eastbound CSAH 25. This modification allows exiting southbound vehicles to avoid the traffic signal at the T.H. 7 / ramp intersection. This modification is included in the Preferred Alternative. The northbound one-way frontage road on the east side of T.H. 100 between T.H. 7 / CSAH 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard was eliminated. Under Concept C, T.H. 100 northbound traffic exiting to Minnetonka Boulevard used the exit ramp to T.H. 7 / CSAH 25, went through the traffic signal at the ramp intersection with T.H. 7 / CSAH 25, and continued on the one-way frontage road to Minnetonka Boulevard. Traffic operations analysis found adequate level of service on an auxiliary lane between the T.H. 7 / CSAH 25 entrance loop and an exit ramp to Minnetonka Boulevard. The northbound auxiliary lane and exit to Minnetonka Boulevard replaced the one-way frontage road as part of the Preferred Alternative. Summary of the Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative will reconstruct T.H. 100 by undertaking the following actions: The project will replace the four structurally deficient bridges crossing T.H See Bridge (Structures) Needs section on page 3 for details. T.H. 100 lane widths, entrance and exit ramp lengths, right shoulders, and bridge vertical and horizontal clearances will be designed to meet MnDOT geometric standards. Noise walls are proposed at various locations along T.H Construction of the walls will depend on the outcomes of voting by benefitted receptors. For a discussion of noise concerns, see the Traffic Noise Analysis section on page 67. Page 15

28 For proposed noise wall locations, see Table 22 Considered Noise Barriers on page 71. For information on public involvement, benefitted receptors, and the noise wall voting system, see the noise analysis Public Involvement section on page 72. A small wetland (0.07 acres) will be filled in order to widen T.H This wetland is in the northwest quadrant of the T.H.7 interchange with T.H. 100, adjacent to the west side of T.H See the Wetland Analysis section on page 36 for details. Three surface water runoff infiltration basins will be constructed along T.H. 100, and the existing stormwater pond in the northeast quadrant of T.H. 100 and T.H. 7 will be modified. See the Water Quality: surface water runoff section on page 45 for details. Right-of-way acquisitions and temporary construction easements from private and public properties will be required to construct this project under the Preferred Alternative. See the Right-of-Way section on page 102 for details. Strip takings of right-of-way will be acquired from private properties along Minnetonka Boulevard, Toledo Avenue, and the alley on the east side of T.H. 100 between 26 th and 28 th Streets. Access to some private properties will be relocated. See the Right-of-Way section on page 102 for details. The project will realign the southbound T.H. 100 exit ramp to westbound T.H. 7 along the south edge of Webster Park (west of T.H. 100 at Webster Avenue and 33 rd Street). The City of St. Louis Park has a Limited Use Permit from MnDOT for this property. See the Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails section on page 73 for details. The project will provide bicycle and pedestrian trails that add to or improve existing facilities. See the Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails section on page 73 for details. The project will replace the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail Bridge that currently crosses T.H For details, see discussion of the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail on page 73. The project will replace sidewalks along the residential sides of local streets wherever sidewalks need to be removed during construction. Page 16

29 C. Cost and Funding Project Cost The estimated construction cost for the proposed project is approximately $64 million. Right-of-way costs are an additional $4 million. Right-of-way impacts are discussed in Section 4B on page 102. Funding The T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project is funded with federal, state, and local monies. This project is not in the currently-approved State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), but will be listed in the STIP for construction in state fiscal year D.Project Schedule The anticipated schedule for the proposed project is shown below. Table 7 - Proposed Schedule of Project Activities Activity Anticipated Completion EA/EAW December 2012 Public Hearing/Opportunity for December 2012 Public Hearing EIS Need Determination Spring 2013 Right-of-Way Acquisition July 2013 to March 2014 Planned Letting Date May 2014 Begin Construction Summer SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section discusses environmental impacts of alternatives identified in the Alternatives section. It contains two sub-sections: State Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Additional Federal Issues The EAW is a standard format used in Minnesota for environmental review of projects meeting certain thresholds outlined in Minnesota Rule Federal environmental regulations not addressed in the EAW are addressed in the Additional Federal Issues subsections. Page 17

30 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. 1 - Project title: T.H. 100 Reconstruction in St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2. Proposer Minnesota Department of Transportation, Metro District 3.RGU MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Contact Person April Crockett Contact Person Rick Dalton Title Design Engineer Title Environmental Coordinator Address 1500 West County Road B2 Address 1500 West County Road B2 City, state, ZIP Roseville, MN City, state, ZIP Roseville, MN Phone Phone Fax Fax april.crockett@state.mn.us richard.dalton@state.mn.us Project Web Site Reason for EAW preparation EIS scoping Mandatory EAW Citizen petition X RGU discretion Proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number 22 and subpart name. 5 - Project location Hennepin County City of St. Louis Park GPS Coordinates: NA Parcel Number: NA Township Range Section(s) T117N R21W 9, 31 R22W Attach each of the following to the EAW: County map showing the general location of the project (see Figure 1, page vii) U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable) (see Figure 2 page ix); Site plan showing all significant project and natural features (see Figure 3 Site Map (Project Layout) on page xi). Page 18

31 6 - Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. This project is in St. Louis Park on T.H. 100 from West 36 th Street to Cedar Lake Road. The project proposes reconstructing T.H. 7 / CSAH 25, and Minnetonka Boulevard interchanges; replacing four bridges on T.H. 100; adding auxiliary lanes on T.H. 100; and repairing/replacing pavement. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods, and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Major Project Features A detailed description of the project can be found on page 15, under the Preferred Alternative sub-heading. Construction Impacts The construction work will consist of removing the existing roadway material and topsoil within the proposed project s construction limits, excavating material from under the proposed new roadway areas, laying storm sewer, and placing and compacting material for the new roadway embankments. It is anticipated that the material excavated on the project will be re-used for overlay, aggregate or embankment purposes where appropriate and in accordance with best management practices established in MnDOT s Standard Specifications for Construction. Bridge construction will involve placing approaching roadway embankments, driving pile, constructing abutments and piers, installing bridge girders, and constructing the concrete deck. Material will also be excavated and placed for water ponding areas related to stormwater and runoff management (see Item 17 - Water quality: surface water runoff on page 45 for information). Best management practices (BMPs) will be used to control construction related sedimentation, and turf areas will be re-established (see Item 16 - Erosion and sedimentation on page 43 for more information) Trees and vegetation will be removed as part of the project. Tree and vegetation removal are discussed in EAW Item 11, beginning on page 33. Pile driving for bridge construction and other components of project construction will result in noise, vibration, and dust impacts, as would use of heavy equipment (dozers, front-end loaders, backhoes, and vibratory rollers) for these activities. Noise impacts related to the operation of construction equipment would vary in location and duration. Noise and dust are discussed in EAW Item 24, on page 66. Page 19

32 Transportation Management Plan MnDOT will prepare a Transportation Management Plan for this project. The Transportation Management Plan will lay out strategies for managing project work-zone impacts. The plan will include both construction traffic operation controls and public information components. It will address issues such as pedestrian and bicycle crossings, access by emergency services to properties adjacent to this project, and access to adjacent businesses. Project Schedule The project is planned for letting in May 2014, with construction beginning in 2015 and completion by See the project schedule in Table 7 on page 17. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project, and identify its beneficiaries. Project Purpose The purpose of this project is described in the Project Purpose section on page 12. Project Beneficiaries Beneficiaries of the project will include motorists in the immediate area and region since the roadway improvements are anticipated to improve operations and safety conditions. d. Are future stages of this development, including development on any outlots, planned or likely to happen? Yes _X_ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline, and plans for environmental review. e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes _X_ No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and any past environmental review. 7 - Project magnitude data Total Project Acreage 94.6 acres Number of Residential units: 0 Unattached: NA Attached: NA Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): Total Square Feet = NA The length of the project along T.H. 100 is approximately 1.7 miles (from West 36th Street to Cedar Lake Road). The project site area is defined by the existing MnDOT right-of-way between West 36th Street and Cedar Lake Road (92.7 acres), plus the area within construction limits extending outside MnDOT right of way (1.9 acres), for a total of 94.6 acres. Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): Office NA Manufacturing NA Retail NA Other industrial NA Page 20

33 Warehouse NA Institutional NA Light industrial NA Agricultural NA Other commercial (specify) NA Building height. If over two stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings NA 8 - Permits and approvals required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing, and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Mn Rules Chapter Table 8 - Permits and Approvals Required Status Unit of government Type of application To be requested Requested Complete Federal FHWA Environmental Assessment approval X FHWA EIS Need Decision X FHWA Section 4(f) determination (de minimis) X MnDOT CRU on behalf of FHWA MnDOT OES on behalf of FHWA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers State Section 106 (Historic / Archeological) determination Endangered Species Act Section 7 determination Section 404 Permit General Permit Letter of Permission (The need for a COE permit will be decided after the Level II wetland delineation, and a COE jurisdictional determination.) X X X MnDOT Environmental Assessment Worksheet approval X MnDOT EIS Need Decision X MnDOT Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act for existing road repair and maintenance project-specific report Water main plan review (if needed) X X Page 21

34 Status Unit of government Type of application To be requested Requested Complete Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Local Water Appropriations Permit (dewatering permit if needed) Section 401 Water Quality Certification (if Section 404 Permit is needed) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System -- Construction Stormwater Phase II Permit Section 106 (Historic / Archeological) Consultation X X X X City of St. Louis Park Municipal Consent X Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed District Permit (Stormwater Management Permit and Erosion and Sediment Control Permit) X Funding Project funding is discussed on page Land use Describe current and recent-past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Land Use and Development The project area is in a fully urbanized area. The land use around the project area is a mix of industrial, commercial, institutional, and multifamily and single family residential, which is consistent with zoning in the area. Figure 4 on page 23 shows land use, based on Metropolitan Council data. Future land use plans are similar to the existing land use. Multi-family residential housing is planned east of T.H. 100 between Minnetonka Boulevard and CSAH The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses in that it will maintain or improve trail connections, traffic flow, and safety along the T.H. 100 corridor, which will benefit area residents and businesses. 8 See Planned Land Use: Generalized Regional Categories - St Louis Park, Metropolitan Council, 01/25/2012 at d.pdf Page 22

35 Figure St. Louis Park Planned Land Use Map 9 9 Source: Metropolitan Council Page 23

36 Environmental Hazards Affected Environment The presence of contaminated properties (defined as properties where soil and/or groundwater contains pollutants, contaminants or hazardous wastes) is a concern in the development of highway projects because of liabilities associated with ownership of such properties, cleanup costs, and safety concerns associated with construction personnel encountering unsuspected wastes or contaminated soil or groundwater. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) provides information on potentially contaminated properties. These properties are identified through review of historic land use records and air photos, federal EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), state MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), and county/city records, as well as current property condition. Sites of concern identified by the Phase I ESA are categorized into three areas: high, medium, and low environmental risk. In general, high environmental risk sites are properties that have a documented release of chemicals or other strong evidence of contamination, such as soil staining or storage of large volumes of petroleum or other chemicals. Medium environmental risk sites may include properties where relatively smaller volumes of petroleum, chemicals, or hazardous materials are stored, but there is no evidence of spills or releases, or properties with documented releases that have been closed (no further cleanup action deemed necessary) by the MPCA. A closed site is considered a medium risk because it may still have residual soil or groundwater contamination. Low environmental risk sites include properties where small volumes of chemicals or hazardous materials have been used or stored and are considered not of concern to the project. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project area was completed in August Copies of the Phase I report will be placed on file at MnDOT s Metro Division office. An appointment can be made to review the document by calling the project manager at Environmental Hazards Review Contaminated materials encountered during highway construction projects must be properly handled and treated in accordance with state and federal regulations. Improper handling of contaminated materials can exacerbate their impact on the environment. Contaminated materials also affect highway projects by increasing construction costs and causing construction delays. MnDOT reviewed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) databases to check for known contaminated sites in the project area. The databases that were searched included leaking underground storage tank facilities, landfills, salvage yards, voluntary investigation and cleanup (VIC) sites, Superfund sites, and dump sites. A review of these MPCA files is a component of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA). A complete Phase I ESA, which was conducted for this project, includes at least two other components: research on historic land use, and site reconnaissance. It should be noted that the MPCA database files are continually being updated. Although this information is the most up-to-date available, some of the information may be incomplete or inaccurate. Page 24

37 Environmental Consequences Upon initial review of the project, numerous contaminated sites were identified within approximately 500 feet of the project area. Based on the threshold criteria of MnDOT s Highway Project Development Process (HPDP), this project has a high risk of impacting contaminated and potentially contaminated sites. In addition, this project requires ground dewatering. Forty-one (41) known or potentially contaminated sites were identified in the project area: nine (9) sites have a high risk, thirteen (13) have a medium risk, and nineteen (19) have a low risk for contamination. Of these sites, all of the high risk, twelve (12) of the medium risk, and thirteen (13) of the low risk sites have a potential to be impacted by the project because of their proximity to the project limits. Table 9 on page 26 lists the known and the potentially-contaminated properties. Figure 5 on page 32 shows the location of the sites identified within the project limits. Contaminated properties y may need to be avoided, where possible, because of their potential to incur excessive cleanup costs or expose the public to unacceptable environmental liability. Based on available information, three (3) of the high risk sites identified by the Phase I assessment have a potential for excessive cleanup costs and/or environmental liability. Those three sites are associated with the former St. Louis Park incinerator/hoigaards Village redevelopment and are of concern because they are near MnDOT right-of-way and could be affected by construction activities. The sites are indicated on Figure 5 on page 32 as sites #30, 32, and 35, located on the west side of T.H. 100, south of the Canadian Pacific Railroad bridge. Mitigation Potentially contaminated properties identified in the Phase I ESA will be evaluated for their likelihood to be impacted by construction and/or acquired as right-of-way. Any properties with a potential to be impacted by the project will be drilled and sampled, as needed, to determine the extent and magnitude of contaminated soil or groundwater in the areas of concern. The results of the drilling investigation will determine if whether the contaminated materials can be avoided or the project s impacts to the properties minimized. If necessary, a plan will be developed for properly handling and treating contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction. MnDOT will work with the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program, the Petroleum Remediation/Brownfields Program, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program (AgVIC), as appropriate, to obtain assurances that MnDOT s contaminated site cleanup work and/or contaminated site acquisition will not associate it with long-term environmental liability for the contamination. Page 25

38 Site ID 1 Site Description 1 Courtyard Apartments 3 Lutheran Church of the Reformation 4 Beth El Synagogue 5 Residential Dwellings 6 Residential Dwellings 7 Holiday Station Store No St. George's Episcopal Church 9 Apartment Buildings Table 9 - Known or Potentially Contaminated Properties that May Be Affected by the Project Site Address/Location Risk Reason for Contaminated Soil/Ground Water Concern TH 100 Low The site is currently an occupied apartment building. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site TH 100 Low The site is currently an occupied church. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site West 26th Street Medium The site is currently an occupied synagogue. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site, which is also a closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site Utica Avenue South, Vernon Avenue South, 2944 and 2948 Vernon Avenue South, 2945 and Webster Avenue South, and Minnetonka Boulevard Toledo Avenue South, Salem Avenue South, Salem Avenue South, Raleigh Avenue South, 2925 and 2931 Raleigh Avenue South, and 5024 Low Low and there are registered storage tanks at the site. The site currently includes and historically included residential dwellings. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. The site currently includes and historically included residential dwellings. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. Minnetonka Boulevard 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard Medium The site is currently an active gas station and convenience store, and was formerly used as a gasoline station and there is a potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site and 5224 Minnetonka Boulevard 5100 and 5112 Minnetonka Boulevard Low Medium The site is currently an occupied church. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. The site is currently an occupied apartment building. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site, and a closed SPILLS site (related to sewage or waste water) is registered for the site. Page 26

39 Site Site Site Address/Location Risk Reason for Contaminated Soil/Ground Water 1 11 Marathon Gasoline Station 5600 West Lake Street Medium The site is currently and was historically an active gas station, with a past operator that had a hazardous waste generator status. The site includes closed LUST and SPILLS facilities, has active underground storage tanks (USTs), and there is a potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 14 Sicora Design/Build 5601 West Lake Street Low The site is currently used for commercial purposes, and past use is unknown. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 16 Linsk Flowers 5555 West Lake Street Low The site is currently used for commercial purposes, and past use is unknown. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 17 Multi-tenant Retail Center 18 Minnetonka Terrace 19 Residential Dwellings 20 Groves Academy 21 Residential Dwellings and Apartment Building 5551 West Lake Street Low The site is currently used for commercial purposes, and past use is unknown. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site TH 100 Medium The site is currently an occupied apartment building and past use is unknown. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site, and storage tanks are registered to the site West Lake Street, Webster Avenue South, 3130 Webster Avenue South, Webster Avenue South, Xenwood Avenue South, Xenwood Avenue South, Yosemite Avenue South, and 5704 and 5720 West 34th Street Low The site currently includes and historically included residential dwellings. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site TH 100 Medium The site is currently and was historically used as a school. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site, and storage tanks are registered to the site Minnetonka Boulevard, Toledo Avenue South, Salem Avenue South, Salem Avenue South, and 3127 TH 100 Low The site currently includes and historically included residential dwellings. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. Page 27

40 Site Site Site Address/Location Risk Reason for Contaminated Soil/Ground Water 1 22 Dunrite Automotive 5125 Minnetonka Boulevard Medium Past and current commercial uses of the site included gasoline station and automotive servicing, and the occupant had a hazardous waste generator status. Storage tanks are currently registered to the site, and the site includes a closed LUST facility. There is a potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 23 Fern Hill Place Minnetonka Boulevard and 3000 Raleigh Avenue South High A dry cleaner and automobile dealership were previously located at the site, which was redeveloped and is currently used for residential and commercial purposes. Storage tanks are registered to site, which is a closed SPILLS site, inactive Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) site and a closed FEDBROWNFIELDS site. Residual chlorinated hydrocarbon soil and groundwater contamination are present at the site, and three monitoring wells are present. The current building was constructed with a soil vapor mitigation system due 24 Garden Village Apartments 25 City of St. Louis Park 26 Nordic Ware and Northern Aluminum Products 27 Multi-Tenant Office/Wareho use Building Raleigh Avenue South Medium to the residual contamination. The site is currently and was historically an occupied apartment building. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site, storage tanks are registered to the site, and the site includes a closed LUST facility Minnetonka Boulevard High The site includes a former unpermitted dump, and other uses include or included city hall, police department and park (Carpenter Park). The site includes a closed LUST facility, has registered USTs, and a current hazardous waste generator status and 5005 State Highway and 5051 State Highway 7 High Medium The site includes former residential uses and current manufacturing and light industrial use, with a registered hazardous waste generator status, registered storage tanks, and closed SPILLS and LUST sites, and an inactive VIC site. Although soil contamination associated with the closed LUST site does not appear to be an issue, shallow groundwater is contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons and petroleum hydrocarbons. Use and/or storage of hazardous substances or petroleum products is expected at this site. The site is currently and was historically used for commercial purposes and inlcudes a closed LUST site. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site, and storage tanks are registered to the site. Page 28

41 Site Site Site Address/Location Risk Reason for Contaminated Soil/Ground Water 1 28 Cityscape Apartments 5707 State Highway 7 Medium The site is currently used as an apartment, was historically used as a grain elevator, and inlcudes a closed LUST site. Groundwater sampling laboratory analytical results from the LUST investigation indicated the presence of naphthalene, which was attributed to offsite contamination from the Reilly Tar Superfund site to the west of the project area. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 29 Hennepin County Trail and Railroad Right of Way 3300 Beltline Boulevard, 3524 and 3530 Yosemite Avenue South, and 3250 Natchez Avenue South Medium The site is currently and was historically used as railroad right of way and recreational trail, and includes a closed SPILLS site. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances. 30 The Camerata 5600 Camerata Way High The site is currently used as an apartment, and prior to redevelopment, its past uses included city incinerator and Hoigaards retail store. It is part of a larger inactive VIC site (Hoigaards Village) that was closed with residual soil contamination that appears to extend onto MnDOT right of way, and residual chlorinated hydrocarbon groundwater contamination. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or 31 Parcel Under Development petroleum products at the site West 35th Street High The site is currently being redeveloped as an apartment, and prior to redevelopment, its past uses included city incinerator and Hoigaards retail store. It is part of a larger inactive VIC site (Hoigaards Village) that was closed with residual soil contamination that appears to extend onto MnDOT right of way, and residual chlorinated hydrocarbon groundwater contamination. In addition, this particular parcel was entered in the Petroleum Brownfields Program (PBP). There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 32 Pond/Fountain 5580 West 35th Street High The site is currently used as pond and fountain related to neighboring residential properties, and prior to redevelopment, its past uses included city incinerator and Hoigaards retail store. It is part of a larger inactive VIC site (Hoigaards Village) that was closed with residual soil contamination that appears to extend onto MnDOT right of way, and residual chlorinated hydrocarbon groundwater contamination. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. Page 29

42 Site Site Site Address/Location Risk Reason for Contaminated Soil/Ground Water 1 33 Parcel Under Development 5655 West 35th Street High The site is currently being redeveloped as an apartment, and prior to redevelopment, its past uses included city incinerator and Hoigaards retail store. It is part of a larger inactive VIC site (Hoigaards Village) that was closed with residual soil contamination that appears to extend onto MnDOT right of way, and residual chlorinated hydrocarbon groundwater contamination. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 34 Multi-tenant Commercial Building Webster Avenue South Low The site is currently and was historically used for commercial purposes. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 35 Harmony Vista West 36th Street High The site is currently used as an apartment, and prior to redevelopment, its past uses included city incinerator and Hoigaards retail store. It is part of a larger inactive VIC site (Hoigaards Village) that was closed with residual soil contamination that appears to extend onto MnDOT right of way, and residual chlorinated hydrocarbon groundwater contamination. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. 36 Segway Evolve 37 American Legion Post Bob and Steve's Towing and Recovery and City Water Tower 39 Multi-Tenant Commercial Building 5500 West 36th Street Low The site is currently and was historically used for commercial purposes. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site West 36th Street Low The site is currently used for commercial purposes, and was and was historically used for residential purposes. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site Park Glen Road Low The site is currently used for commercial and municipal purposes. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site TH 100 (5300 West 35th Street) Medium The site is currently and was historically used for commercial purposes, and its past use included gravel pit, which implies possible filling with unregulated fill and fill of unknown origin. A past occupant had hazardous waste generator status, storage tanks are registered to the site, and empty vinyl 55-gallon drums were observed in outdoor storage. The site includes a closed LUST facility. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. Page 30

43 Site Site Site Address/Location Risk Reason for Contaminated Soil/Ground Water 1 40 LA Fitness 3601 TH 100 High The site is currently and was historically used for commercial purposes, with past use including automobile sales and service and a gravel pit, the latter of which implies possible filling with unregulated fill and fill of unknown origin. A past occupant had hazardous waste generator status, storage tanks are registered to the site, and the site includes a closed LUST facility. There is the potential for use and/or storage of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products at the site. Table notes: 1. The site identification numbers correspond to the site numbers in the Phase I ESA document. Not all of the sites in the Phase I ESA search area are included in the table because not all sites are judged likely to be potentially impacted by the proposed construction. Page 31

44 Figure T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project Known and Potential Contaminated Properties Draft Site Map Page 32

45 10 - Cover types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: The table below lists acreage by cover type within the project site. The project site is defined by the construction limits shown in Figure 3 on page xi. Table 10: Cover Type Impacts for Project Site Cover Type Before (Acres) After (Acres) Type 1-8 Wetlands Wooded/Forest Brush/Grassland Cropland Lawn/Landscaping Impervious Surfaces Stormwater Pond Gravel Road/Lot Other/Structures TOTAL If before and after totals are not equal, explain why: 11 - Fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Existing Habitat The project area has been previously disturbed by residential development and road construction. Wildlife in the area is limited to those species that have adapted to live in developed areas. These species include those commonly occurring in Minnesota, such as raccoons, squirrels, rabbits, and various birds. Habitat Impacts Woody Vegetation Description and Impacts The woody vegetation along this corridor and within the proposed area is a combination of coniferous and deciduous landscape trees and shrubs planted over the years, as well as volunteer trees and shrubs. Most of the trees are mature, high quality plantings that hold aesthetic value and also act as a visual screen for neighboring properties. While a majority of the woody vegetation is growing within MnDOT right-of-way, a large amount is located just off state right-of-way. The proposed project is likely to remove a number of mature trees or to damage the roots of a number of trees, and to have negative impacts on vegetation both within the project limits and adjacent to the limits. Page 33

46 Woody Vegetation Mitigation Protection Plan As discussed above, this project is expected to have impacts on woody vegetation, with specific adverse effects on a number of mature trees and tree roots, both within the construction limits and just beyond the construction limits (construction limits are shown on Figure 3 on page xi). Because tree and vegetation removal within the construction limits will be unavoidable, a woody vegetation protection plan will be created during the design process that will minimize these losses. Efforts will be made to protect trees that lie just outside the construction limits and to minimize impacts to them by limiting construction activities in these areas through the use of temporary fencing and other available methods. 10 Removal of Trees and Use of Timber If marketable timber that is removed from the project exceeds a volume of 100 cubic yards, written proof will be obtained from three wood-using industries or individuals indicating that the wood is not wanted, before disposing of or wasting the removed trees. 11 If disposal is necessary, no wood will be burned or buried. An acceptable method of use of wood from removed trees is to chip or grind up all wood debris taken from clearing and grubbing operations (as long as it does not contain invasive or noxious vegetation) and use it on the project for erosion control and compaction control within and around the project limits. Tree Replacement and Landscape Plan Once road construction is complete, a separate landscape project will mitigate losses in the area. Boulevard trees will be replaced at a one-to-one ratio, provided there is sufficient remaining boulevard width; replacement trees will have a 2.5-inch diameter. Roadside landscaping will be replaced on an acre-to-acre basis (using landscape-grade plant material), provided there are suitable soil and site conditions in place to support plant health, and highway safety clear zones are not violated. The landscaping project will include the planting of lilac shrubs, particularly near the Webster Park and Historic Roadside Park areas. Control of Invasives None of the noxious and invasive weeds discovered in the project area (in particular, Leafy Spurge and Spotted Knapweed) will be spread during construction. These species will be controlled, and areas of contaminated soil where they grow will be buried three feet deep within the project site, near the area where they are growing (i.e., the same side of the road). b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, rare plant communities, or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial water bird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? _Yes X No 10 See MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction, item , for additional information. 11 See MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction, item D (D1), for additional information. Page 34

47 If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted, give the correspondence reference number. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Available information regarding reported occurrences of rare, threatened, and endangered species or critical habitats in proximity to the proposed alignment was obtained from the MnDOT Office of Environmental Services for federally-listed species, and from the DNR National Heritage Program for state-listed species. State-listed species The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reviewed Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System data to determine whether any rare plant or animal species, native plant communities, or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the T.H. 100 project area. Based on this review, the DNR has determined that the nature and location of the proposed project will not adversely affect any known occurrences of rare features. (See Appendix B for the DNR dated September 21, 2011.) Federally-listed species MnDOT s Office of Environmental Services (OES), acting as a delegate of the FHWA, was contacted to review the project area for federally-listed endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate species or listed critical habitat. Based on the nature and location of the proposed project, MnDOT s OES has made a determination of no effect, and therefore, the coordination provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act have been met. (See Appendix B for MnDOT s OES correspondence dated April 10, 2012.) 12 - Physical impacts on water resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream, or drainage ditch? _X _Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI: N/A. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. The proposed project will fill wetland areas. Federal and state laws protect wetlands and require highway projects to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate wetland impacts. In order to meet federal and state requirements, wetlands in the project area were identified, inventoried, and classified. Page 35

48 Wetland Analysis Existing Wetlands A wetland review was conducted in 2012 to identify and categorize wetlands in the project area. Table 11, below, summarizes wetland basin locations, types, and impacts in acres. Four wetlands were identified in the Level I delineation (see explanation below under Wetland Delineation). Wetlands 1 and 2 are south of West 36th Street, beyond the project s south limits. Because they will not be affected by the project, Wetlands 1 and 2 are not included in Table 11. Wetlands 3 and 4 are in the northwest quadrant of the T.H.7 interchange with T.H. 100 and are described in Table 11. Table 11 - T.H. 100 Project Area Wetland Basin Features and Impacts ID of Bas in 3 4 Section, Twp., Range 6, T28N, R24W 6, T28N, R24W Wetland Circ. 39 Type / Wetland Plant Community Type 2 / Sedge meadow 3 / Shallow marsh Page 36 Jurisdiction (if known) COE* WCA COE* WCA and and Basin Size (acres) TOTAL ESTIMATED WETLANDS IMPACTS 0.07 *COE Jurisdiction is assumed, unless an approved Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination states otherwise. Wetland Delineation A Level I Delineation was completed in the project area in Figure 6 - Wetlands Map, on page 39, identifies the wetland and deep water limits based on the Level 1 Wetland Delineation of areas adjacent to project construction. The Level 1 Wetland Delineation uses aerial photos and maps of the project area to set approximate wetland boundaries. The sources used for this Level 1 Wetland Delineation are listed below: The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); The County Soil Survey; The Minnesota Public Waters and Wetlands Inventory (MnDNR s PWI); Floodplain Mapping; USGS Topographic Mapping; Recent Aerial Photographs; Historical Aerial Photographs; and, DNR Minnesota Land Cover by County mapping. A Level II Delineation will be completed on all wetlands with proposed permanent impacts (Wetland #4) during the Final Design of the project. A Level II Delineation is a field survey of vegetation, soil, and hydrology characteristics, following procedures described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1, 1987) and in accordance with the methods identified in the Interim Regional Supplement Size of Potential Impact (acres)

49 to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Interim Regional Supplement) as required by both the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. When the Level II delineation is completed, delineation sheets will be filled out and a wetland line will be created using GPS, or, if no hydric soils are found, the basin will be removed from the wetland mapping. Wetland Impacts The No-Build Alternative would not have an impact on any wetlands. The Preferred Alternative will have an impact on an estimated 0.07 acres of wetlands. Wetland impacts have been estimated based upon preliminary project construction limits and upon the Level 1 Wetland Delineation. Wetland impacts are shown on Figure 6 - Wetlands Map, and summarized in Table 11, above. Wetland #4 is expected to be filled in as part of this project. As a Type 3 shallow marsh, this wetland is primarily a cattail ditch that may be a remnant of an historic wetland. Wetland Avoidance and Minimization Wetland #4 is adjacent to the west side of T.H T.H. 100 will be widened approximately ten feet to the west, to provide a right shoulder on T.H A noise wall is proposed between T.H. 100 and Utica Avenue as noise mitigation for the homes west of Utica Avenue. Avoiding this wetland would require realigning T.H. 100 to the east roughly 30 feet, forcing the Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge further east, along with its interchange ramps. This, in turn, would cause additional right-of-way impacts along Minnetonka Boulevard and Toledo Avenue South. Those impacts would include forcing the relocation of the T.H. 100 northbound exit to Minnetonka onto the current alignment of Toledo Avenue South, which, in turn, would remove access to the driveways of three or four houses on Toledo Avenue South. Minimizing impacts to the wetland by changing the alignment of the noise wall and steepening roadway side-slopes will be investigated further during the final design stage of the project. However, for this environmental review, it is assumed that Wetland #4 will be filled. Wetland Permits and Mitigation Application for wetland permits will be made to the appropriate agency(ies) with wetland jurisdiction. Agencies with wetland jurisdiction include MnDOT (as the local governmental unit [LGU] for the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act), and may include US Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The need for a COE Section 404 permit will be decided after the Level II delineation and a COE jurisdictional determination. Refer to EAW Item 8 on page 21 for a list of permits and approvals related to wetland impacts. Wetland mitigation is an on-going development during the early stages of project design, and therefore, it is subject to change. Wetland impacts for this project will be mitigated by using MnDOT wetland bank credits from a bank site as close to the project area as feasible. It should be noted that while replacement sites are sought first from within the area of the project, this is not feasible for this particular project because the entire project Page 37

50 area is fully developed without appropriate land available to develop a new wetland. If replacement bank sites are not available within the area of the project, they are sought next within the same watershed, then within the same county, then within an adjacent county, and finally within the reminder of the state. This concentric approach assures that lost wetland acreage, along with functions and values, are replaced as close to the impacts as possible. All replacement sites are monitored to assure that targeted wetland size and type have been attained. Additionally, they are protected by covenants and restrictions, as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Replacement of lost wetlands will be in accordance with current WCA criteria, and will occur prior to or concurrent with the impacts. Efforts will be made to replace all lost wetland functions and values with similar or higher value wetland types, close to the project site. This project will achieve a no-net-loss of wetland quantity and quality through wetland replacement, and will preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of replacement and avoided wetlands. Wetland Finding The project alternatives described in Section 3 of this EA were evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 11990, as described above. Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands, and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. Page 38

51 Figure 6 - Wetlands Map Page 39

52 13 - Water use Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? Yes _X_No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. Public Water Supplies The project may involve replacing or relocating water main pipes. The Minnesota Department of Health will be requested to review plan sheets and specifications involving water main pipe replacement or relocation. The project lies within the St. Louis Park drinking water supply management area (DWSMA). 12 City of St. Louis Park staff were contacted in March of 2012 and reported that none of the city s wells inner wellhead management zones lie within the T.H. 100 project area. City staff did not have concerns regarding impacts to the city s wells drinking-water supply, or to placing infiltration ponding areas within MnDOT right-ofway. The project design includes four stormwater basins. Three infiltration basins will be constructed within the boundaries of the DWSMA, in addition to an existing pond northwest of the intersection of T.H. 100 and T.H. 7. See EAW Item 19, on page 48 for more information about stormwater basins and infiltration to groundwater. Dewatering Minor dewatering could be needed in localized areas during project construction. Activities that could require temporary dewatering include culvert installation and roadway embankment construction along the peripheral areas of wetlands. If temporary dewatering is needed, the requisite MnDNR groundwater appropriation permits will be obtained. Best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., temporary/permanent sedimentation basins, other BMPs) will be implemented prior to any dewatering activities for treatment of dewatering discharges, as per National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater (CSW) permit requirements in place at the time of construction. Water Wells A review of the Minnesota County Well Index identified seven wells within 500 feet of the proposed project footprint (Table 12). Two of the wells are within or near the project construction limits: 27W , on Minnetonka Boulevard, 100 feet west of Vernon Avenue; and on the north side of T.H. 7 at Webster Avenue. If any unused or 12 Information about the City of St. Louis Park s Source Water Protection Plan can be found on the Minnesota Department of Health website, at: Page 40

53 unsealed wells are discovered in the project area during construction, they will be addressed in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter Table 12 - Nearby Wells Unique Well Number Well Address or Approximate Location Well Depth (feet) Date Well Completed Minnetonka Blvd /25/ W Web-site reports no well record found. On Minnetonka Blvd., 100 ft. west of Vernon Av. na Not available (na) No address listed /30/1979 On the north side of T.H. 7 at Webster Av th St. 116 Not listed Webster Av /17/ Xenwood Av /25/ No address listed. On 36 th Av., 100 feet west of 36 th Av. bridge over T.H. 100 Source: /13/ Water-related land-use management district Does any part of the project involve a shore land zoning district, a delineated 100-year floodplain, or a state- or federally-designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes X No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. Shoreland Zoning District There is no shoreland zoning district within the project limits. Floodplain Assessment An area along the west side of T.H. 100 near 25½ Avenue North lies within the 100-year floodplain. Flood Insurance Rate Maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were reviewed to determine impacts. A base 100-year flood elevation has not been established for this area. This project will stay within the existing T.H. 100 shoulder line along the 100-year floodplain, so the project will not encroach into the floodplain zone. Wild and Scenic Rivers - Nationwide Rivers Inventory No rivers exist within this project s limits that are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Page 41

54 Figure 7 - Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Page 42

55 15 - Water surface use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Yes _X_No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses Erosion and sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. The project will grade approximately 53 acres and will move approximately 150,000 cubic yards of soil (76,000 cubic yards of cut and 86,000 cubic yards of fill). a. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. The EAW Guidelines (Minnesota EQB, 2000) identify steep slopes as slopes of 12 percent or greater. The Hennepin County Soil Survey suggests that steep slopes/highly erodible soils may be encountered in sandy and loamy soils present in the project area (see Figure 8 - Location of Potentially Steep Slopes on page 44). Most of the areas that include potentially steep slopes are designated as Urban Land, which is comprised of soils that have been disturbed, to some degree, by construction activity and consist mainly of residential areas and areas covered by impervious surfaces. b. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Erosion and sedimentation of all exposed soils within the project corridor will be minimized by employing BMPs during construction. Implementation of BMPs during construction greatly reduces the amount of construction-related sedimentation and helps to control erosion and runoff. Ditches, dikes, silt fences, bale checks, sedimentation basins, and temporary seeding will be used as temporary erosion control measures during construction grading. Temporary and permanent erosion control plans will be identified in the final site grading and in construction plans for each stage, as required by the NPDES permitting for construction sites. Erosion control measures will be in place and maintained throughout the entire construction period. Removal of erosion measures will not occur until all disturbed areas have been stabilized. Page 43

56 Figure 8 - Location of Potentially Steep Slopes Page 44

57 17 - Water quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. Traffic-related pollutants consist of copper, lead, zinc, and phosphorus. A study conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled, Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, December 1983, have identified the above pollutants as the predominant constituents in highway runoff. Other common pollutants are total suspended solids (TSS) and chloride. TSS and chloride are introduced into highway runoff primarily from winter deicing practices. The amounts vary depending upon the application rates and the number of ice/snowfall events in a given year. An effective means of reducing the level of pollutants discharged into the receiving stream/water body is to provide sedimentation ponds. The project limits fall within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Both have rate control and volume control requirements. The MCWD requires that the proposed discharge rate is equal or less than the existing discharge rate for the 1, 10 and 100-year rainfall events. The MPCA requires that the water quality volume discharged from the stormwater treatment basins not exceed 5.66 cubic feet per second. For volume control MCWD requires that the overall stormwater discharge volume be reduced by 1 inch over the new impervious surface. The MPCA has the same volume control requirement but stipulates that half of the volume must be infiltrated. In addition to rate and volume control, MCWD also has water quality requirements that state that the net phosphorus loading not be increased from existing levels. The proposed project adds 2.71 acres of new impervious surface area. In both the existing and proposed condition, the northern end of the project ultimately drains to Twin Lakes and the southern end ultimately drains to Bass Lake. There are not currently any stormwater BMPs installed in the existing project area that drains to Twin Lakes. The southern section of the project currently drains to an existing pond at the T.H. 100 and T.H. 7 interchange prior to discharging from MnDOT ROW. The proposed project includes constructing three infiltration basins throughout the project area and modifying the existing stormwater pond in the northeast quadrant of T.H. 100 and T.H. 7. The proposed basins will be sized to meet MCWD and MPCA standards. When the project is completed, there will not be an increase of water volume to either Twin Lakes or Bass Lake. This project will require a General Construction NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit from the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared for the project that will document the proposed stormwater treatment and soil and erosion control measures to be used during and after construction. A permit for stormwater control and soil and erosion control will also be needed from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Page 45

58 b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Runoff from T.H. 100 between Cedar Lake Road and a high point 100 feet south of West 27th Street enters a MnDOT storm sewer and discharges to two proposed infiltration basins near Utica Avenue and West 27th Street. Water that does not infiltrate in the two proposed infiltration basins will discharge into a storm sewer pipe that connects to the City of St. Louis Park storm sewer at West 26th Street. The city storm sewer continues 2,000 feet east and outlets to a pond on the north side of West 26th Street. This pond drains to Twin Lake. Runoff south of the high point drains south on T.H. 100 and will be routed into either a proposed infiltration basin or an existing stormwater pond in the northeast quadrant of the T.H. 100 and T.H. 7 interchange. The stormwater pond and infiltration basin will outlet back into the T.H. 100 storm sewer, and the water will flow south, to where it joins the City of St. Louis Park storm sewer 1,000 feet north of West 36th Street. The St. Louis Park storm sewer continues 2,500 feet east and outlets to a pond east of Beltline Boulevard. This pond drains to Bass Lake. Both Twin Lake and Bass Lake have been listed as Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) impaired waters for nutrients/eutrophication by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The General Construction NPDES Permit with the MPCA will be obtained and followed for this project, and stormwater quality will be addressed, as mentioned above and in the permit, to address the two TMDL impairments. Water quality in Twin Lake and Bass Lake will not be negatively affected because runoff from the project will be routed through stormwater quality ponds and filtration basins before reaching the lakes Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. None. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies (identifying any impaired waters), and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. None. c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly-owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions, and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. None Geologic hazards and soil conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to groundwater: see description below; minimum: surface to 10 feet; average to bedrock: see description below; minimum: 50 feet Page 46

59 Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to groundwater and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. Groundwater The 'Quaternary Hydrogeology plate generated by the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) for the Hennepin County Geologic Atlas reports a water table elevation of about 870 to 880 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The shallowest depth to the water table in the project area is not specifically known but could be encountered from surface to within 10 feet of surface, based on: 1) Soil saturation levels observed in historical MnDOT borings obtained from the area; 2) The presence of nearby ponds and creeks in the vicinity of a water-filled storm-water retention/infiltration pond within the T.H. 7/T.H. 100 interchange; and, 3) Groundwater sensitivities for project area soils that are based on water table depth (found in the Sensitivity of Groundwater Systems to Pollution plate produced by the MGS). Water table elevations in the area will likely fluctuate on a seasonal and localized basis. Water table groundwater in the project area flows northeast toward the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. Bedrock and Geologic Hazards Depth to bedrock information is based on data from the MGS s Bedrock Topography and Depth to Bedrock plate produced for the Hennepin County Geologic Atlas. Bedrock depths in the project area will range from greater than 50 feet to less than 100 feet below surface. Limestone and shale found in the Platteville and Glenwood Formations will be the first bedrock encountered. Geologic site groundwater hazards related to sinkholes or karst conditions will likely not be encountered, given that the shallowest depth to bedrock in the project area is around 50 feet below surface. Most karst terrains are developed where bedrock is within 50 feet of surface, though some have been reported where rock is within 100 feet. Nonetheless, welldeveloped karst terrain is not typically found where Platteville Formation is the first bedrock encountered. The Sensitivity of Groundwater Systems to Pollution plate produced by the MGS lists a Low-Moderate risk of contamination to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer, the most heavily-used aquifer in Hennepin County. The Low-Moderate designation is an indication of contaminant travel time to the aquifer and is based on: 1) The composition of overlying sediments (mostly granular); 2) The number and effectiveness of overlying confining layers (Glenwood Shale is present); and 3) The depth to bedrock (less than 100 feet). However, since some wells near the project area show development in the Platteville Limestone, it should be assumed that groundwater sensitivity to stratigraphically-higher bedrock aquifers is actually higher, though not documented in the county atlas. Mitigation MnDOT's BMPs for chemical management and recovery during construction will be contained within the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), detail sheets, and/or special provisions of the construction plan; these management and recovery measures will prevent migration of potential chemical releases to surface water and Page 47

60 groundwater during construction operations (e.g., surface milling, concrete sawing, equipment maintenance, washing, and refueling, chemical and equipment storage). Additionally, project stormwater features are designed and maintained to manage stormwater quality and infiltration over the long term. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. Soil Granularity According to MnDOT borings and the USDA/SCS soil survey maps for Hennepin County, surficial soils in the project area consist predominantly of sand soil with some loamy and gravelly soil (see Figure 9 - Soils Map on page 50). According to the Surficial Geology plate produced by the MGS, soils in the project area are related to glacial outwash deposited by the Des Moines Lobe/Grantsburg Sublobe. Most native soils near surface have been disturbed by construction activity. Surficial organic deposits have been mostly cut and filled, but historical MnDOT borings suggest that shallow, buried organics still remain in the project area. Potential for Groundwater Contamination The Sensitivity of Groundwater Systems to Pollution plate produced by the Minnesota Geological Survey for the Hennepin County Geologic Atlas assigns a High sensitivity rating to most of the water table present in the project area. The ratings are based primarily on depth to water table (mostly greater than 10 feet) and hydraulic conductivity of area soils (mostly permeable sandy soil). A Very High sensitivity rating is assigned to a shallow water table (less than 10 feet) in granular soil found in the northeast quadrant of the T.H. 7/T.H. 100 interchange. This rating suggests that surface/water-borne contaminants could reach the water table system within a very short period of time (not specified). Four stormwater basins are proposed for the project: three new basins and the retention of an existing basin (see Table 13, below). The three proposed basins are infiltration basins and are located in areas where the groundwater depth is greater than ten feet. Harvey pond is the existing basin, located northeast of T.H. 7 and T.H. 100 in an area where the depthto-groundwater is less than ten feet. It was designed as a standard wet pond without infiltration capabilities and it operates as a wet pond. As infiltration basins, the three proposed stormwater basins allow the project to meet NPDES permit requirements regarding construction near impaired waters (Twin Lakes and Bass Lake). Table 13 - Stormwater Basins Depth-to-Groundwater Basin Name Location Depth to groundwater Infiltration Basin? Twin Lakes 1 (proposed) Near Utica Avenue and 27th Street, on the south side of the proposed on-ramp to T.H to 21 feet Yes Page 48

61 Twin Lakes 2 (proposed) Bass Lake 1 (proposed) Harvey Pond (existing) Near Utica Avenue and 27th Street, on the north side of the proposed on-ramp to T.H. 100 Just northeast of Minnetonka Boulevard and T.H. 100 Just northeast of T.H. 7 and T.H to 21 feet Yes 12 to 23 Yes 6 to 9 No Source of data: Preliminary Water Resource Drainage Design Report - Trunk Highway 100 from 36th Street to Cedar Lake Road in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, WSB and Associates, April 6, 2012 (EDMS doc ). The project corridor and proposed stormwater basins are within the ten-year wellhead protection area, as designated by the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Department of Health. MnDOT contacted the City of St. Louis Park regarding the proposed placement of infiltration stormwater basins within the wellhead protection area. City staff did not have concerns regarding impacts to the city s wells drinking-water supply, or to placing infiltration ponding areas within MnDOT right-of-way. The potential for infiltrating stormwater within the ten-year wellhead protection area requires that emergency procedures for spill containment be in place. A contingency response plan is currently in place that involves calling the State Duty Officer and Fire Department and following their recommendations to contain spills. As a result, infiltration is acceptable in the proposed locations. See EAW Item 13 - Water use for information on public water supplies within the project area. Page 49

62 Figure 9 - Soils Map Page 50

63 20 - Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. All regulated solid wastes generated by construction of the proposed project will be disposed of properly in a permitted, licensed solid waste facility or a similarly regulated facility elsewhere. Tree disposal is discussed in EAW Item 11a, under the sub-heading Mitigation, beginning on page 34. Project demolition of concrete, asphalt, and other potentially recyclable construction materials will be directed to the appropriate storage, crushing or renovation facility for recycling or reuse. If a spill of hazardous or toxic substances should occur during or after construction of the proposed project, it is the responsibility of the transport company to notify the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services, to arrange for corrective measures to be taken pursuant to 6 MCAR E. Any contaminated spills or leaks that occur during construction are the responsibility of the contractor and would be responded to according to MPCA containment and remedial action procedures. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. Toxic or hazardous materials would not be present at the site, except for fuel and oil necessary for equipment during construction. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. No above- or below-ground storage tanks are planned for permanent use in conjunction with this project. Temporary storage tanks for petroleum products may be located in the project area for construction equipment during roadway, overpass, and interchange construction. Appropriate measures would be taken during construction to avoid spills that could contaminate groundwater or surface water in the project area. In the event that a leak or spill occurs during construction, appropriate action to remediate the situation would be taken immediately in accordance with MPCA guidelines and regulations Traffic Parking spaces added N/A. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) N/A. Estimated total average daily traffic generated (indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimate) None. Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence None. (If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceed 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW.) Using the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation s Traffic Impact Study Guidance (available at: Page 51

64 /pdfs/chapter%206.pdf) or a similar local guidance. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project s impact on the regional transportation system. Traffic Forecast The area surrounding the project is fully developed. Table 14, below, lists daily traffic volumes for existing (2010), forecast 2030 No-build, and forecast 2030 Build conditions. Forecast traffic volumes on T.H.100 increase over the existing condition, as indicated in the table. Under the 2030 Build condition, traffic volumes decrease relative to the 2030 No-Build condition on CSAH 25 east of T.H. 100, and Minnetonka Boulevard west of T.H Table T.H. 100 Traffic Volumes, Average Annual Daily Traffic [AADT] (vehicles per day) Location 2010 Existing No-Build 2 Page 52 % increase 2030 No- Build to 2010 existing 2030 Build 2 % increase 2030 Build to 2010 existing % increase 2030 Build to 2030 NB T.H. 100 south of T.H , , % 125, % 5.7% T.H. 100 north of Minnetonka 129, , % 143, % 1.3% Blvd. (at 26 th Street) T.H. 7 west of T.H ,000 30, % 32, % 5.8% CSAH 25 east of T.H ,000 26, % 26, % -2.2% Minnetonka Blvd. west of T.H. 14,400 15, % 14, % -5.3% 100 Minnetonka Blvd. east of T.H ,700 18, % 19, % 7.6% Table notes: 1. AADT is average annual daily traffic. The 2010 traffic volumes are taken from MnDOT 2010 Traffic Volumes map at AADT traffic volumes taken from Traffic Forecast spreadsheet at MnDOT EDMS doc , v6. Traffic Operation Freeway Operation MnDOT has completed CORSIM traffic modeling of the T.H. 100 project area for the existing condition (No-Build), and Build condition in the years 2009 and 2030, based on forecast average annual weekday traffic volumes. Table 15 and Table 16 below list the T.H. 100 freeway level of service (LOS) for the No-Build and Build conditions at several locations along T.H Overall, the level of service will increase (improve) and fewer sections of T.H. 100 will operate at level of service F under the Build condition than under the No-Build condition. The highlighted cells in Table 16 indicate locations where the Build condition level of service decreases (worsens) relative to the No-Build condition, due to traffic increases for Build versus No-Build, as shown in Table 14. The level of service under the Build condition for southbound T.H. 100 will decrease south of the project relative to the No- Build condition, as increased traffic volumes are delivered to the section of T.H. 100 south

65 of the project limits. Traffic volumes in the northbound direction in either the No-Build or Build conditions will continue to worsen due to congestion and backups from I-394 ramps. Table 15 No-Build T.H. 100 Freeway Level of Service Location on T.H. 100 No-Build 2009 No-Build 2030 a.m. Peak p.m. Peak a.m. Peak p.m. Peak NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB North of Excelsior Blvd. C C D D D D F D South of T.H. 7 E D E D F D F D Between T.H. 7 and F E F F F F F F Minnetonka Blvd. North of Minnetonka Blvd. F F F F F F F F At Cedar Lake Road C C C C C E D E Table 16 Build T.H. 100 Freeway Level of Service Location on T.H. 100 Build 2009 Build 2030 a.m. Peak p.m. Peak a.m. Peak p.m. Peak NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB North of Excelsior Blvd. C D D E D E D F South of T.H. 7 C C D C C C E D Between T.H. 7 and C C C C D C F E Minnetonka Blvd. North of Minnetonka Blvd. E C E C F D F D At Cedar Lake Road C C C B C C F C Source: T.H. 100 modeling data within EDMS doc and Table notes: 1. Red bold text indicates LOS F. 2. Yellow highlighted cells indicate that the LOS decreases (worsenes) by at least one level from No-Build to Build condition. Green highlighted cells indicate that the LOS increases (improves) by at least one level from No-Build to Build condition. See Freeway Operation section, above, for explanation. Intersection Operations Table 17 lists level of service at several locations along T.H. 100 for the No-Build and Build conditions. Highlighted cells in Table 17 indicate locations where the Build level of service decreases relative to the No-Build condition. Level of service D is considered acceptable at intersections. Overall level of service will remain about the same or increase at most intersections. Page 53

66 Table 17 No-Build and Build T.H. 100 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Location Vernon Ave. at Minnetonka Blvd. Minnetonka Blvd. at T.H. 100, west ramp Minnetonka Blvd. at T.H. 100, east ramp T.H. 7 at T.H. 100, west ramp T.H. 7 at T.H. 100, east ramp No-Build 2009 No-Build 2030 Build Alt Build Alt a.m. Peak p.m. Peak a.m. Peak p.m. Peak a.m. Peak p.m. Peak a.m. Peak p.m. Peak C C D B D B D B C A C A B A B B D B D B C B B B A A A A A A B A B B B B A A B B Source: T.H. 100 modeling data within EDMS doc and Table notes: Yellow highlighted cells indicate that the LOS decreases (worsens) by at least one level from No-Build to Build condition. Green highlighted cells indicate that the LOS increases (improves) by at least one level from No-Build to Build condition. See Freeway Operation section, above, for explanation. Traffic Safety The Safety Needs section on page 5 identifies several higher crash locations in the project area. The higher crash incidence at the T.H. 7 southbound entrance ramp interchange is likely due to the yield condition on the entrance ramp at the temporary collector distributor road. Mainline crashes are likely due to congestion on the mainline, and due to vehicles braking before exiting onto ramps with substandard deceleration lengths. The project will construct entrance and exit ramps with acceleration and deceleration lengths that meet current standards at T.H. 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard. Overall, congestion will be reduced at these two interchanges; therefore, mainline rear-end crashes resulting from congested peak-period should be reduced as well. Traffic safety in the project area is expected to improve as a result of the project Vehicle-related air emissions Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Introduction to Transportation Air Quality Motorized vehicles affect air quality by directly emitting (via exhaust, brake wear, tire wear, crankcase) or causing emission (via dust resuspension) of airborne pollutants. Changes in traffic volumes, travel patterns, and roadway locations affect air quality by changing the number of vehicles in an area and the congestion levels. The air quality impacts from the project are analyzed by addressing criteria pollutants, a group of common air pollutants regulated by EPA on the basis of health and environmental impact criteria. The criteria pollutants identified by the EPA are ozone, particulate matter, carbon Page 54

67 monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and sulfur dioxide. Potential impacts resulting from these pollutants are assessed by comparing projected concentrations to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition to the criteria air pollutants, the EPA also regulates air toxics, which are non-criteria pollutants that can also impact human health and the environment. Criteria Pollutants Ozone Ground-level ozone is a primary constituent of smog and is a pollution problem throughout many areas of the United States. Exposures to ozone can cause people to be more susceptible to respiratory infection, resulting in lung inflammation, and aggravating respiratory diseases, such as asthma. Ozone is not emitted directly from vehicles but is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ) react in the presence of sunlight. Transportation sources emit NO x and VOCs and can, therefore, affect ozone concentrations. However, due to the phenomenon of atmospheric formation of ozone from chemical precursors, concentrations are not expected to be elevated near a particular roadway. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in cooperation with various other agencies, industries, and groups, has encouraged voluntary control measures to minimize emissions of ozone precursors, and has begun developing a regional ozone modeling effort. Ozone concentrations in the lower atmosphere are influenced by a complex relationship of precursor concentrations, meteorological conditions, and regional influences on background concentrations. The MPCA staff has begun development of ozone modeling for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Recent conversations with MPCA staff indicate that the ozone models currently use federal default traffic data and a relatively coarse modeling grid. As such, ozone modeling in Minnesota is in its developmental stage, and therefore, there is no available method of determining the contribution of a single roadway to regional ozone concentrations. Ozone levels in the Twin Cities metropolitan area currently meet state and federal standards. Additionally, the State of Minnesota is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as an ozone attainment area, which means that Minnesota has been identified as a geographic area that has air quality as good or better than the national standards for ozone. Because of these factors, a quantitative ozone analysis was not conducted for this project. Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) is the term for particles and liquid droplets suspended in the air. Particles come in a wide variety of sizes and have been historically assessed based on size, typically measured by the diameter of the particle in micrometers. PM 2.5, or fine particulate matter, refers to particles that are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter. PM 10 refers to particulate matter that is 10 micrometers or less in diameter. Motor vehicles (i.e., cars, trucks, and buses) emit direct PM from their tailpipes, as well as from normal brake and tire wear. Vehicle dust from paved and unpaved roads may be reentrained, or re-suspended, in the atmosphere. In addition, PM 2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. PM 2.5 can penetrate the human respiratory system's natural defenses and Page 55

68 damage the respiratory tract when inhaled. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including: Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing; Decreased lung function; Aggravated asthma; Development of chronic bronchitis; Irregular heartbeat; Heart attacks; and, Premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Source: The EPA issued a final rule on October 17, 2006, that tightened the NAAQSs for PM 2.5 to include a 24-hour standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) and retained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard of 15.0 µg/m3. The annual standard is based on a three-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations; the 24-hour standard is based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. The NAAQS 24-hour standard for PM 10 is 150 µg/m3, not to be exceeded, on average, more than once per year over a period of three years. The following statement was published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the Air Quality in Minnesota: 2011 Report to the Legislature: EPA is reevaluating the particulate standards in response to scientists better understanding of the serious risks associated with breathing even low levels of fine particles. In light of these potential health effects, EPA s new standards, expected in , will likely be more stringent. The Clean Air Act conformity requirements include the assessment of localized air quality impacts of federally-funded or federally-approved transportation projects that are deemed to be projects of air quality concern located within PM 10 or PM 2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. This project is not considered one of air quality concern. This is supported, in part, by the designation of the entire State of Minnesota as an unclassifiable/attainment area for PM 2.5. Only two small areas of the state, in Rochester and in St. Paul, are designated maintenance (formerly nonattainment) for PM 10. The project would not intersect either of these maintenance areas, and therefore is exempt from performing PM qualitative hot-spot analyses. Nitrogen Dioxide (Nitrogen Oxides) Nitrogen oxides, or NOx, is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels. The MPCA s Annual Pollution Report to the Legislature: A Summary of Minnesota s Air Emissions and Water Discharges, April 2011, indicates that: On-road gasoline vehicles and diesel vehicles account for 40% of NO x emissions in Minnesota. In addition to being a precursor to ozone, NO x can cause respiratory irritation in sensitive individuals and can contribute to acid rain. 13 EPA s new PM standards, planned for 2011, have been delayed. Page 56

69 Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), which is a form of NO x, is regularly monitored in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Currently, NO 2 levels meet state and federal standards. Data presented in the MPCA s 2010 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for the State of Minnesota indicates that: The lowest annual average level of NO 2 in the State of Minnesota for the study year (2007) was ppm and the highest was ppm. These two concentrations are approximately 10-20% of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards annual average standard for NO 2 of ppm. Therefore, Minnesota currently meets applicable NAAQS for NO 2 ; however, continued reductions are sought, in light of the role of NO 2 in forming other pollutants of concern. The EPA s regulatory announcement, EPA420-F (December 1999), describes the Tier 2 standards for tailpipe emissions, and states: The new tailpipe standards are set at an average standard of 0.07 grams per mile for nitrogen oxides for all classes of passenger vehicles beginning in This includes all light-duty trucks, as well as the largest SUVs. Vehicles weighing less than 6000 pounds will be phased-in to this standard between 2004 and As newer, cleaner cars enter the national fleet, the new tailpipe standards will significantly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from vehicles by about 74 percent by The standards also will reduce emissions by more than 2 million tons per year by 2020 and nearly 3 million tons annually by Within the project area, it is unlikely that NO 2 standards will be approached or exceeded based on the relatively low ambient concentrations of NO 2 in Minnesota and on the longterm trend toward reduction of NO x emissions. Because of these factors, a specific analysis of NO 2 was not conducted for this project. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and other sulfur oxide gases (SOx) are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal, oil, and diesel fuel is burned. Sulfur dioxide is a heavy, pungent, colorless gas. Elevated levels can impair breathing, lead to other respiratory symptoms, and at very high levels, can aggravate heart disease. People with asthma are most at risk when SO2 levels increase. Once emitted into the atmosphere, SO2 can be further oxidized into sulfuric acid, a component of acid rain. The MPCA s Annual Pollution Report to the Legislature: A Summary of Minnesota s Air Emissions and Water Discharges, April, 2011, indicates that on-road mobile sources account for just 14 percent of SOx emissions in Minnesota. Over 53 percent of SO2 released into the air comes from electric utilities, especially those that burn coal. MPCA monitoring shows that ambient SO2 concentrations are consistently below standards. The MPCA has concluded that long-term trends in both ambient air concentrations and total SO2 emissions in Minnesota indicate steady improvement. Emissions of sulfur oxides from transportation sources are a small component of overall emissions and continue to decline due to the desulphurization of fuels. Additionally, the State of Minnesota is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a sulfur dioxide attainment area, which means that Minnesota has been identified as a geographic Page 57

70 area that has air quality as good or better than the national standards for sulfur dioxide. Because of these factors, a quantitative analysis for sulfur dioxide was not conducted for this project. Lead Due to the phase out of leaded gasoline, lead is no longer a pollutant associated with vehicular emissions. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is the traffic-related pollutant that has historically been of greatest concern in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) redesignated all of Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, and portions of Carver, Scott, Dakota, Washington, and Wright counties as an attainment area for CO and therefore will be a maintenance area for a period of 20 years from the redesignation. This area includes the project area, which is located in Hennepin County. Air Quality Conformity The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) requires that the State Implementation Plans (SIP) demonstrate how states with nonattainment and maintenance areas will meet federal air quality standards. Within Minnesota, the EPA has designated all of Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka and portions of Carver, Scott, Dakota, Washington, and Wright counties to attainment as a maintenance area for CO. This includes the project area, which is in Hennepin County. The USEPA issued final rules on transportation conformity (amended as 40 CFR 93 in 2008) which describe the methods required to demonstrate SIP compliance for transportation projects. The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) with responsibility for transportation planning in the Twin Cities area is the Metropolitan Council. For transportation projects within the Metropolitan Council s jurisdiction, transportation conformity requires that such projects must be part of the Metropolitan Council's Long Range Transportation Policy Plan (LRTPP) and the four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The proposed project is included in and is consistent with the MPO s 2030 LRTPP, but is not listed in the current TIP, as construction is planned to begin in It is expected that the project will be listed in the next ( ) TIP. On November 8, 2010, the EPA approved a limited maintenance plan request for the Twin Cities maintenance area. Under a limited maintenance plan, the EPA has determined that there is no requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period and that an emission budget may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period. The reason is that it is unreasonable to expect that our maintenance area will experience so much growth within this period that a violation of CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) would result. (USEPA Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas, October 6, 1995) Therefore, no regional modeling analysis is required, however federally funded projects are still subject to "hot spot" analysis requirements. The limited maintenance plan adopted in 2010 determines that the level of CO emissions and resulting ambient concentrations will continue to demonstrate attainment of the CO NAAQS. Page 58

71 This project does not interfere with implementation of any transportation control measure included in the SIP. The previous LRTPP (adopted January 2009 and amended May 2010) was determined to conform to the requirements of the 1990 CAAA (per 40 CFR 51 and 93) by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration on May 26, A TIP conformity determination was made by those agencies on May 26, The current LRTPP was submitted to MnDOT on November 22, 2010 for transmittal to USDOT for a conformity determination. As demonstrated by the above information, this project conforms to the requirements of the CAAA and to the Conformity Rules, 40 CFR 93. Carbon Monoxide Hot-Spot Analysis Although this project is located in an area where conformity requirements apply, the scope of the project does not indicate that adverse air quality impacts would be expected. Furthermore, the EPA has approved a screening method to determine which intersections need hot-spot analysis. The screening procedure includes a flowchart that asks two questions to determine if a CO hot-spot analysis is required: i. Is the project ADT greater than the Benchmark AADT? ii. Does the project involve/affect the Top 10 Intersections? The Benchmark AADT identified in the screening procedure is equal to that at the intersection with the highest AADT (2007) in the Twin Cities. The benchmark AADT of 79,400 is not exceeded by any intersection in the project (see Table 18 on page 65). The Top 10 Intersections identified in the screening procedure include the 7 intersections with the highest AADT and 3 locations which are monitored by the MPCA. These intersections are TH 169 at CSAH 81; TH 7 at CSAH 101; TH 252 at 85th Avenue; University Avenue at Snelling Avenue; TH 252 at Brookdale Drive; Cedar Avenue at County Road 42; TH 7 at Williston Road; University Avenue at Lexington Avenue; TH 252 at 66th Avenue, and; Hennepin Avenue at Lake Street. The project does not involve or affect any of the Top 10 Intersections. The results of the screening procedure demonstrate that there are no signalized intersections included in this project area that require hot-spot analysis. Therefore, no further CO air quality analysis is necessary. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes, locomotives), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). On September 30, 2009, the FHWA released an update to its interim guidance on when and how to analyze MSATs in the NEPA process for highways. The FHWA guidance on the analysis of MSAT recommends: No analysis: For projects which qualify as categorical exclusion status (under 23 CFR (c), exempt under 40 CFR , or which have no meaningful Page 59

72 potential MSAT effects because of no meaningful impacts on traffic volumes or vehicle mix. Qualitative analysis: For projects that serve to improve operations of highway, transit, or freight without adding substantial new capacity or without creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase MSAT emissions. Quantitative analysis: For projects which alter a major intermodal freight facility that has the potential to concentrate high levels of diesel particulate matter in a single location or those which create new or add significant capacity to urban highways where traffic volume is projected to be in the range of 140,000 to 150,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) or greater by the design year. The purpose of this project is to improve the safety and mobility for the traveling public entering and exiting Highway 100 and to replace two structurally deficient bridges on Highway 100. These changes will improve operations but are not expected to add substantial new capacity. Additionally, the existing AADT is below the range of AADT requiring quantitative analysis, and the sum of future (2030) AADT in both directions of TH 100 is projected to be 143,400 at the maximum. Therefore, because no new or additional significant capacity is expected and AADTs are not above those recommended in the FHWA guidance, a qualitative analysis was completed. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. (See Document No. EPA420- R , December 2000). The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a major rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) ( In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) ( These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority MSATs, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. Between 1999 and 2050, Page 60

73 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects that even with a 145 percent increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), these controls will reduce the total annual emission rate for the priority MSATs by 72 percent as shown in Figure 10. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the project area are likely to be lower in the future than they are currently. Figure 10 - Annual VMT vs. MSAT Emissions Source: ( Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis In FHWA's view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the projectspecific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set Page 61

74 of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is "a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects" (EPA, Each report contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude. Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI, or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI, The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts - each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable. The results produced by the EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, the California EPA's EMFAC2007 model, and the EPA's MOVES2010a model in forecasting MSAT emissions are highly inconsistent. Indications from the development of the MOVES model are that MOBILE6.2 significantly underestimates diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions and significantly overestimates benzene emissions. Regarding air dispersion modeling, an extensive evaluation of EPA's guideline CAL3QHC model was conducted in an NCHRP study ( which documents poor model performance at ten sites across the country - three where intensive monitoring was conducted plus an additional seven with less intensive monitoring. The study indicates a bias of the CAL3QHC model to overestimate concentrations near highly congested Page 62

75 intersections and underestimate concentrations near uncongested intersections. The consequence of this is a tendency to overstate the air quality benefits of mitigating congestion at intersections. Such poor model performance is less difficult to manage for demonstrating compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for relatively short time frames than it is for forecasting individual exposure over an entire lifetime, especially given that some information needed for estimating 70-year lifetime exposure is unavailable. It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast MSAT exposure near roadways, and to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location. There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI ( As a result, there is no national consensus on air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA ( and the HEI ( have not established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings. There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine a "safe" or "acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 cases of adverse health impacts per million people. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million. In some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's approach to addressing risk in its twostep decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than the maximum acceptable 100 per million risk level. Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful when weighing this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis. As discussed above, FHWA believes the technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of health impacts of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable Page 63

76 methods do not exist to accurately assess the levels of future MSATs at the transportation project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences in MSAT emissions if any between the Build and No-Build alternatives. The qualitative assessment is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at: The AADT for the design year Build scenario is slightly higher than the AADT for the No- Build scenario (see Table 14 on page 4). Assuming a correlation between AADT and VMT, the amount of MSATs emitted would also be proportionally higher for the Build scenario, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same. Regardless, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent from 1999 to Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations. There may be localized areas where VMT would increase, and other areas where VMT would decrease. Therefore, it is possible that localized increases and decreases in MSAT emissions may occur. However, even if these increases do occur, they too will be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation of EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations. In summary, under the Build scenario in the design year, it is expected there would be reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the existing conditions, due to EPA's MSAT reduction programs. Page 64

77 Table 18 - Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Air Quality Analysis 2010 Estimate 2010 Build 2030 No Build 2030 Build SB TH ,500 67,700 69,300 72,900 Minnetonka Exit 6,500 7,000 7,000 7,300 SB CSAH 5 CD Entry 6,100 6,200 6,400 6,500 SB TH 7 CD Exit 10,900 9,600 11,300 9,900 TH 7 WB 7,700 6,800 8,000 7,000 TH 7 EB 3,200 2,800 3,300 2,900 SB TH ,300 55,900 57,600 60,600 TH 7 Entry Loop 3,700 5,100 3,900 5,600 SB TH ,000 58,600 57,500 63,100 NB TH ,500 68,400 72,200 70,500 Minnetonka Entry 9,800 11,600 10,500 12,000 Minnetonka Exit 2,900 4,000 3,100 4,200 NB TH ,600 61,300 64,800 66,500 TH 7 Entry 8,100 8,300 8,800 9,300 TH 7 Exit 4,500 4,800 4,800 4,900 NB TH ,000 57,700 60,800 61,900 NB TH ,500 68,400 72,200 70,500 Minnetonka Entry 9,800 11,600 10,500 12,000 Minnetonka Exit 2,900 4,000 3,100 4,200 NB TH ,600 61,300 64,800 66,500 TH 7 Entry 8,100 8,300 8,800 9,300 TH 7 Exit 4,500 4,800 4,800 4,900 NB TH ,000 57,700 60,800 61, Stationary source air emissions Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. Not applicable. Page 65

78 24 - Odors, noise, and dust Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? X Yes _No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at Item 23 instead of here.) Odors and Dust during Construction The proposed project would not generate substantial odors during construction. Potential odors would include exhaust from diesel engines and fuel storage. Dust generated during construction will be minimized through standard dust control measures, such as applying water to exposed soils and limiting the extent and duration of exposed soil conditions. Construction contractors will be required to control dust and other airborne particulates in accordance with MnDOT specifications. After construction is complete, dust levels are anticipated to be minimal because all soil surfaces exposed during construction would be in permanent cover (i.e., paved or re-vegetated areas). Noise during Construction The construction activities associated with building the proposed project will result in increased noise levels relative to existing conditions. These impacts will primarily be associated with construction equipment and pile driving. Table 19, below, shows peak noise levels monitored at 50 feet from various types of construction equipment. This equipment is primarily associated with site grading/site preparation, which is generally the roadway construction phase associated with the greatest noise levels. Table 19 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels at 50 feet Manufacturers Sampled Total Number of Models in Sample Equipment Type Peak Noise Level (dba) Range Average Backhoes Front Loaders Dozers Graders Scrapers Pile Drivers N/A N/A Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration Elevated noise levels are, to a degree, unavoidable for this type of project. MnDOT will require that construction equipment be properly muffled and in proper working order. While MnDOT and its contractor(s) are exempt from local noise ordinances, it is the practice to require contractor(s) to comply with applicable local noise restrictions and ordinances to the extent that is reasonable. Advanced notice will be provided to affected communities of any planned, abnormally loud construction activities. It is anticipated that Page 66

79 night construction may be required to minimize traffic impacts and to improve safety. However, construction will be limited to daytime hours as much as possible. This project is expected to be under construction for two years. Any associated high-impact equipment noise, such as pile driving, pavement sawing, or jack hammering, will be unavoidable with construction of the proposed project. Piledriving noise is associated with any bridge construction and sheet piling necessary for retaining wall construction. High-impact noise construction activities will be limited in duration to the greatest extent possible. The use of pile drivers, jack hammers, and pavement sawing equipment will be prohibited during nighttime hours. Traffic Noise Analysis This project is a federal Type 1 noise project. 14 Therefore, a traffic noise analysis is required. It is presented below. Noise Description Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. Sound travels in a wave motion and produces a variation in atmospheric pressure the magnitude of which is evaluated as sound pressure level. This sound pressure level is commonly measured in decibels. Decibels (db) represent the logarithmic increase in sound energy relative to a reference energy level. For highway traffic noise, an adjustment, or weighting, of the high- and low-pitched sounds, is made to approximate the way that an average person hears sounds. The adjusted sound levels are stated in units of "A-weighted decibels" (dba). A sound increase of three dba is barely perceptible to the human ear, a five dba increase is clearly noticeable, and a ten dba increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (e.g., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a three dba increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases to where there is ten times the sound energy level over a reference level, then there is a ten dba increase and it is heard as twice as loud. The following chart provides a rough comparison of the noise levels of some common noise sources CFR (FHWA) defines a Type 1 project as follows: (1) The construction of a highway on new location; or, (2) The physical alteration of an existing highway where there is either: (i) Substantial Horizontal Alteration. A project that halves the distance between the traffic noise source and the closest receptor between the existing condition to the future build condition; or, (ii) Substantial Vertical Alteration. A project that removes shielding therefore exposing the line-of-sight between the receptor and the traffic noise source. This is done by either altering the vertical alignment of the highway or by altering the topography between the highway traffic noise source and the receptor; or, (3) The addition of a through-traffic lane(s). This includes the addition of a through-traffic lane that functions as a HOV lane, High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane, bus lane, or truck climbing lane; or, (4) The addition of an auxiliary lane, except for when the auxiliary lane is a turn lane; or, (5) The addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange; or, (6) Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through-traffic lane or an auxiliary lane; or, (7) The addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh station, rest stop, ride-share lot or toll plaza. (8) If a project is determined to be a Type I project under this definition, then the entire project area as defined in the environmental document is a Type I project. Page 67

80 Table 20 - Noise Levels of Common Noise Sources Sound Pressure Level (dba) Noise Source 140 Jet Engine (at 82 feet) 130 Jet Aircraft (at 328 feet) 120 Rock and Roll Concert 110 Pneumatic Chipper 100 Jointer/Planer 90 Chainsaw 80 Heavy Truck Traffic 70 Business Office 60 Conversational Speech 50 Library 40 Bedroom 30 Secluded Woods 20 Whisper Source: A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Highway Traffic Noise, FHWA, State of Minnesota Standards and Regulations In Minnesota, traffic noise impacts are evaluated by measuring and/or modeling the traffic noise levels that are exceeded ten percent and 50 percent of the time during the hour of the day and/or night that has the heaviest traffic. These numbers are identified as the L 10 and L 50 levels. The L 10 and L 50 are compared to the MPCA noise standards. The L 10 value is compared to FHWA noise abatement criteria. Table 21 tabulates the daytime and nighttime Minnesota State Noise Standards for three Noise Area Classifications (NAC). The standards for NAC-1 apply to residential areas and other uses intended for overnight sleeping (hotels, motels, mobile homes, etc.). The NAC-1 standards also apply to schools, churches, medical services, and park areas. The nighttime standards differ from the daytime standards only in areas intended for overnight sleeping. The NAC-1 daytime standards apply during nighttime hours at other NAC-1 land-use areas not intended for overnight sleeping. The NAC-2 standards are applicable to certain NAC-1 land uses if the following criteria are met: The building noise attenuation is at least 30 decibels (dba); The building has year-round, indoor climate control; The building has no facilities for outdoor activities. Page 68

81 Table 21 - Minnesota State Noise Standards Noise Area General Land- Sound Level (dba) Classification Use Type Day ( ) Night ( ) L 10 L 50 L 10 L 50 1 Residential Commercial Industrial Federal Noise Abatement Criteria In the Federal Noise Abatement criteria, a noise impact is defined as occurring when the predicted traffic noise levels: Approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (see Table 22); Substantially exceed the existing noise levels. 15 The Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise) are in terms of the Leq or L 10 descriptor. In Minnesota, the L 10 is the sole descriptor used to identify impacts and has been used to identify impacts in this analysis. The criteria for activity category E (Table 22) are in terms of interior noise levels and are applied where there are no exterior activities to be affected by traffic noise. All other criteria are in terms of exterior noise levels. MnDOT has defined approach or exceed as being within one dba or less of the activity category of the NAC, and substantially exceed as a state where a resulting noise level will be five or more dba above existing noise levels. Table 22 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels [dba]) Activity Activity Criteria(2) Evaluation Activity Description Category Leq(h) L10(h) Location A Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B(3) Exterior Residential Interior C(3) Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings 15 FHPM Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise [ Page 69

82 D Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios E(3) Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities not included in A-D or F. F Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing G Undeveloped lands that are not permitted Table notes: 1. Either Leq(h) or L10(h) (but not both) may be used on a project. 2. The Leq(h) and L10(h) Activity Criteria values are for impact determination only, and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. 3. Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. Traffic-Related Noise Analysis Traffic noise impacts are evaluated by measuring and/or modeling the traffic noise levels during the hours of the day and/or night that have the loudest traffic scenario. Traffic noise modeling uses existing and forecast traffic volumes, as well as characteristics of the roadway and surrounding environment, to predict traffic noise levels at representative receptor locations. Modeled traffic noise levels at receptor locations along a project corridor are then compared to State daytime and nighttime standards. If modeled traffic noise levels are projected to exceed State daytime and/or nighttime standards with future Build conditions, then an impact is identified and mitigation measures (i.e., noise walls) are considered. In order for a noise wall to be proposed as part of a project, it must be both feasible and reasonable. Feasibility refers to such concerns as physical constraints and engineering considerations (i.e., whether a noise wall can be constructed at a particular location). For a noise barrier to be considered reasonable, it must meet the following two criteria: 1) It must be acoustically effective by providing a substantial reduction in noise, defined as a five-decibel reduction or more (one residence must receive a seven-decibel or greater reduction); and 2) It must meet MnDOT s cost effectiveness criteria of $43,500 per residence. Traffic noise levels were modeled at 702 representative receptor locations along the project corridor. A majority of these representative receptor locations represented residential land uses. A few scattered receiver locations throughout the corridor represent commercial land uses. The details of this traffic noise analysis are documented in the Draft Traffic Noise Analysis Report (see Appendix C). This report will remain in draft form until the voting for the project noise walls is completed, at which time, the draft report will be revised as a final report. This report includes background information on acoustics and noise, modeling Page 70

83 methodology, modeled traffic noise levels and noise wall cost-effectiveness results. The report includes modeled receiver locations and modeled and proposed noise wall locations illustrated in Figures 1-4 in the Traffic Noise Analysis Report, beginning on page 20 in the Report s Appendix A, Figures. The noise barrier cost-effectiveness calculations are provided in the Traffic Noise Analysis Report, beginning on page 86 in the Report s Appendix C, Noise Barrier Cost Effectiveness Results. Conclusion The Traffic Noise Analysis Report (see Appendix C) concluded that the T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project will result in increases in traffic noise levels compared to existing conditions. In some locations where the new alignment results in traffic being shifted away from modeled receiver locations, the noise level increase is predicted to be smaller as compared to noise level increases predicted at other locations along the project corridor. In fact, the new alignment may result in a decrease in future noise levels. Changes in daytime traffic noise levels (L10) are projected to range from -3.7 dba to +6.4 dba from existing to future (2030) Build conditions. Cost effectiveness of noise barriers was calculated. Table 23, below, lists barriers that were considered and barriers proposed as part of the project. Final mitigation decisions will be subject to input from affected property owners and final design considerations. Table 23 - Considered Noise Barriers Noise Location Barrier Barrier Not proposed west of Highway 100, north of Park A1 Ridge Apartments Barrier Proposed -- West of Highway 100 between Park Ridge A2 Apartments and the pedestrian bridge near W. 26th Barrier B1 Barrier B2 Barrier C Barrier D1 Barrier D2 Barrier D3 Barrier E Street (Figure 1, Traffic Noise Analysis Report) Proposed -- West of Highway 100 between the pedestrian bridge near W. 26th Street south along the proposed slip ramp (Figure 2, Traffic Noise Analysis Report) Proposed -- West of Highway 100 between W.27 ½ Street and Minnetonka Boulevard (Figure 2, Traffic Noise Analysis Report) Proposed -- West of Highway 100 between Minnetonka Boulevard and the proposed off-ramp to WB Highway 7 (Figure 3, Traffic Noise Analysis Report) Page 71 Length Height NA NA Not proposed - Area D is on the west side of Highway NA NA 100 between Highway 7 and W. 36th Street Not proposed NA NA Not proposed NA NA Proposed -- East of Highway 100 between Stephens Drive and W. 26th Street (Figure 1, Traffic Noise Analysis Report)

84 Noise Barrier Barrier F Barrier G Barrier H Location Proposed -- East of Highway 100 between the existing pedestrian bridge at W. 26th Street and Minnetonka Boulevard (Figure 2, Traffic Noise Analysis Report) Proposed -- East of Highway 100 between Minnetonka Boulevard and County Road 25 Not proposed - Area H is on the east side of Highway 100 between County Road 25 and the railroad tracks Length Height Table notes: The Traffic Noise Analysis Report is in Appendix C of this Environmental Assessment. Public Involvement A public information open house is planned for the summer of 2012 during the public comment period of this EAW. The proposed noise walls will be presented during the open house. In addition, all benefitting residents will have information mailed to their homes regarding the proposed wall. Neighborhood meetings with the benefitted residences and property owners will be arranged to determine the acceptance of the proposed walls. NA NA 25 - Nearby resources Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes X No Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? Yes X No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? X Yes No Scenic views and vistas? Yes X No Other unique resources? Yes X No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources The project was reviewed by the MnDOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) for archaeological, historical, and architectural resources pursuant with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (36 CFR 800) and as per the Programmatic Agreement (June 2005) between the FHWA and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). MnDOT s CRU determined that there will be no historic properties affected by the project as currently proposed. Refer to correspondence from MnDOT s CRU in Appendix B. Farmlands The provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act do not apply to this project, since the right-of-way to be acquired falls within the Twin Cities urban boundary. None of the rightof-way to be acquired lies within an agricultural preserve The2009 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program Status Report was reviewed for agricultural preserve impacts; view this report at Page 72

85 Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails Several park and trail resources are in the project area. 17 Three of the resources described below are designated as having a Limited Use Permit from MnDOT. In the case of the paved trail between Toledo Street and Salem Avenue, a de minimis agreement has been proposed by the City of St. Louis Park to MnDOT. Parks Historic Roadside Park This park is on the east side of T.H. 100, north of Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail, on MnDOT right-of-way. It contains the remains of a hand-cut stone beehive structure erected in this picnic area as part of the historic Lilac Way thoroughfare. Constructed in the 1940s, Lilac Way once ran through Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, and St. Louis Park along what is now the T.H. 100 corridor. St. Louis Park has a Limited Use Permit from MnDOT for this roadside park which allows MnDOT to terminate the permit with 90 days written notice. FHWA has agreed that this property is not a Section 4(f) property. Impacts: The northbound T.H. 100 exit ramp to eastbound CSAH 25 will be realigned along the west edge of Historic Roadside Park. MnDOT will attempt to avoid disturbing the park s existing loop-trail and the trees inside the loop-trail. Webster Park Webster Park is located just west of T.H. 100 at Webster Avenue and 33 rd Street on MnDOT right- of-way. It is one of St. Louis Park s smaller neighborhood parks (1.5 acres), whose main features are play equipment and green space. St. Louis Park has a Limited Use Permit from MnDOT for this property. The Limited Use Permit is a lease, which can be cancelled by either party at any time by giving the other party notice in writing at least 60 days prior to the date when the cancellation would become effective. FHWA has agreed that this property is not a Section 4(f) property. Impacts: The southbound T.H. 100 exit ramp to westbound T.H. 7 will be realigned along the south edge of Webster Park. In addition, storm sewer improvements will be proposed along the eastern edge of Webster Park. Efforts will be made to minimize impacts to the park. Trails Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail is part of the Southwest LRT Regional Trail system of bikeways that extends through a number of western Minneapolis suburbs. Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail crosses T.H. 100 on Bridge #5309. It is a ten-foot-wide, multi-use, paved trail with a centerline marking. It follows the former railroad lines of the Great Northern Railway and the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway, running through the west end of the Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis and connecting to various bike and pedestrian trails through St. Louis Park to Hopkins. 17 A map of parks and trails in the City of St. Louis Park can be viewed at: Page 73

86 The Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail is under the jurisdiction of Three Rivers Suburban Park District, on property owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA). HCRRA has a permit agreement with the Three Rivers Suburban Park District allowing a 90-day notice for termination of this permit. FHWA has agreed, based on this 90-day termination notice, that this property is not a Section 4(f) property. Impacts: Bridge #5309 carrying the trail over T.H. 100 will be removed as part of this project. MnDOT will work with the HCRRA to replace this bridge, as part of the T.H. 100 project. MnDOT will work with Three Rivers Suburban Park District and the City of St. Louis Park to find a trail detour route while the replacement bridge is constructed. At the time of this writing, the location of the trail relative to the Canadian Pacific railroad tracks and Southwest Light Rail Transit tracks has not been decided. MnDOT continues to work with Hennepin County, St. Louis Park, Southwest Light Rail Transit, and Canadian Pacific Rail on the possible crossing locations. Paved Trail (east of T.H. 100, south of Minnetonka Boulevard) (de Minimis Agreement with City) A multi-use paved trail runs for about a half-mile north and south along the east side of T.H. 100 from the Toledo Street cul de sac (on the north, just south of Minnetonka Boulevard) to Salem Avenue on the south (near CSAH 25). This trail is on MnDOT rightof-way. MnDOT does not have a conditional use permit (i.e., limited use permit) for this property. Therefore, FHWA considers this a public recreational use facility and a Section 4(f) property. Impacts: This trail will be moved east of its current alignment. The south terminus will remain unchanged. The north terminus will remain at the cul de sac on Toledo, although the cul de sac itself will be relocated south of its existing location. The trail segment within the project area has no at-grade crossings, and the trail is offset beyond the clear zone of mainline T.H The trail is a Section 4(f) property under federal regulations. Based on consultation with City of St. Louis Park staff, a de minimis impact finding to the trail is proposed, as the impact does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the trail (see concurrence correspondence from the City of St. Louis Park in Appendix B, dated March 27, 2012,). The FHWA will make a determination regarding the proposed de minimis finding, following the public comment period for the EA/EAW. Use of trail land for the project is unavoidable; the trail lies on the T.H. 100 roadside-slope that needs to be regraded. The location of the trail limits MnDOT s ability to avoid trail impacts. The trail will be placed on a new alignment as part of this project. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of this trail. Efforts have been undertaken to minimize harm to the trail. Page 74

87 26 - Visual impacts Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? X Yes _No If yes, explain. This project may construct noise walls along some sections of T.H. 100 (see Traffic Noise Analysis subheading on page 67 for more information on potential noise wall locations). Residents directly adjacent to T.H. 100 will not be able to view T.H. 100 where noise walls are constructed. Residents will notice that trees and shrubs have been removed along T.H. 100 and from some local roads due to construction activities. People walking or bicycling across T.H. 100 on Minnetonka Boulevard or the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail will notice the new interchange configurations and bridges. T.H. 100 motorists views behind the noise walls will be blocked. T.H. 100 motorists will notice the new interchange configurations and bridges, and they will notice that trees and shrubs along T.H. 100 will have been removed due to construction activities. A Visual Quality Manual will be developed in cooperation with the City of St. Louis Park. The Visual Quality Manual establishes the architectural and aesthetic design framework for the Highway 100 project, and provides detailed treatment recommendations for each of the major design elements. These elements will enhance the relationship between this project and the surrounding community environment. MnDOT will landscape T.H. 100 once the roadway construction project is complete. The landscaping plan will include the planting of lilac shrubs, particularly near the Webster Park and Historic Roadside Park areas. See EAW Item 11, Tree Replacement and Landscape Plan section on page 34, for more details Compatibility with plans and land-use regulations Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land-use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? X Yes No If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. Metropolitan Council The proposed project is included as a Regionally Significant TIP Project in the Metropolitan Council s Transportation Improvement Program for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. City of St. Louis Park While MnDOT roadway projects are not subject to city comprehensive plans, the compatibility of a proposed project with local planning efforts is a consideration. The proposed project is consistent with the City of St. Louis Park s Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Plan chapter of the Comprehensive Plan identifies Page 75

88 transportation issues that the proposed project addresses. The design of the proposed project is consistent with the goals identified in the Transportation Plan (chapter V, pp A3-A33). The Plan s three major transportation goals are listed below. Strategy A under Goal #3 refers directly to the project corridor. Goal 1) Provide a safe, connected, and efficient community street network to accommodate existing and projected traffic needs ; Goal 2) Provide well-designed and well-maintained community streets that balance the needs of all users, residents, businesses, and property owners ; Goal 3) Work with regional transportation agencies to improve the functionality and accessibility of the regional highway network within and adjacent to St. Louis Park. 28 Impact on infrastructure and public services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? _Yes X No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) Although no new or expanded infrastructure or public services will be required to serve the project, it will require utility relocation and/or modification. Underground natural gas pipelines located within the project limits (described below) may be affected by construction. Natural gas pipelines cross under T.H. 100 roughly 100 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard, and 100 feet south of Minnetonka Boulevard. A 12-inch diameter natural gas pipeline roughly parallels the MnDOT right-of-way near the northwest loop of the T.H. 7 / T.H. 100 interchange. Portions of these pipelines may need to be relocated. Upcoming meetings with the utility company will determine whether these lines will need to be relocated. Any pipeline relocation will proceed in cooperation with the local utility company. A Metropolitan Council Environmental Services sewer interceptor crosses T.H. 100 between T.H. 7 and Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail. MnDOT will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services regarding impacts to this sewer interceptor. Poles supporting electric power and telephone lines along Minnetonka Boulevard will need to be relocated. City utilities (water supply, sanitary sewer, storm sewer) are located under adjacent streets (Utica Avenue and Vernon Avenue). No disruptions to these services are expected, and no permanent changes are anticipated Cumulative potential effects Minnesota Rule part , subpart 7, Item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Such future projects would be those that are actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant Page 76

89 environmental effects due to these cumulative effects (or discuss each cumulative effect under appropriate Item(s) elsewhere on this form). In addition to the state definition of cumulative potential effects described above, cumulative impacts are defined by the federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 158.7). The findings below pertain to both cumulative potential effects and cumulative impacts. In the discussion that follows, the terms cumulative potential effects and cumulative impacts are used interchangeably. Cumulative potential effects are not necessarily causally linked to the reconstruction of T.H. 100, to the replacement of the corridor bridges, or to related improvements. Rather, they are the total effect of all known actions (past, present, and future) in the vicinity of the project with impacts on the same types of resources. The purpose of cumulative potential impacts analysis is to look for impacts that may be individually minimal, but which could accumulate and become significant and adverse when combined with the effects of other actions. Scope of Cumulative Potential Effects The purpose of the cumulative impacts analysis is to look at past, recent, and future actions to determine whether impacts from the individual projects, while insignificant on their own, could become significant when accumulated. The cumulative impacts analysis is limited to those resources, ecosystems, and human communities affected by the Preferred Alternative. In the case of the proposed project, this is limited to potential impacts to wetlands, and impacts from stormwater runoff and traffic noise. The geographic scope of this analysis varies by the resource under examination, but in general is limited to an area in close proximity to the project limits. The focused scope of this analysis considers impacts to these resources from previous, current, as well as planned future projects. Past Actions Past actions in the project area include agriculture, roadway construction, residential development, and recreational infrastructure development. All these have resulted in the current state of the built environment in the vicinity of the project. Future Actions Anticipated The projects listed below that were considered as future actions in this analysis are consistent with the recent Minnesota State Supreme Court Ruling regarding cumulative potential effects. The projects: 1) Are being constructed, or are planned, or are projects for which a basis of expectation has been laid; 2) Are located in the surrounding area; and 3) Might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources. Page 77

90 Southwest Light Rail Transit The Southwest LRT line is expected to cross T.H. 100 near the location of the existing Cedar Lake LRT Trail crossing (on Bridge #5309). 18 Southwest LRT is projected to open in 2017, though the project schedule depends on securing federal and local funds. Other Future Actions The City of St. Louis Park was contacted regarding other projects planned near T.H Even though no planned projects were identified, the possibility for impacts on future development in the vicinity was evaluated in the following assessment of cumulative potential effects. Evaluation of Cumulative Potential Effects Impacts from the project have been discussed previously. The main project impacts will involve noise, wetlands, and stormwater quality and quantity, and traffic noise. Cumulative impacts to these resources from the proposed project and from anticipated future projects listed above are discussed in the sections that follow. Wetlands Existing Conditions Wetlands in the vicinity of the project area have been affected directly or indirectly over time as a result of past human settlement/development. Impacts from Proposed Action As described in EAW Item 12 Physical Impacts on Water Resources (page 35), the Preferred Alternative is expected to place fill in 0.07 acres, resulting in approximately 0.07 acres of permanent wetland impacts. These impacts will be mitigated in accordance with state and federal regulatory requirements through banking. Impacts from Other Actions Wetlands in the project vicinity may be affected by the anticipated future development project listed above. However, any impacts will be mitigated, as required by state and federal regulations. Cumulative Potential Effects Wetlands in Minnesota are protected by federal law (the Clean Water Act Section 404) and state law (Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and Executive Orders) that mandate no net loss of wetland functions and values. These federal and state laws require the avoidance of wetland impacts when possible, and when avoidance is not possible, impacts must be minimized and compensated. Both federal and state laws require permits. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act requires that mitigation of wetland impacts be provided at a minimum ratio of 2:1. Because wetland impacts will be mitigated in this manner in compliance with federal and state laws, no substantial cumulative wetland impacts are anticipated to result from the project. 18 The Southwest LRT web-site can be viewed at: Page 78

91 Stormwater Quality and Quantity Existing Conditions Under existing conditions, runoff from T.H. 100 between Cedar Lake Road and a high point 100 feet south of West 27th Street enters a MnDOT storm sewer and discharges into a storm sewer pipe that connects to the City of St. Louis Park storm sewer at West 26th Street. The city storm sewer continues 2,000 feet east and outlets to a pond on the north side of West 26th Street. This pond drains to Twin Lake. Runoff south of the high point drains south on T.H. 100 and is routed into a stormwater pond in the northeast quadrant of the T.H. 100 and T.H. 7 interchange. The stormwater pond outlets back into the T.H. 100 storm sewer, and the water flows south, to where it joins the City of St. Louis Park storm sewer 1,000 feet north of West 36th Street. The St. Louis Park storm sewer continues 2,500 feet east and outlets to a pond east of Beltline Boulevard. This pond drains to Bass Lake. Impacts from Proposed Action The proposed project will result in additional areas of impervious surface due to the widening of T.H. 100, as discussed in EAW Item 17 (page 45). The proposed project will treat stormwater runoff and/or provide infiltration through best management practices being incorporated into the project design. These BMPs will help mitigate the adverse effects of the increased impervious surfaces. They will improve the quality of stormwater being discharged compared to the quality of stormwater discharge under the existing condition. Impacts from Other Actions Transportation projects may result in increased impervious surfaces and/or stormwater quality/quantity (discharge rate) effects. Specifically, the rail project will be required to provide mitigation in conformance with NPDES and/or watershed regulations, minimizing surface water impacts. Cumulative Potential Effects Federal, state, and local surface and groundwater management regulations require mitigation be provided in conjunction with proposed development and roadway projects. Given the design standards and management controls available for protecting the quality of surface waters, it is likely that potential impacts of the project, along with other foreseeable actions, will be minimized or mitigated to a substantial degree. Therefore, adverse cumulative effects on water quality and quantity rates are not anticipated. Traffic Noise Existing Conditions Traffic noise is discussed in EAW Item 24 on page 70. Existing traffic noise levels for 702 receptors along T.H. 100 can be found in Appendix B of the Traffic Noise Analysis Report in Appendix C of this EA. The existing modeled L 10 daytime noise levels vary from 55.6 to 77.6 dba, and the existing nighttime noise levels vary from 54.4 to 75.9 dba. The residential daytime L 10 state-standards are 65 dba daytime and 55 dba nighttime. Page 79

92 Impacts from Proposed Action Changes in daytime traffic noise levels (L 10 ) are projected to range from -3.7 dba to +6.4 dba from existing to future (2030) Build conditions. Impacts from Other Actions Impacts from the Southwest LRT will be discussed in the forthcoming Southwest LRT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The determination of noise impacts caused by transit lines uses different methodologies than the determination of noise impacts caused by roadway vehicles, based on fewer passing vehicles on LRT transit lines (i.e., highway traffic noise is created by many vehicles passing a receptor at a constant rate, relative to noise created by LRT vehicles, which pass a receptor infrequently). Noise impacts from LRT vehicles will be analyzed in the Southwest LRT EIS process. Cumulative Potential Effects Noise will increase in some areas of the proposed project due to increased traffic; however, because the T.H. 100 noise analysis was based upon projected 2030 traffic levels, the impacts from other development projects in the vicinity are accounted for in the results. Conclusion The potential impacts to resources identified can be avoided or minimized through existing regulatory controls, as described above. During the development of this Environmental Assessment, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to the resources affected by the project have been identified Other potential environmental impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by Items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. No additional adverse environmental impacts were identified. Social and economic impacts (right-of-way acquisition, etc.) are discussed in Section 5 Additional Federal Issues, beginning on page Summary of issues Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigation measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. EAW Item 6 - Construction Impacts Transportation Management Plan MnDOT will prepare a Transportation Management Plan for this project that will lay out strategies for managing project work-zone impacts. The plan will address pedestrian and bicycle crossings, access by emergency services to properties adjacent to this project, and access to adjacent businesses. Page 80

93 Woody Vegetation Impacts This project will have impacts on trees and landscaping vegetation. As part of the final construction plan, a vegetation plan consistent with MnDOT standards will be implemented to address all temporary and permanent vegetation impacts. This landscaping plan will include the planting of lilac shrubs, particularly near the Webster Park and Historic Roadside Park areas. For a discussion of vegetation impacts and mitigation, see EAW Item 11 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources, below. EAW Item 9 Environmental Hazards A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project area has been completed. See the Environmental Hazards section on page 24 for details. Upon initial review of the project, numerous contaminated sites were identified within approximately 500 feet of the project area. Based on the threshold criteria of MnDOT s Highway Project Development Process (HPDP), this project has a high risk of impacting contaminated and potentially contaminated sites. In addition, this project requires ground dewatering. Environmental Hazards Review Forty-one (41) known or potentially contaminated sites were identified in the project area: nine (9) sites have a high risk, thirteen (13) have a medium risk, and nineteen (19) have a low risk for contamination. Of these sites, all of the high risk, twelve (12) of the medium risk, and thirteen (13) of the low risk sites have a potential to be impacted by the project because of their proximity to the project limits. Figure 5 shows the location of the sites identified within the project limits. Contaminated properties y may need to be avoided, where possible, because of their potential to incur excessive cleanup costs or expose the public to unacceptable environmental liability. Based on available information, three (3) of the high risk sites identified by the Phase I assessment have a potential for excessive cleanup costs and/or environmental liability. Those three sites are associated with the former St. Louis Park incinerator/hoigaards Village redevelopment. They are of concern because they are near MnDOT right-of-way and could be affected by construction activities. These sites are indicated on Figure 5 as sites #30, 32, and 35. Mitigation Potentially contaminated properties identified in the Phase I assessment will be evaluated for their likelihood to be impacted by construction and/or acquired as right-of-way. Any properties with a potential to be impacted by the project will be drilled and sampled, as needed, to determine the extent and magnitude of contaminated soil or groundwater in the areas of concern. The results of the drilling investigation will determine whether the contaminated materials can be avoided or the project s impacts to the properties minimized. If necessary, a plan will be developed for properly handling and treating contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction. Page 81

94 MnDOT will work with the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program, the Petroleum Remediation/Brownfields Program, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program (AgVIC), as appropriate, to obtain assurances that MnDOT s contaminated site cleanup work and/or contaminated site acquisition will not associate it with long-term environmental liability for the contamination. EAW Item 11 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources Wetlands A small wetland impact of 0.07 acre may be unavoidable on this project. For a discussion of wetland impacts and mitigation, see EAW Item 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources, below. Woody Vegetation As discussed above, this project is expected to have impacts on woody vegetation, with specific adverse effects on a number of mature trees and tree roots, both within the construction limits and just beyond the construction limits (construction limits are shown on Figure 3 on page xi). Because tree and vegetation removal within the construction limits will be unavoidable, a woody vegetation protection plan will be created during the design process that will minimize these losses. Efforts will be made to protect trees that lie just outside the construction limits and to minimize impacts to them by limiting construction activities in these areas through the use of temporary fencing and other methods. 19 Removal of Trees and Use of Timber If marketable timber that is removed from the project exceeds a volume of 100 cubic yards, written proof will be obtained from three wood-using industries or individuals indicating that the wood is not wanted, before disposing of or wasting the removed trees. 20 If disposal is necessary, no wood will be burned or buried. An acceptable method of use of wood from removed trees is to chip or grind up all wood debris taken from clearing and grubbing operations (as long as it does not contain invasive or noxious vegetation) and use it on the project for erosion control and compaction control within and around the project limits. Tree Replacement and Landscape Plan Once road construction is complete, a separate landscape project will be developed to mitigate losses in the area. Boulevard trees will be replaced at a one-to-one ratio, provided there is sufficient remaining boulevard width; replacement trees will have a 2.5-inch diameter. Roadside landscaping will be replaced on an acre-to-acre basis (using landscapegrade plant material), provided there are suitable soil and site conditions in place to support plant health, and highway safety clear zones are not violated. The landscaping project will include the planting of lilac shrubs, particularly near the Webster Park and Historic Roadside Park areas. 19 See MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction, item , for additional information. 20 See MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction, item D (D1), for additional information. Page 82

95 Control of Invasives None of the noxious and invasive weeds discovered in the project area (in particular, Leafy Spurge and Spotted Knapweed) will be spread during construction. These species will be controlled, and they, along with the areas of contaminated soil where they were growing, will be buried three feet deep within the project site, near the area where they were discovered (i.e., the same side of the road). EAW Item 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources A Level II Delineation will be completed on all wetlands with proposed permanent impacts (Wetland #4) during the Final Design of the project. When the Level II delineation is completed, delineation sheets will be filled out and a wetland line will be created using GPS, or, if no hydric soils are found, the basin will be removed from the wetland mapping. The need for a US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 404 permit will be decided after the Level II delineation and COE jurisdictional determination. Minimizing impacts to the wetland by changing the alignment of the noise wall and steepening roadway side-slopes will be investigated further during the final design stage of the project. However, for this environmental review, it is assumed that Wetland #4 will be filled. A wetland mitigation plan for replacement of the affected wetland area will be developed consistent with state and federal wetland regulatory requirements. That plan will re-assess the area of wetland impacts (and mitigation needed) based on final plans, wetland delineations, and the current and applicable wetland mitigation guidelines and regulations in effect at that time. The intent of the wetland mitigation plan will be to replace lost wetland functions in the project area where possible, and possibly create an off-site wetland mitigation area to accomplish the remainder of the required mitigation. Wetland impacts for this project may also be mitigated by using MnDOT wetland bank credits from a bank site as close to the project area as feasible. The mitigation process will involve consultation with the DNR and COE. Replacement of lost wetlands will be in accordance with current WCA criteria, Clean Water Act Section 404, and the DNR Public Waters requirements, and will occur prior to or concurrent with the impacts. Efforts will be made to replace all lost wetland functions and values with similar wetland types. EAW Item 13 - Water use The project may involve replacing or relocating water main pipes. The Minnesota Department of Health will be requested to review plan sheets and specifications involving water main pipe replacement or relocation. Minor dewatering could be needed in localized areas during project construction. Activities that could require temporary dewatering include culvert installation and roadway embankment construction along the peripheral areas of wetlands. If temporary dewatering is needed, the requisite Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) groundwater appropriation permits will be obtained. Best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., temporary/permanent sedimentation basins, other BMPs) will be implemented prior to any dewatering activities for treatment of dewatering discharges, as per National Page 83

96 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater (CSW) permit requirements in place at the time of construction. A review of the Minnesota Geological Survey/Minnesota Department of Health County Well Index shows that there are seven wells within 500 feet of the project area. Two wells are within or near the construction limits. If any unused or unsealed wells are discovered in the project area during construction, they will be addressed in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725, or through obtaining an annual maintenance report. EAW Item 16 - Erosion and Sedimentation Erosion and sedimentation of all exposed soils within the project corridor will be minimized by using appropriate best management practices during construction. Erosion practices will be identified in the final site grading and construction plans, as required by the NPDES permit for construction sites. EAW Item 17 - Water quality: surface water runoff The proposed project adds 2.71 acres of new impervious surface area. It includes constructing three infiltration basins throughout the project area and modifying the existing stormwater pond in the northeast quadrant of T.H. 100 and T.H. 7. The proposed basins will be sized to meet Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MPCA standards. When the project is completed, there will not be an increase of water volume to either Twin Lakes or Bass Lake. This project will require a General Construction NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit from the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared for the project that will document the proposed stormwater treatment and soil and erosion control measures to be used during and after construction. A permit for stormwater control and soil and erosion control will also be needed from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Both Twin Lake and Bass Lake have been listed as impaired waters for nutrients / eutrophication by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The General Construction NPDES Permit with the MPCA will be obtained and followed for this project, and stormwater quality will be addressed, as mentioned above and in the permit, to address the two total maximum daily load (TMDL) impairments. Water quality in Twin Lake and Bass Lake will not be negatively affected because runoff from the project will be routed through stormwater quality ponds and infiltration basins before reaching the lakes. As a result of the proposed water treatment facility and various best management practices proposed for his project, the water quality and quantity of the off-site drainage is expected to be improved or to be equal to that of the existing condition. EAW Item 20 - Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks Disposal of Solid Waste All regulated solid wastes generated by construction of the proposed project will be disposed of properly in a permitted, licensed solid waste facility or a similarly regulated facility elsewhere. Regulated materials can include concrete, brick, bituminous, untreated Page 84

97 wood, glass, trees, rock, and plastics. All regulated solid wastes must be disposed of in an MPCA-permitted demolition landfill, or separated and recycled. Management of this material will be in accordance with state guidelines and regulations. All regulated solid wastes generated by construction of the proposed project will be disposed of properly in a permitted, licensed solid waste facility or a similarly regulated facility elsewhere. Disposal of Trees The exact volume and quality of trees to be disposed of on this project are uncertain at the time of this writing. If marketable timber that is removed from the project exceeds a volume of 100 cubic yards, written proof will be obtained from three wood-using industries or individuals indicating that the wood is not wanted, before disposing of or wasting the removed trees. 21 If disposal is necessary, no wood will be burned or buried. An acceptable method of use of wood from removed trees is to chip or grind up all wood debris taken from clearing and grubbing operations (as long as it does not contain invasive or noxious vegetation) and use it on the project for erosion control and compaction control within and around the project limits. Disposal of Invasive Vegetation Noxious and invasive weeds discovered in the project area (in particular, Leafy Spurge and Spotted Knapweed) will be controlled and not allowed to spread. These species and the areas of contaminated soil where they grow will be buried three feet deep within the project site, near the area where they were discovered (i.e., the same side of the road). EAW Item 24 - Odors, noise, and dust Dust generated during construction will be minimized through standard dust control measures, such as applying water to exposed soils and limiting the extent and duration of exposed soil conditions. Construction contractors will be required to control dust and other airborne particulates, in accordance with MnDOT specifications. MnDOT will require that construction equipment be properly muffled and in proper working order. While MnDOT and its contractor(s) are exempt from local noise ordinances, it is the practice to require contractor(s) to comply with applicable local noise restrictions and ordinances to the extent that is reasonable. Advanced notice will be provided to affected communities of any planned, abnormally loud construction activities. It is anticipated that night construction may be required to minimize traffic impacts and to improve safety. However, construction will be limited to daytime hours as much as possible. This project is expected to be under construction for two years. Traffic noise mitigation in the form of noise walls is proposed. Locations of the proposed noise walls can be found in Table 23 on page 71. Final mitigation decisions will be subject to input from affected property owners and final design considerations. A public information open house is planned for the summer of 2012 during the public comment period of this EAW. The proposed noise walls will be presented during the open house. In addition, all benefitting residents will have information mailed to their homes 21 See MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction, item D (D1), for additional information. Page 85

98 regarding the proposed wall. Neighborhood meetings with the benefitted residences and property owners will be arranged to determine the acceptance of the proposed walls. EAW Item 25 - Nearby resources Historic Roadside Park and Webster Park are both on MnDOT right of way, and will be impacted by this project. St. Louis Park has a Limited Use Permit from MnDOT for these properties, which allows MnDOT to terminate the permit with written notice. FHWA has agreed that these properties are not Section 4(f) properties. MnDOT will attempt to avoid disturbing the Historic Roadside Park s existing loop-trail and the trees inside the looptrail. The southbound T.H. 100 exit ramp to westbound T.H. 7 will be realigned along the the south edge of Webster Park. In addition, storm sewer improvements will be proposed along the eastern edge of Webster Park. Efforts will be made to minimize impacts to Webster Park. Paved Trail (east of T.H. 100, south of Minnetonka Boulevard) The trail is considered a Section 4(f) property under federal regulations. Based on consultation with City of St. Louis Park staff, a de minimis impact finding to the trail is proposed, as the impact does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the trail (see concurrence correspondence from the City of St. Louis Park in the Appendix, dated March 27, 2012,). The FHWA will make a determination regarding the proposed de minimis finding, following the public comment period for the EA/EAW. Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail Bridge #5309 carrying the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail over T.H. 100 will be removed as part of this project. MnDOT will work with the Three Rivers Suburban Park District to replace this bridge, as part of the T.H. 100 project. MnDOT will work with Three Rivers Suburban Park District and the City of St. Louis Park to find a trail detour route while the replacement bridge is constructed. At the time of this writing, the location of the trail relative to the Canadian Pacific railroad tracks and Southwest Light Rail Transit tracks has not been decided. EAW Item 26 - Visual impacts A Visual Quality Manual will be developed in cooperation with the City of St. Louis Park. The Visual Quality Manual establishes the architectural and aesthetic design framework for the Highway 100 project, and provides detailed treatment recommendations for each of the major design elements. These elements will enhance the relationship between this project and the surrounding community environment. Mendota will develop a landscape plan for T.H. 100 once the roadway construction project is complete. This landscaping will include lilac shrubs, particularly near the Webster Park and Historic Roadside Park areas. See EAW Item 11, Tree Replacement and Landscape Plan section on page 34, for more details. Page 86

99 Accessibility (See page 91.) By law, the project must comply with federal construction regulations, as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, to insure accessibility to the programs, activities, or services represented in this project. The project will comply with state and local accessibility codes if they are more stringent than the federal requirements. Social Impacts (See page 91.) Project Impacts on Emergency Services and Community Entities Strategies to manage project work-zone impacts will be presented in a Transportation Management Plan that MnDOT will develop during the final design stage of the project. The Plan will include traffic operation controls and public information, and will address issues such as access by emergency services to properties within and adjacent to the project corridor, access to businesses, and public school bussing routes. The Plan will inform community facilities, public service providers, and others of local detours, access closures, and other project information that could affect the operations of these public services. Project Impacts on the Eruv of Minnesota MnDOT will work cooperatively with representatives of the Eruv of Minnesota, who were selected by Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park, to discuss ways to minimize construction impacts to this entity and its communities. Approximately 90% of the Eruv is delineated by a cable-network wire. Utility poles carrying the Eruv may have a tag that reads, Eruv of Minnesota Contact Xcel Energy. Project impacts to the Eruv may involve the moving of utility poles as part of construction efforts. MnDOT will coordinate any utility pole changes that might affect the Eruv with appointed contacts. Transit (See page 93.) MnDOT will coordinate with Metro Transit on relocating the passenger shelter at Utica Avenue and with either the City of St. Louis Park or U.S. Bench to relocate the passenger benches at the other locations. To inform Metro Transit of local detours, access closures, and other project information that could affect the operations of Metro Transit busses, MnDOT will develop a Transportation Management Plan during the final design stage of this project. Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists (See page 94.) The project will perpetuate existing bicycle and pedestrian movements in the project area and will make the improvements discussed on page 94. Environmental Justice (See page 95.) In order to identify, address, and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations, and in compliance with federal law, MnDOT conducted an Environmental Justice analysis based on 2010 Census Page 87

100 data (see the Environmental Justice section on page 95 for a full discussion of the analysis process).. MnDOT also requested information from the City of St. Louis Park. The City of St. Louis Park provided MnDOT with a list of contacts at apartment buildings within the project area. MnDOT spoke with the contacts to determine the presence of any residents who do not speak English or who speak English as a second language and who might need translation assistance. Some residents were identified as speaking Spanish, French, or Somali. These individuals may need translation assistance regarding the Environmental Assessment public review and meetings for benefitted receptors of the proposed noise wall. MnDOT will provide to residents in the apartment complexes a notice or notices about the project in Spanish, French, and Somalian offering translation help. The notice(s) will announce the release of the EA for public comment and will outline events and dates for the following: Release of the Environmental Assessment document for public review; The Open House and Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessment; Meetings for Benefitted Noise Receptors to discuss the proposed noise wall andits direct effects on specifically-identified ( benefitted ) neighborhoods. Upon request, MnDOT will provide translators to assist non-english-speaking residents who wish to attend the public meetings listed above or who need assistance in understanding the Environmental Assessment document or the T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project. Right-of-Way (See page 102.) Public Right-of-Way Public right-of-way, on a temporary or permanent basis, will be required to construct the project. See the Right-of-Way section on page 102 for details. MnDOT is allowed to acquire public right-of-way from city streets, sidewalks, or alleys, where necessary, to improve safety and/or to construct public roadway projects, under Commissioner s Orders. Private Right-of-Way Strip takings of right-of-way will be acquired from private properties along Minnetonka Boulevard, Toledo Avenue, and the alley on the east side of T.H. 100 between 26 th and 28 th Streets. Access to some private properties will be relocated. See the Right-of-Way section on page 102 for details. Right-of-way acquisitions will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24, and effective April 1989 (revised January 2005). Page 88

101 T.H. 100 Reconstruction in St. Louis Park- Environmental Assessment RGU Certification The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. The EA W describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages, or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts , subparts 9b and 60, respectively. Copies of this EA W are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Date Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EA W Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155, , or hptt:// Page 89

102 This page left blank intentionally. Page 90

103 ADDITIONAL FEDERAL ISSUES Discussed below are the federal issues not discussed in the state EAW. Accessibility The proposed project requires providing accessibility to a program, activity or service, and by law, the project must comply with provisions set by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or by state or local access codes if they contain more stringent requirements. The project will comply with the required accessibility provisions. Project improvements related to pedestrians are listed on page 94, under the heading Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists. The project also includes signals, intersections, and ramps which will be made accessible to and usable to people with disabilities. Social Impacts The proposed project is not expected to cause adverse impact to the community or neighborhoods. No categories of those uniquely sensitive to changes in transportation systems (i.e. children, elderly, minorities, and/or persons with mobility impairments) will be disproportionately impacted. Community Facilities Adjacent to the Project Table 24 below lists community facilities adjacent to the project and provides information about direct physical impacts to these properties or to other properties discussed elsewhere in this Environmental Assessment. Page 91

104 Table 24 - Community Facilities Adjacent to the Project Facility Location Physical Impact Cedar Lake LRT Crossing T.H. 100 south of See page 73. Trail T.H. 7 Webster Park West of T.H. 100, near See page 73. Webster Avenue and 33rd Street Historic Roadside East of T.H. 100, south of See page 73. Park T.H. 7 Groves Academy 3200 Highway 100 South The school driveway along Utica Avenue will need to be reconstructed, and temporary construction easements will be needed along Utica Avenue. Benilde-St Highway 100 South None. Margaret s School Lutheran Church 2544 Highway 100 South None. of the Reformation Beth El 5224 West 26 th Street None. Synagogue Eruv East side of T.H. 100 See Eruv subheading, below, for more information. St. George s Episcopal Church 5224 Minnetonka Boulevard Temporary construction easements of varying widths will be needed to widen Minnetonka Boulevard and reconstruct the sidewalk. Eruv The Eruv of Minnesota is a domain established by the St. Louis Park and Minneapolis Jewish communities. The Eruv forms a symbolic boundary that allows Jews who observe traditional Shabbat rules to carry certain items outside their homes that would otherwise be forbidden during Shabbat. As in most American cities, the physical border of the Eruv of Minnesota is established using utility poles and lines, or in some cases, trees, to create a continuous series of doorway images. The Eruv of Minnesota, established in 1990, creates a boundary around certain neighborhoods in St. Louis Park and around part of the Minneapolis lakes area, enclosing these communities into a single domain with regard to the Sabbath rules for carrying items on that day. Included within the boundary are several synagogues in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. Approximately 90% of the Eruv is delineated by a cable-network wire. Utility poles carrying the Eruv may have a tag that reads, Eruv of Minnesota Contact Xcel Energy. Some homes outside the Eruv boundary have been connected to the Eruv with wires that do not appear on the Eruv map. The Eruv map can be viewed on page 2 of the following website: Project impacts to the Eruv may involve the moving of utility poles as part of construction efforts. MnDOT will coordinate with appointed contacts any utility pole changes that might affect the Eruv. Page 92

105 Public Service Facilities near the Project Area Table 25 below lists public service facilities in the project area. Construction activities may require local detours and may cause increased congestion that could affect these facilities. Table 25 - Public Service Facilities near the Project Area Public Service Facilities Police Services Fire Services Emergency Medical Services Methodist Hospital St. Louis Park Senior High School 22 St. Louis Park Junior High School, Grades 6-8 Peter Hobart Elementary School, Grades K-5 PSI: Park Spanish Immersion School, Grades K-5 Susan Lindgren Elementary School, Grades K-5 Location St. Louis Park Police Station, located on the south side of City Hall at 3015 Raleigh Avenue Provided by the St. Louis Park s two fire stations. Fire Station One Wooddale Avenue. Fire Station Two Louisiana Avenue City of St. Louis Park s police and fire departments in coordination with Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC) hospital 6500 Excelsior Boulevard 6425 West 33rd Street 2025 Texas Avenue 6500 West 26th Street 6300 Walker Street 4801 West 41st Street Mitigation MnDOT will develop a Transportation Management Plan during the final design stage of this project to inform community facilities, public service providers, and others of local detours, access closures, and other project information that could affect the operations of these public services. Transit Metro Transit operates several routes on T.H. 100 and on the section of Minnetonka Boulevard within the project area (see Figure 11 below). There are project area bus stops on Minnetonka Boulevard at the following locations: The northwest corner of Vernon Avenue (with a passenger bench), local and express service; The southwest corner of Lake Street, express service; The northeast corner of Utica Avenue, local service; 22 St. Louis Park Independent School District 283 map can be viewed at: Page 93

106 The southwest corner of Utica Avenue (with a passenger shelter), local and express service; The southwest corner of Toledo Avenue (with a passenger bench); local service; and The northeast corner of Toledo Avenue (with a passenger bench), local service. Figure 11 - Transit System Map Source: Transit System Map at The passenger shelter at the Minnetonka Boulevard/Utica Avenue bus stop will need to be relocated approximately 20 feet south of its current location in order to widen Minnetonka Boulevard. The passenger benches at the bus stops on Minnetonka Boulevard listed above will also have to be relocated. Construction activities may require local detours and may cause increased congestion that could affect bus routes. Mitigation MnDOT will coordinate with Metro Transit on relocating the passenger shelter at Utica Avenue and with either the City of St. Louis Park or U.S. Bench to relocate the passenger benches at the other locations. To inform Metro Transit of local detours, access closures, and other project information that could affect the operations of Metro Transit busses, MnDOT will develop a Transportation Management Plan during the final design stage of this project. Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and plans for future facilities are discussed under the Project Needs section on page 11. The Preferred Alternative will perpetuate existing bicycle and pedestrian movements in the project area and will make the improvements discussed below. Page 94

107 1. Selection and construction of two ten-foot-wide bike trails (one on each side) to address pedestrian and bicyclist needs on the Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge.2. Construction of a trail roughly 200 feet long from the intersection of Minnetonka Boulevard and the east T.H. 100 ramps to the new Toledo Avenue cul de sac north of Minnetonka Boulevard. Note: The City is considering an on-road trail on Toledo Avenue from the cul de sac to the 26 th Street pedestrian bridge that would be installed separately from the T.H. 100 Reconstruction Project. 3. Relocation of the trail that runs along the east side of T.H. 100, between T.H. 100 and Toledo Avenue on MnDOT right-of-way, from Salem Avenue (just north of CSAH 25) to just south of Minnetonka Boulevard. 4. Replacement of the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail Bridge (Bridge #5309). Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority is working on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will locate the crossing of the Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) line over T.H MnDOT will work with the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority to replace this bridge. 5. Replacement of sidewalks along the residential sides of local streets, wherever sidewalks are removed as part of the project. Environmental Justice The purpose of Executive Order is to identify, address, and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Background Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994, directed that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its program, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States The proposed project has federal funding and federal permit requirements and is considered a federal project for purposes of compliance with the Executive Order. Project Area Demographics The first step in the Environmental Justice evaluation and documentation process is to assess the project area in terms of minority and income characteristics. A map locating Census blocks, block-groups, and tracts is in Figure 12 on page 97. Minority Populations The information used in this analysis is from the 2010 Census. The smallest unit of Census data analysis is the block. Minority data for the project area is summarized by census block in Table 26 on page 98. A minority population is defined by FHWA guidelines as any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic Page 95

108 proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy or activity. Minority means a person who is: (1) Black: a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; (2) Hispanic or Latino: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race; (3) Asian American: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; (4) American Indian and Alaskan Native: a person having origins in any of the original people of North America, South America (including Central America), and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition; or, (5) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: people having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 23 The percentage of minority residents by census block in the project area is between 4 percent and 52 percent. The Hennepin County county-wide average is approximately 28 percent. Two blocks exceed the Hennepin County county-wide average in minority population percentage: Block 1003, Block Group 1, Census Tract 227 has a 52% minority population (373 people), and is located at the north end of the project, west of T.H. 100, and north of 27th Street. Block 2000, Block Group 2, Census Tract 227 has a 42% minority population (36 people), and is located at near the middle of the project, west of T.H. 100, and south of Minnetonka Boulevard. MnDOT compared the percentage of minority residents in the project area to the percentage of minority residents in Hennepin County. MnDOT found that, aside from the two blocks within the project area that exceed the Hennepin County percentage of minority residents, the percentage of minority residents in all other blocks of the project area is less than that of the Hennepin County county-wide average Page 96

109 Figure 12 - Project area map of census tracts, block-groups, and blocks Figure notes: Tract numbers and boundaries are shown in purple, block-groups in red, and blocks in black. Highlighted blocks are included in Table 26: Minority Information by Census Block (2010 Census) on page 98. Page 97

110 Table 26: Minority Information by Census Block (2010 Census) Table notes: 1. The term, minority, comprises the following groups: African American; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; Other (non-white) races; two or more races; Hispanic origin. 2. Blue data-bars within each table-cell represent the proportion of the cell s population relative to the block s total population. Page 98